UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2016

  • Rob Wilson – 2016 Speech on Social Investment

    robwilson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Thank you.

  • John Whittingdale – 2016 Speech to Oxford Media Convention

    johnwhittingdale

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    That said, the consultation does make for interesting reading.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    And on independence – the government agrees entirely.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    How the BBC is managed.

    How the BBC delivers against its remit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    However, it is not all bleak.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Tobias Ellwood – 2016 Statement on Syria

    tobiasellwood

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Matt Hancock – 2016 Speech on Open and Transparent Government

    Matt Hancock
    Matt Hancock

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Charging for Freedom of Information requests

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

    The Cabinet veto

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

    Updating practice guidance

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

    Publication of Freedom of Information statistics

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

    Public interest and risk assessments

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

    Handling vexatious requests

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

    Greater transparency on pay and perks of senior staff

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

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

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

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

  • Robert Goodwill – 2016 Speech on Customers with Disabilities

    robertgoodwill

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

    Thank you.

    I’m delighted to join you tonight.

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

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

    Over the decades, this room has served as:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    6 years of change

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

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

    Tim’s opening words were:

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

    Multiple banking failures.

    Multiple airline failures.

    Multiple travel trade failures.

    And all in an election year.

    What a difference 6 years make.

    Britain today is in a completely different place.

    Record employment.

    A much reduced deficit.

    And a strong, growing economy.

    Governments like to take credit for big achievements like these.

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

    But we’re only partly responsible.

    The people who are actually delivering growth.

    Creating jobs.

    And making the country more prosperous.

    Are you.

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

    Building bigger terminals.

    Opening new markets for British business.

    Expanding into ventures like business parks.

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

    Which is why UK airlines have enjoyed sustained growth.

    Why passenger numbers at UK airports have reached record levels.

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

    Hidden disabilities

    Great businesses flourish for all sorts of reasons.

    But there’s one advantage they all share.

    They understand their customers.

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

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

    Take people with a disability, for example.

    Airports do a good job of helping physically disabled passengers.

    But what about people whose disabilities are not immediately noticeable.

    Those with hidden disabilities?

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

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

    All these factors can deter people from travelling.

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

    That’s a sobering statistic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    So there’s lots of great work going on.

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

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

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

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

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

    But then to deliver over and above.

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

    And follow the lead of Gatwick and Manchester.

    Which I know some of you are already doing.

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

    Each airport will find its own solutions.

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

    To really understand and respond to their needs.

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

    South-east runway

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

    But opponents of expansion.

    Who hailed the delay as some sort of victory.

    Could not have been more wrong.

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

    The responsible thing to do.

    To make sure we’re fully prepared.

    So we know we will get the job finished.

    You understand better than most.

    That Britain’s infrastructure-averse culture.

    Has a history of derailing transport schemes.

    This government is changing that culture.

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

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

    Six years of intense planning.

    The biggest consultation in government history.

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

    Making sure HS2 is the very best it can be.

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

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

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

    Additional work to get the best possible outcome.

    So we can deliver it by 2030.

    Conclusion

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

    And we need that success to continue.

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

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

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

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

    We’re working to develop a skilled aviation workforce.

    Support regional connectivity.

    Manage airspace.

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

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

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

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

    These are all national issues.

    And they deserve a national conversation.

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

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

    And Britain has moved on.

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

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

    What have we done that’s helped you?

    What haven’t we done to help you?

    And how can we work together more effectively?

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

    I welcome that.

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

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

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

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

    To support a growing airports industry.

    That delivers for customers.

    That delivers growth and jobs.

    And that delivers for Britain.

    Thank you.

  • David Gauke – 2016 Speech on Digital Tax

    davidgauke

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Gauke, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in Carlisle on 18 February 2016.

    Good afternoon – it’s very good to be up here in Carlisle with you.

    I am very grateful to Karen Thomson for inviting me to this event. Karen has been an influential voice on payroll matters for many years: a real expert, and one who I know is highly respected and widely listened to in the industry and beyond.

    I’d also like to thank John Stevenson for hosting me in Carlisle. John has been a highly effective voice for Carlisle, particularly for small businesses, highlighted by the excellent work he has done for the community following the recent floods. And later on today, I’m looking forward to meeting some of Carlisle’s small businesses and residents.

