UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2016

  • Theresa Villiers – 2016 Speech on the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa Villiers, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, on 21 January 2016.

    The cross-party talks that ran from 8 September to 17 November last year, which culminated in the Fresh Start agreement, brought us closer than ever before to consensus on the best way to deal with Northern Ireland’s past. While we established much common ground, it was not possible to reach agreement on all issues. I am committed to working with the Northern Ireland parties, with the Irish Government as appropriate, and with representatives of victims and survivors, to build on the progress made during the talks. The UK Government is determined to resolve the outstanding issues that are preventing the establishment of the legacy institutions set out in the Stormont House Agreement.

    One of these institutions is the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval (ICIR). This will be an independent body designed to enable victims and survivors privately to receive information about the Troubles-related deaths of their next of kin. As set out in the Stormont House Agreement, and building on the precedent of the Independent Commission on the Location of Victims’ Remains, the ICIR will be an international body. To that end, the UK and Irish Governments have signed an international agreement to enable the establishment of the ICIR and to set out its functions. Today I have placed a copy of this treaty in the libraries of both Houses.

    The ICIR will be an important institution which will help victims and survivors to seek information which it has not been possible to obtain by other means. Engagement by families with the ICIR will be entirely voluntary. Information provided to the ICIR about deaths within its remit will not be admissible in court, something which families will always be told in advance. The ICIR will not, however, provide any form of amnesty or immunity from prosecution.

    This Government believes in the rule of law and would not countenance such a step. As the Stormont House Agreement set out, information provided to the ICIR will be protected but no individual will be protected from prosecution if evidence is obtained by other means. It is the Government’s intention that the legislation needed to implement the ICIR will contain provisions clearly setting this out.

    It had been our aim to lay the treaty before Parliament at the same time as introducing the legislation required to establish the legacy bodies. However, as agreement has not yet been reached on this legislation, this is not possible. Once any treaty is formally laid, Parliament has a period of 21 sitting days, in which it can resolve that the treaty should not be ratified, in accordance with the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. I believe that it would be best if this consideration took place alongside the legislation, which will contain more detail about how the ICIR will function. I propose therefore formally to lay the treaty once we are able also to introduce legislation. These particular circumstances mean that placing a copy of the treaty in the libraries of both Houses is an appropriate way to ensure that Parliament is aware of the text of the treaty, without instigating the formal process of consideration.

    In addition to the ICIR, the Stormont House Agreement envisaged the establishment of the Historical Investigations Unit, the Oral History Archive and the Implementation and Reconciliation Group. Together, this set of institutions provides the best opportunity to help Northern Ireland deal with its past and provide better outcomes for victims and survivors, the people who we must never forget suffered more than anyone else as a result of the Troubles. The Government is committed to implementing the Stormont House Agreement and to establishing the legacy bodies it contains. I will continue to meet victims’ representatives and others over the coming days and weeks to discuss these matters and to build support for the new institutions.

     

  • Michael Gove – 2016 Statement on Youth

    michaelgove

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, on 26 January 2016.

    As I assured the House on 11 January, the safety and welfare of all those in custody is vital. We treat the allegations of abuse directed towards young people at the Medway Secure Training Centre (STC), run by G4S, with the utmost seriousness. Kent Police and Medway Council’s child protection team have launched an investigation which will determine whether there is any evidence to justify criminal proceedings. The Ministry of Justice (MOJ) and Youth Justice Board (YJB) will fully support and co-operate with their enquiries.

    Following the allegations, our immediate priority has been to ensure that young people at the centre are safe. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) and Ofsted visited Medway STC on 11 January and their findings are published today. YJB, which is responsible for commissioning and oversight of the secure youth estate, has increased both its own monitoring at Medway STC and the presence of Barnardos, who provide an independent advocacy service at the centre. YJB immediately stopped all placements of young people into the Centre and suspended the certification of staff named in the allegations.

    I believe, however, that we need to do more in order to have confidence that the STC is being run safely and that the right lessons have been learned. Today’s report by HMIP and Ofsted recommends the appointment of a commissioner to provide additional external oversight of the governance of the centre. I agree that additional external oversight is necessary and am also concerned that it draws on the broadest possible expertise.

    I am therefore today appointing an Independent Improvement Board, comprised of 4 members with substantial expertise in education, running secure establishments and looking after children with behavioural difficulties. This Board will fulfil the same function, with the same remit, as HMIP and Ofsted’s recommendation for a commissioner. We have tasked G4S with putting an improvement plan in place, which this Board will oversee.

    I have appointed Dr Gary Holden as the chair of the Improvement Board. Dr Holden is the chief executive officer and executive principal of The Williamson Trust, a successful academy chain in Kent. This includes the outstanding Joseph Williamson Mathematics School, located less than a mile from Medway STC. He is also a National Leader of Education and chair of the Teaching Schools Council. His experience as a head teacher and leader of a high-performing organisation make him ideally suited to identify the steps that should be taken to raise standards at Medway STC.

    Dr Holden will be joined by: Bernard Allen, an expert in behaviour management and the use of restraint; Emily Thomas, interim governor of HM Prison Holloway and former governor of HM Young Offender Institution Cookham Wood; and Sharon Gray OBE, an education consultant and former head teacher with experience of working with children with behavioural difficulties, including in residential settings.

    The Board will provide increased oversight, scrutiny and challenge of managerial arrangements, in particular in relation to the safeguarding of young people. Board members will have authority to visit any part of the site at any time, access records at Medway and interview children during their investigations. The Board will report any concerns about the provision of services at Medway to me. The Board’s work will assist me in determining the necessary improvements that G4S must make to restore confidence that young people are properly safeguarded at the STC.

    The Terms of Reference for the Independent Improvement Board are to:

    – investigate the safeguarding arrangements at Medway in order to inform the development and approval of the improvement plan to be produced by G4S and any steps to be taken by the Youth Justice Board (YJB) and other organisations.

    – oversee, challenge and support G4S in implementing their improvement plan.

    – report to the Secretary of State on the Board’s confidence in the capability of G4S, YJB and other organisations to meet appropriate safeguarding standards at Medway STC in the future, and the performance and monitoring arrangements required to provide assurance.

    – submit any recommendations on the safeguarding of young people in custody, including the role of the YJB and other organisations, to inform practice in the wider youth custodial estate and Charlie Taylor’s review of the youth justice system.

    The Board will complete its work by the end of March 2016.

  • Theresa May – 2016 Speech on New Fraud Taskforce

    theresamay

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, at the Mansion House in London on 10 February 2016.

    Thank you Lord Mayor for those opening words, and for generously hosting this morning’s event in such an impressive venue.

    I am delighted to be here today and particularly glad to see such strong representation from the financial sector. In this room are senior figures from world-leading banks, law enforcement and government. The chief executives of some of the biggest banks and payment providers in the world, responsible for countless transactions, worth millions of pounds, every second. And we are joined by those responsible for regulating and stewarding the financial system – Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, and Tracey McDermott, Acting Chief Executive of the Financial Conduct Authority, and Harriett Baldwin, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury.

    Together the people in this room are responsible for one of the great engines of our economy and an incredible creator of jobs, wealth and economic power in this country – the financial services industry. It is the reason that London is the world’s pre-eminent financial centre and a hub for the global exchange of currency, capital and shares.

    Our economy relies on the financial system and everyone in this country benefits from its global success. But the scale and volume of financial activity also brings serious risks of economic crime and real opportunities for criminals to defraud hardworking taxpayers and vulnerable pensioners of their savings and earnings.

    Fraud shames our financial system. It undermines the credibility of the economy, ruins businesses and causes untold distress to people of all walks of life. Some of you will know first-hand the financial and emotional impact of being defrauded, and the industry leaders in the room will know the true financial cost of fraud to their businesses, from reimbursing consumers to repairing your reputations with affected clients. But for too long, there has been too little understanding of the problem and too great a reluctance to take steps to tackle it.

    Last year, the Office for National Statistics estimated that there were 5.1 million frauds in the UK. The City of London’s size and openness to global trade makes it particularly exposed to the risk of international money laundering and the frauds that are inevitably linked to it.

    And it is clear that fraud is often coordinated by organised criminal gangs, increasingly using online channels to dupe unwitting individuals and access their accounts. There is growing evidence they do so from jurisdictions out of reach of traditional policing, using technology that make them difficult to investigate. And we know that individuals travelling to join Daesh in Syria have used frauds to fund their travel. In one successful prosecution, a group linked to a terrorist investigation was found to have defrauded or attempted to defraud elderly and vulnerable victims of a total in excess of £1 million.

    So I am delighted that we are joined by those leading the law enforcement response –Ian Dyson, the new Commissioner of the City of London Police and Lynne Owens, the new Director General of the National Crime Agency.

    So everyone in this room has an interest in stamping fraud out and disrupting the criminals that lie behind it. Fraud is not and never has been a victimless crime and its impact is much wider than is commonly recognised.

    That is why today is so important. It represents a united front of government, law enforcement and industry in preventing, identifying and cracking down on fraud.