    This is now my 6th year as minister responsible for tax. It’s been quite a ride!

    I occasionally cast my eye back to 2010 – when the economy really was in a bad way, when the global markets were beginning to doubt us, and when we were spending too much and earning too little.

    It’s been a long journey back from the brink. Plenty of tough decisions along the way. And plenty of real achievements too.

    Every decision we have made in the Treasury has had one goal: to secure the UK’s long term economic prosperity.

    That means finding efficiencies in what we spend; modernising how we run the country; helping the private sector create jobs and deliver economic growth, all over the country; opening ourselves up to the world’s fastest-expanding economies, and making sure that we are as internationally competitive as we can be.

    Tax lies at the heart of that.

    There are a lot of ways in which the tax system can help support growth – and a lot of ways in which, applied in the wrong way, it can do enormous damage to a nation’s economy.

    And I could talk at quite some length about what we have done since 2010 – our cuts to the corporation tax rate, for instance, or our increases to the investment allowance, or the work we’ve put in to make the international tax system fit for the 21st century. I’m of course very happy to answer questions on those topics!

    But today, I’d like to focus on an aspect of tax which is perhaps closer to home: about how we are modernising the system by which taxes are paid.

    I’m sure that the memory of filling in this January’s tax return will be fresh in your minds. You’ve almost certainly had more pleasurable experiences! Nobody enjoys paying tax; that’s one of the things I don’t think any government can change.

    But what we can do is make it easier.

    The system now has, quite simply, not kept up with the march of technology.

    You have taxpayers taking out 18-month old records, staring at them for a while as they try to figure out what they were doing back then, and then tentatively use them to fill in a lengthy HMRC form.

    Or they can go to their accountants, drop a large carrier bag of records on their desks, and get them to work it all out. Then they pay their final tax bill on money made up to 21 months previously.

    It’s a system designed for a world of paper, ledgers: book-keeping in a literal sense.

    Now compare that to the way we carry out other activities.

    Shopping for groceries online … making a GP appointment online … sorting out your road tax from the DVLA website in just minutes … paying your invoices off a smartphone at 4am if you want to!

    Business are harnessing the opportunities of the digital age too, fundamentally transforming their operations and the services they provide. It’s the customers that reap the benefits.

    That is the context of our reforms to HMRC.

    It is only right that the government keeps pace with the world around us. That is why we are seeking to transform HMRC into one of the most digitally advanced tax administrations in the world. Making tax digital is at the heart of these plans.

    At the Spending Review, the Chancellor announced a £1.3 billion investment in HMRC to make this vision a reality. This will see the end of the annual tax return, and, in its place, will introduce simple, secure and personalised digital tax accounts for businesses and individuals.

    Importantly, these changes deliver what businesses and individuals have told us they need.

    In particular, many businesses have said they want more certainty over their tax bill, and don’t want to wait until the end of the year, often longer, to find out how much they have to pay.

    Businesses have also said they want tax to be more integrated into the way they run their business, rather than something done separately, and many months later.

    The use of digital tools – accounting software or smartphone apps – will, for the first time, create this desired integration.

    Importantly, taxpayers would have 24/7 access to digital accounts, as well as having a complete view of all their tax liabilities and entitlements, allowing them to send HMRC information and payments simply and efficiently.

    Businesses will be able to see in their digital account what each update means for their tax position as the year goes by.

    This will also make it easier for business to understand how much tax they owe, giving them far more certainty over their tax position, helping them budget, invest and grow.

    Unnecessarily bureaucratic form-filling will be eradicated – taxpayers will not have to tell HMRC information it already knows.

    And unnecessary time delays will also be eliminated, because the tax system will be operating much more closely to ‘real time’. This will keep everyone up to date, removing the risk of missed deadlines, unnecessary penalties, debts arising and errors in the tax system being carried forward from one year to the next.

    Beyond helping businesses get their taxes right, making tax digital will also help them improve and develop their business. Targeted guidance and alerts will make them aware of relevant entitlements and reliefs, or wider government services to support business growth.