    A unified front against fraud

    Today’s event builds on some excellent joint working across the financial sector and law enforcement to tackle fraudsters. Many of the banks and card companies in this room, and more broadly, are investing heavily in increasingly sophisticated security systems to detect and prevent fraud. Industry has funded the Dedicated Card and Payments Crime Unit, where police work alongside professional fraud investigators to disrupt fraudsters and gather evidence to secure convictions. And the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau, operated by the City of London Police, helps identify established and emerging frauds and those who are committing them.

    At the same time, the Home Office and law enforcement offer targeted prevention advice through sources such as Cyber Streetwise and GetSafeOnline to encourage individuals and businesses to adopt safer behaviours to protect against fraudulent activity.

    But as everyone in this room knows, we need to go further. New technology is facilitating new ways to commit cyber crime and to defraud members of the public. Organised criminals are becoming more sophisticated in their actions and “buying in” expertise to mount increasingly complex frauds that can wipe millions off the value of accounts at a keystroke. Even public sector institutions are attractive to fraudsters, who either attempt to hack databases or impersonate institutions to defraud people and businesses. Quite simply, we are not making up enough ground on the criminals and people’s livelihoods are at risk.

    The Joint Fraud Taskforce

    So today, I am delighted to officially launch the Joint Fraud Taskforce, which will bring the collective powers, systems and resources of banks, payment providers, police, wider law enforcement and regulators to bear on this threat.

    We will achieve this in a number of ways. First, we must build a better understanding of the threat. So we will bring together expert knowledge from each Taskforce member to identify and map key threats, vulnerabilities and drivers of fraud. This greater understanding will ensure that the activities of the Taskforce can be clearly focussed on areas that can and should be tackled.

    We must concentrate efforts to improve our collective response on fraud. This means focusing on targeting high harm nominals and improving fast-track intelligence sharing between banks and law enforcement. It is only by systematically sharing information and data between banks and law enforcement investigators that we will be able to identify suspicious financial flows, track fraudulent funds through the system, and prove fraudsters are profiting from such illegal activity to support convictions.

    We will focus the Taskforce efforts on victims too. By better data sharing and matching we hope to speed up the identification of victims and potential victims and address the barriers preventing the refund of funds to scam victims. And this work cannot just be digital in scope, with closer cooperation between bank staff and the police to identify potential victims when they present themselves in branch too.

    Finally, the Taskforce will identify and tackle the vulnerabilities that the fraudsters depend on to successfully target the public and businesses. These are often simple fixes that can have big results, like our work with telephone providers to reduce the amount of time a telephone line stays open after one person has dialled, closing a loophole which criminals used to pretend to be from a bank or other legitimate organisation. Or they can be innovative technical solutions, such as the development of Chip-and-Pin introduced in 2006 to tackle specific types of card fraud. Since its introduction, counterfeit card fraud has dropped 72% since it peaked in 2008, and fraud losses on the UK high street have fallen 78 % since 2004.

    A true partnership between industry, law enforcement and government

    I want the Joint Fraud Taskforce to signal a new type of partnership – truly collaborative, driving our collective action to reduce the numbers of victims; reduce the impact of fraud; and increase the prosecution and disruption of fraudsters.

    And I will do everything I can to ensure it is a success.

    But if the taskforce is to achieve everything it needs to, I need your support. The Taskforce can only work if there is genuine collective ownership and commitment from everyone in this room.

    So my ask is simple – lend your expertise to this new body. Come forward to lead specific work. Encourage your brightest and best to offer their leadership and expertise. Join your intelligence teams, your data experts, and your customer care teams with law enforcement to improve the response to fraud. The Taskforce will be open and transparent, the public will hear of its successes, your businesses will be less at risk of fraud, and your customers will know that you have been part of something truly worthwhile.

    We know this approach works. Some of you will know that we launched the Joint Money Laundering Intelligence Taskforce last year. That Taskforce has already had an impact through its collaborative approach to tackling the increasing threat from serious and organised crime groups involved in high-end money laundering. Working together, members of that taskforce have developed cases, identified and closed banks accounts, issued alerts on methodologies, obtained 50 new court orders and made 8 arrests.

    It is a clear demonstration of what can be achieved in a relatively short space of time when the industry, law enforcement and government come together with a common aim.

    We are going to hear shortly from representatives in banking and law enforcement who have already recognised the importance of the Joint Fraud Taskforce and become actively involved. They have committed their organisations to supporting its work, bringing knowledge, expertise and fresh new thinking to the table. I cannot stress enough how valuable this collective work is, and I urge you to make the decision to get involved.

    Thank you again for taking time to be here this morning and I look forward to listening to the other speakers, and I would like to invite Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England to say a few words.

  • Nicky Morgan – 2016 Speech on the Gender Pay Gap

    nickymorgan

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nicky Morgan, the Secretary of State for Education, on 8 February 2016.

    Thank you David for that very kind introduction and can I say on behalf of everyone, thank you Deloitte for hosting this event this evening. In particular Denis Woulfe, a member of the Women’s Business Council, who I know was instrumental in making this all possible. Thank you for everything you do on this agenda.

    I’m delighted to be here during such an important time for gender equality. Around the world, business leaders, politicians and even Hollywood celebrities are talking about the gender pay gap (GPG).

    I think you all have a copy of the report which is fantastic and I encourage you all to read it.

    And the Prime Minister couldn’t have been clearer when he said at our Party Conference “You can’t have true opportunity without real equality”. And that’s why one of the first things he announced after the general election was a pledge to eliminate the gender pay gap in a generation.

    This is not only the right thing to do but it’s also important for our country. The UK economy is dependent on us harnessing the talent of women, capitalising on the wealth of skill that they bring to our workplaces.

    McKinsey estimate that the UK could add £0.6 trillion of additional annual GDP in 2025 by fully bridging the gender gap.

    As Ann Francke, who you’re going to hear from shortly puts it so well in the report being launched today “What business leader in their right mind would turn away returns like this?”

    The business case is clear, and that’s why I’m so pleased to see so many companies from so many different sectors here today – I know that by working together, we can achieve great things.

    The Lord Davies Review is an excellent example of what we can achieve through partnership. Over the last five years, we have more than doubled the number of women on our FTSE 100 boards.

    And importantly, we announced only yesterday that Sir Philip Hampton, the Chair of GlaxoSmithKline, will take forward a new review on women on boards which will specifically look at gender diversity and the executive pipeline.

    Sir Philip is one of the world’s most influential business leaders and chair of one of the world’s most powerful companies. And when I spoke to him just last week, he told me what a huge privilege it was to work on this agenda.

    We need more men to have that attitude. Women’s equality is important for everyone – for women, men, for business and for the next generation.

    I don’t believe that it is only incumbent on women to speak out for women’s equality, and I don’t believe that it is for women alone to fight for this – we all have a responsibility. So I’m delighted to see such a diverse audience here tonight.

    Sir Philip will be working alongside Dame Helen Alexander, chair of UBM, along with a steering group of inspirational business leaders from all walks of life. This work is crucial to tackling the gender pay gap and I look forward to working with Sir Philip as his review takes shape.

    And we mustn’t forget that already Think, Act, Report has created a vast community of best practice on maximising female talent. Around 300 businesses are signed up, collectively employing over 2.5 million people. If you haven’t signed-up yet, I’d urge you to do so and benefit from the advice and support offered.

    Together we can continue to drive change and dispel the myths that have often stalled progress.

    One of the biggest myths – and often a source of confusion – is around what we even mean by the gender pay gap. Too many still conflate this with equal pay.

    Now, the principle of equal pay was won in Dagenham over forty years ago (although that doesn’t mean it still doesn’t need to be enforced), whereas the gender pay gap is something far more complex – something we must all work together to crack – marking the average difference between men and women’s hourly earnings.

    Progress

    Sometimes we can be too hard on ourselves. We have made significant progress in recent years with the current gender pay gap being the lowest on record. We’ve virtually eliminated the gap for full-time workers under 40 and the gap for the over-40s is shrinking too.

    We also have more women in work than ever before: one million more since 2010, women’s salaries are rising, and there are now around over one million women-led SME businesses – more than ever before.

    But let me be clear, we cannot be complacent. I want to say something very simple: in our society, which places principles like fairness and opportunity at its heart – ANY gap is still too great.

    I know that if we are to end the gender pay gap in a generation we need to do much more. And that’s why one of the first announcements following the election, was the commitment to act on our manifesto pledge to require companies with more than 250 employees to publish the difference between the average pay of their male and female employees.

    With over £40 billion paid in bonuses in the UK in 2014-15 and a gender bonus gap of 57%, I welcomed the Prime Minister’s announcement last year that bonuses would also be part of the reporting requirements.

    Since then, as you’ve just heard from David at Deloitte, more and more companies are already publishing gender pay information.

    We have been learning from those who have already published. Like Tesco, who publish a median gender pay gap, Deloitte who publish a mean gender pay gap and Mitie who publish the numbers of men and women working at different pay bands.

    And we have been testing what works using real employee data – because we want this to work in the interests of employers as well as employees.

    And we are not alone. Around the world countries like ours are using transparency to drive and accelerate change so that we all have a fair chance at success in the workplace.