    Apart from the modernisation of business practices, there is another important prize – one we cannot ignore. Each year around £6.5 billion of tax goes unpaid because of mistakes made by small businesses when preparing and filling in their tax returns.

    These reforms will improve the quality of record keeping, reducing the likelihood of mistakes and contributing £920 million to the Exchequer in additional revenue by 2020, then £600 million a year thereafter.

    This is good news for businesses – and good news for the Exchequer too.

    But with big changes come challenges and concerns. So I would like to take this opportunity to address some of these concerns; because I do not underestimate the scale of these changes, and it is important that we get this change right.

    First of all, this transformation does not – repeat, not – mean four tax returns a year.

    What it means is that by 2020, most businesses will be keeping track of their tax affairs digitally, updating HMRC at least quarterly via their digital tax account.

    Importantly, these quarterly updates will not involve the complexity of a full tax return, where the business, or their agent, has to gather together and manually input data onto an electronic or paper form, and then perform various calculations.

    Instead, updates will be generated from digital records and in most cases, little or no further entry of information will be needed. It will be much quicker, easier and far less burdensome than the current process. The agony of the annual tax return will be a thing of the past.

    Second, I make no apologies for the scale of our digital ambition.

    With the government and local authorities investing £1.7 billion to bring superfast broadband to over 95% of the UK by 2017, this is possible.

    And the Prime Minister announced at the end of last year that we are looking to implement an updated broadband Universal Service Obligation for those not covered by the superfast plans.

    Some have said that it is overly ambitious to rely on digital as the primary channel. The fact is that we are going with the grain of the way small businesses are already moving. The benefits of digitisation are readily accepted by the majority of small- and medium-sized organisations.

    And whilst there has been plenty of debate on the challenges – a lot of that online – I am heartened see that many businesses, and their agents, are already forging ahead. Already, 2 million small and medium-sized businesses are using software for their payroll and their VAT.

    We’ve also seen the rise of companies providing digital accounting services, using exactly the sort of technology and processes that will be needed when we make tax fully digital.

    Just last week, I met FreeAgent, one such company, whose software is already being used by 45,000 customers. And we are working with other innovative firms, such as Intuit and Xero. That is where the market is heading.

    HMRC, too, stands ready to deliver the digital agenda.

    The HMRC performance figures for this year bear repeating.

    This year saw a reduction of almost a quarter in the number of people submitting a paper tax return – that’s over 340,000 fewer people doing things the old way.

    Meanwhile, the percentage of people using online filing has increased once more – from 85% to 89%.

    More than 825,000 customers accessed their Personal Tax Account as they completed their tax returns.

    Over a quarter of a million customers used HMRC’s virtual assistant in the last 3 weeks of January.

    Over that period, HMRC staff assisted in more than 114,000 webchats.

    And because of these digital advances, the number of phone calls to HMRC in January from people seeking assistance to complete a Self-Assessment return has fallen by over 50% in the last two years.

    As our society increasingly looks for new, more convenient, ways of doing things, HMRC is well placed to meet – and to manage – these demands.

    Third, I acknowledge the concerns raised about the pace of these reforms. There were similar concerns around online filing and real-time information. However, HMRC’s impressive track record in implementing those changes speaks for itself – working with interested parties we can match this success.

    Fourth, I have heard concerns about these reforms being mandatory, rather than on a voluntary basis.

    We examined this proposal very carefully at the start of the process.

    We concluded that a voluntary approach would cost the same, but deliver only a fraction of the benefits for business and the Exchequer.

    In the current fiscal environment, without the additional revenue generated by closing the tax gap, we couldn’t have provided the £1.3 billion investment required to transform services for all taxpayers.

    Fifth, there have also been concerns raised about the fact that we risk leaving some customers behind.

    So let me be clear. It is vital that support is there for those who need it, and that is what we have committed to do.

    For instance, we have already said we will ensure that free software products will be available to businesses with the most straightforward tax affairs.

    We accept that some – a very small minority – will be unable to adopt digital tools due to geography, personal disability or other circumstances. In those cases, help will be provided. There is absolutely no question of forcing those who cannot go digital to do so.

    We will consult business and representative bodies to fully understand who cannot get online and what support they need; and we will ensure we provide alternatives – over the phone, through face-to-face visits or through partners in the voluntary and community sector.

    Implementation will, of course, be vital. It is important we get this right – so that, as well as transforming the way millions of people pay tax, these reforms can provide the maximum benefit for business and the UK.

    We are already talking to a wide range of business, agents, software developers and professional bodies.

    There will be a wide-ranging consultation exercise starting in the spring, in which I would urge you all to get involved.

    We are introducing these reforms gradually – not phasing them in fully until 2020, because we know how important it will be to give taxpayers time to adapt.

    We are using volunteers to stress-test new services, so we can be confident these new services work before we roll them out.

    Because the benefits – if we get this right – are considerable. We will reduce burdens on business, reduce the tax gap, and bringing tax administration well and truly into the digital age.

    These reforms are an important part of our wider tax policy:

    Taxes which are internationally competitive, so that our country continues to attract the brightest and the best;

    Taxes which are paid in full and on time, helping provide the public services we all depend on;

    And taxes which are simple to pay and manage. Because the less time businesses spend working out what to pay, the more time they have to do what it is they do so well:

    Innovate … expand … create jobs … create growth … create profits … and contribute to Britain’s economic recovery.

    That’s the system that, with your help, we are creating.

    Thank you – and I’ll be delighted to take some questions.

  • Lord Freud – 2016 Speech on Welfare Reform

    lordfreud

    Below is the text of the statement made by Lord Freud in the House of Lords on 29 February 2016.

    My Lords, the other House has now considered Lords Amendment 1, which was proposed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. The intention behind that amendment was to insert a new clause into the Bill, which would have increased the measures on which the Secretary of State was required to report annually to include income-based measures. As I have said previously, that amendment has technical faults and would require redrafting to make it work as noble Lords intend but, moving quickly beyond the technical defects in that amendment, I have repeatedly tried to shine a light on the fundamental flaws of the income-based measure.

    The “poverty plus a pound” approach that results from measures of this kind led to billions of pounds being invested under the previous Government, with little or no transformational impetus in the life chances of young people. It is widely recognised that the low-income measures can give a misleading picture. For example in a recession, when average income falls, poverty can appear to be falling too even if living standards have not improved for those at the bottom.

    I stress again that low-income measures drive the wrong action, as I have sought to explain throughout the passage of the Bill through this House. Such measures simply focus on treating the symptoms of child poverty, whereas the Government are intent on tackling the root causes such as worklessness and educational failure. It is in these areas where we believe that the right action can make the biggest difference to the lives of disadvantaged children, both now and in the future.

    Moving on, it is clear that substantial concerns remain that publication of the statistics on children in low-income families through the Department for Work and Pensions annual HBAI—households below average income—may not continue. This is despite the very clear commitments that the Government have given in both Houses and the protections already in place to safeguard HBAI as a national statistics product.

    As I have said previously, I believe that the only difference on this issue between us is the word “statutory”. Given the doubts and concerns that remain about the continued publication of this low-income data, I am able to say that we have listened, we have heard and we are willing to provide further guarantees. Three of the four income measures—including relative low income, combined low income and material deprivation, and absolute low income—are already routinely published in the HBAI publication.

    Through the government amendment we are putting forward today, we propose to place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to publish this information annually. This provision will give the data the additional statutory protection that noble Lords sought. The amendment also places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to publish new data on children living in persistent low-income households annually. The information will be based on a new data source, and the first figures will be published before the end of the 2016-17 financial year.

    However, let me be clear that although we have given full statutory guarantees that this data will be published annually, we will not commit ourselves to laying a report before Parliament on it. This amendment is about providing a further guarantee that information on low income is made available for all to see, every year. Reporting to Parliament on income measures would incentivise government to take the wrong action and would simply continue to incentivise actions, such as direct income transfers, that will not tackle underlying factors.

    We need to move on from this unhelpful approach. Resources are finite and it is crucial that the Government prioritise the actions that will make the biggest difference to children. The evidence is clear that this means tackling worklessness and low educational attainment, as set out clearly in our life-chances measures and approach. Any move to report on these low-income measures would divide government’s efforts and undermine this new life-chances strategy. I firmly believe it would not help to bring about the transformative change that we all wish to see.

    It is worth talking briefly on one technical point in our amendment. Subsection (3) provides for the absolute low-income measure to be rebased in the data publication. This is vital because over time an absolute low-income measure using a 2010-11 baseline, such as that proposed in Lords Amendment 1, would be likely to become increasingly meaningless due to growth in the economy. As a national statistics product, the data publication already has significant statutory protections, guaranteeing that any rebaselining would be carried out by statisticians following best practice and free of any political influence. I reassure colleagues on this point.

    I hope that these proposals will be welcomed in this Chamber. I urge noble Lords not to insist on their amendment and beg to move the Motion on the government amendments in lieu.

  • Dominic Raab – 2016 Speech on Offender Management

    dominicraab

    Below is the text of the speech made by Dominic Raab, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice, in the House of Commons on 25 February 2016.

    I would like to provide the House with an update on the progress of our electronic monitoring programme which will introduce new satellite tracking technology to improve the supervision and management of offenders and suspects.

    This is a huge opportunity to reduce reoffending, cut costs for taxpayers and keep the public safe.

    That is why we are committed to delivering a new generation of tags through contracts designed to encourage innovation, deliver an end-to-end system for monitoring offenders and provide for future technological developments.

    With this new technology we can be creative and look at how we can use satellite tags to devise new sentencing options for the courts. We want to use technology to make sure we not only deliver the punishments that society rightly expects but also improve supervision in the community and support offenders to change their lives.

    My colleague Andrew Selous announced to the House on 13 July last year that there had been significant problems with this programme, leading to considerable delays. As a result, we initiated a review into the programme, looking at how to get the programme back on track. This review examined progress made on the programme to date and how best electronic monitoring technology can meet our ambitions for the future, and considered the experience of other jurisdictions around the world who have developed GPS tagging schemes.

    Developing bespoke tags has been challenging and it is now clear that it will be more appropriate to pursue our goals using off-the-shelf technology which is already available. That is why the Ministry of Justice will be terminating our contract to develop a bespoke tagging product with Steatite Limited and will shortly begin a new procurement process for proven tags already on the market.

    This decision will mean we can proceed with wider changes to the way we manage the programme. We will simplify our approach in order to meet the challenges of technical and business integration and continue to drive and monitor delivery from the other suppliers.

    This remains a challenging programme, which we will continue to keep under review.

    As the Prime Minister announced during his speech on prison reform on 8 February, we will begin pilots later this year which will inform how we use GPS tracking technologies to best effect in the future. These pilots will be run in a variety of settings in conjunction with criminal justice partners and will be designed to test how GPS technology is used and how it affects behaviour. The pilots will be independently evaluated and the results will inform policy decisions on the future use of this important tool.

    Furthermore, following the conclusion of the pilot in South London of sobriety tags as part of an Alcohol Abstinence Monitoring Requirement, the Justice Secretary has approved the expansion of the scheme to the whole of London to give courts in the capital the means to tackle the damaging effects of crime committed whilst under the influence of alcohol. An evaluation of sobriety tagging in London will inform our decisions about wider national roll-out.

  • Baroness Anelay – 2016 Speech on Women’s Rights in Afghanistan

    baronessanelay

    Below is the text of the speech made by Baroness Anelay, the Minister of State at the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, in the House of Lords on 25 February 2016.

    Thank you Brita for that kind introduction. Thank you also to Women for Women International, for making this event possible, and for their excellent work to promote women’s rights around the world.

    It is a pleasure to see so many of you here today. We are all people who care passionately about the rights of women in Afghanistan. People who hope, as I do, that the situation for women there will continue to improve.

    I would like to take this opportunity to talk to you today about what has already been achieved for women’s rights in Afghanistan, and what work I believe there is still to be done.

    Human rights are an integral part of the work of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Indeed, as the Foreign Secretary has said, human rights are the day to day work of every British diplomat. The promotion and protection of women’s rights is at the forefront of that work.

    These are rights enshrined in international law. They are vital to ensure stable and prosperous societies. I personally believe in the full participation of women in all aspects of society.

    Afghanistan’s future depends on it: the country cannot expect to fulfil its potential if half the population is excluded.

    Of course the country has seen significant progress on human rights, particularly women’s rights – but the gains it has made are fragile and significant challenges remain.

    These are challenges presented by a fragile security situation, in a country where the Government is fighting to ensure the safety of its entire people. These are also challenges that arise out of a society where traditional tribal values are valued above formal legal structures.

    Across Afghanistan, women continue to suffer disproportionately. Women and women’s groups are more likely to be victims of the insurgency and victims of sexual violence. Women have fewer economic and social opportunities and their access to the justice system is limited, in some cases non-existent.

    The appalling murder last year of Farkhunda Malikzada falsely accused of burning the Koran, highlights the personal risks faced by Afghan women who dare to speak out.

    Of course progress has been made over the last 15 years. The UK Government has helped more than 2.8 million girls enter formal education. The first women officers are being trained in the security forces. There are now more women in the Afghan Parliament than ever before, and more and more women are taking part in elections.

    The country is beginning to recognise the important role women can play in its stability, as well as its economic development.

    For many families, it is now a matter of pure economic necessity for women to have a job. With more women in employment there has been a growing recognition of the value of education, and of the valuable role women can play in public life.

    As many of you know, 2015 was a year of significant change in Afghanistan. The National Unity Government set out its agenda for its ‘Transformation Decade’. The country saw a significant reduction in the international military presence.

    It was also a year that saw the National Unity Government make substantial commitments in the Afghan National Action Plan for Women, Peace and Security.

    In October, senior officials introduced the Self Reliance for Mutual Accountability Framework. It is through this framework that the government of Afghanistan have committed to improve women’s access to justice, to increase their participation in government, and to prepare and implement laws on anti-harassment and the elimination of violence.

    The difficult part for the government now is ensuring that those commitments can be delivered, and that the progress made over the last fifteen years is not lost.

    Despite the low baseline for women’s welfare and livelihoods in Afghanistan, conditions have improved for hundreds of thousands. These gains have been hard won and must be consolidated and built upon.

    While the government of Afghanistan is working to make a difference to the lives of Afghan women, crucial work is also being undertaken by the international community to improve their access to rights.

    Commitments at international conferences are an important first step, but words must be translated into action to create lasting change. Again, making it happen is what matters.

    Real progress can only be made where there is collaboration between the international community and an active and influential civil society that can support brave human rights defenders.

    As Hillary Clinton said, women’s rights are human rights. We need to change social attitudes across the spectrum of society if we are to be successful in our aim to of delivering a better future for the women of Afghanistan. Much of the successful work being done now in Afghanistan is only succeeding by influencing men. Not just in Kabul’s political classes, but at the local level too, in provinces and districts throughout the country.

    2016 will be another significant year in defining the future for women in Afghanistan. Both the follow up to the Oslo Symposium on Women’s Rights and Empowerment in Afghanistan, hosted in Kabul, and the development conference hosted in Brussels in October, will be important milestones. We know the will is there.

    These events will provide opportunities for the international community to send strong messages of support for women’s rights and empowerment in Afghanistan. They will allow for an in-depth exchange of ideas on key women’s rights reforms.

    Most significantly of all, they will provide a platform for the government of Afghanistan to demonstrate their achievements and to explain the challenges they face, but also to be held to account by the international community on the commitments they have made so far. A key part of any post-conflict stabilisation is addressing the needs of those who have experienced sexual and gender-based violence. Not doing so holds back community reconciliation and social and economic development. Tragically, Afghanistan and its people will undoubtedly continue to face challenges from active insurgent groups in 2016. As an international community, we must continue to work together to put a stop to sexual violence in conflict afflicted regions.

    Where it does occur, perpetrators must be held to account. Survivors must receive support from local communities, civil society and governments, so that they have the tools they need to rebuild their lives.

    We hope that 2016 will be a year in which major steps are taken forward on Afghan women’s rights. A year when traditional attitudes are robustly challenged, women are economically and socially empowered, and justice is delivered for all Afghan women.

    Our own experience teaches us that women’s rights take hold when they were forged from within, not imposed from outside. This is why I believe that change in Afghanistan must be internally led, and that all Afghan people have a role to play in helping women to realise their full potential.

    The UK Government remains committed to helping the government of Afghanistan realise its constitutional and international human rights obligations.

    We will continue to support and work with them, together with local and international NGOs, civil society organisations and international partners.

    We aspire to give every woman, in every country, every right that we enjoy ourselves under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Afghanistan is no exception and we look forward to working with you to realise that goal.

  • Greg Hands – 2016 Speech at the London Stock Exchange

    Gregg Hands
    Greg Hands

    Below is the text of the speech made by Greg Hands, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, at the London Stock Exchange on 29 February 2016.

    Good morning – it’s great to be here with you at today’s market opening; thank you, Xavier Rolet for your invitation.

    For those of you who don’t know me, I’m Greg Hands, Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

    I myself used to work at the cutting edge of finance: designing models for financial derivatives, back in the early 1990s. Some of my former derivatives colleagues have now become fintech entrepreneurs themselves.

    So, in me, you find someone absolutely convinced of the boost that technology can give to competitiveness.

    My Ministerial role is largely to manage the UK’s £700-odd billion portfolio of public spending – because a significant part of this government’s long-term plan for securing Britain’s economy is about being sensible on public spending.

    But that is merely one side of the coin; the other is, of course, going for growth.

    I am a big believer that one of the best ways you secure long-term growth is by making yourself home to exciting, fast-growing industries.

    Financial technology firms – Fintechs for short – are precisely one such industry.

    I am delighted that this week, an independent EY report has ranked Britain first amongst the world’s seven leading Fintech hubs, from Silicon Valley to Hong Kong.

    Our ambition is to maintain, and to consolidate, that position.

    Because Fintech is good news; and the economic case for supporting UK Fintechs is nothing if not compelling.

    Britain’s Fintech market generated over £6.5bn in revenue last year. Our Fintechs attract significant global investment, with around £550m in capital invested in 2015. Our Fintech industry employs over 60,000 people. Indeed – and this gives me some pleasure to say – more people work in UK Fintech than in US Fintech, or in Singapore, Hong Kong and Australia Fintech combined.

    And aside from the positive economic effects, Fintech also promotes greater competition in financial services. That means better products, better services, a more efficient market – and, of course, it makes people’s lives easier too.

    In the early days of eBay, you had to send people cheques in the post before they sent you the item you’d won. Now we have Paypal.

    Ten years ago, the Guardian was saying that this new-fangled idea of music on a mobile phone would never catch on. Now every high street bank has mobile banking; Barclays has even developed Pingit to transfer money instantly.

    While firms such as Funding Circle offer Britain’s businesses a smarter way to access alternative sources of finance.

    What we have seen in recent years is a mixture of new market entrants, and established, more traditional companies, both developing Fintechs, and in many cases joining forces to do so.

    I believe there are two ways in which the UK Fintech industry can continue to go from strength to strength.

    The first is great regulation: that is, regulation which, while protecting the customer, helps new technology to start and grow and succeed.

    The second is great collaboration: between Government, regulators, academia, investors, start-up firms, and established businesses.

    There’s lots that the Government, working with partners such as the Financial Conduct Authority has done on the “great regulation” front.

    The FCA’s Project Innovate Innovation Hub do excellent work in helping innovative businesses understand the regulatory framework and apply for authorisation.

    The “regulatory sandbox” – a wonderful piece of jargon there – is helping innovative firms test new ideas at an early stage with real customers.

    And our work on the creation of an open banking standard could revolutionise the way people manage their financial information.

    “Great collaboration” is equally important. And the events which have taken place all over London this week – Fintech Week – have forged some excellent relationships.

    I hope that today’s Fintech Investor Forum brings yet more people together, to throw around ideas, discuss new opportunities, and hopefully create some productive partnerships.

    There is palpable excitement about what Fintech can achieve here in the UK.

    Our ambition is simple: to consolidate our position as the global Fintech hub, and to keep ourselves at the cutting edge of financial innovation.

    It’s win-win: for our businesses, for our consumers, and for our economy.