    Just last week President Obama announced new pay transparency rules for US companies arguing that “women are not getting the fair shot that we believe every single American deserves”.

    I expect that every company here today will be aware of these regulations and many of you have provided useful feedback to the first consultation document, which received over 700 responses. Thank you if you took the time to take part.

    We will be outlining the full details of these regulations very shortly in the form of a second consultation on the draft regulations themselves where we will ask again for your input.

    We are determined to get this right, to ensure that the regulations are fit for purpose and workable for business.

    Why transparency is important

    However, many people might question what difference these regulations will actually make, if pay transparency will really overturn years of ingrained cultural practices and decades of gender imbalance in business.

    The fact is, transparency is one of the most powerful tools that we have for shaping behaviour and driving change.

    Transparency will cast a light on the challenges of progressing in the workplace and create the pressure we need to drive change. This will enable the impact of workplace policies and practices to be monitored and discussed.

    And don’t just take it from me; take it from the businesses who have already started to benefit from this increased transparency:

    Easyjet have said that “being transparent and reporting on gender is helping them to focus on how they can continue to make progress”.
    BHP Billiton, who you will hear from shortly, said “experience shows that those items that get measured and disclosed are better understood and acted upon”.

    And PWC have said that their “reputation and brand has benefited from gender pay disclosure”.

    That’s why events like today are so important – they are about showing what can be achieved through increased transparency.

    We have to celebrate this change in business culture and share best practice – and I’m so pleased to see so many of our important trailblazers in the audience today including my former ministerial colleague Jo Swinson. I believe that your determination and achievements will inspire others to follow suit.

    And I’m delighted that the Government Equalities Office, alongside Business in the Community will be once again holding the Think, Act, Report Transparency Award later this year.

    This is another fantastic opportunity to showcase the range of information already being published. I know Deloitte, BHP Billiton and Sodexo are shortlisted for this year’s award and I’d like to wish them the very best of luck.

    I’m also clear that what we expect of business we should expect of ourselves and that’s why I welcomed the Prime Minister’s announcement last year that the gender pay gap regulations will be extended to the public sector.

    The public sector pay gap is currently 18.5%, only just below the national average, and although some public bodies already publish pay gap data, I want to ensure that this good practice spreads across all larger public authorities.

    Tackling the causes of the Gender Pay Gap and transforming the workplace

    So as I’ve said, transparency is one of the greatest tools we have for eliminating the gap, but we must also tackle the root causes. Women working in the UK still earn on average less than men because too few women get to the top and too many are concentrated in lower pay sectors.

    To tackle this we must deliver a workplace fit for the 21st century and that’s why we are breaking down the barriers preventing women from progressing to the top:

    More than 20 million employees can now request flexible working, providing more choice for working parents;

    – we’ve introduced shared parental leave because we know childcare is an issue that affects both mothers and fathers, and;

    – we’ve committed to double the free hours of childcare provided for working parents of 3- and 4-year-olds, from 15 hours to 30 hours a week – and we are moving closer to realising this manifesto commitment as our Childcare Bill makes its way through Parliament.

    Now many of the businesses in this room have already introduced policies aimed at modernising the workplace and ensuring that their female employees are able to reach their full potential:

    So our host Deloitte have introduced a ‘Return-to-work programme’ – the first of its kind in professional services in the UK, to help senior women who have had time away reconnect with the company.
    Ford has introduced on-site childcare and dedicated Maternity Advisers for pregnant female employees.

    And last week I was at KPMG in Canary Wharf where I heard about the fantastic work being done on diversity, including through the well-established KPMG Network of Women.

    Occupational segregation

    But as many of the companies in the audience will know, occupational segregation is also a significant contributing factor to the gender pay gap.

    Many of the highest paying sectors are disproportionately made up of men while women remain concentrated in lower paid occupations. For instance, women make up 92% of secretaries but only 9% of engineers.

    Research shows that those working in science or technological careers are paid, on average, 19% more than other professions.

    That’s why we are breaking down the traditional belief that some careers are only ‘for the boys’ through initiatives like the Your Life campaign and the Your Daughter’s Future programme.

    We are making good progress with a record 12,000 more STEM A-level entries from girls since 2010.

    But if we truly want to close the gender pay gap then we must do more.

    We have had some powerful female role models in the past like Ada Lovelace whose passion and vision for technology, have made her a powerful symbol for modern women in the sector. Building on her legacy are women like Roma Agrawal, whose childhood love of Lego inspired her to create iconic buildings like The Shard and inspire today’s women and girls to study STEM subjects.

    And I’m delighted that the report published here today highlights some of the excellent work which is already being done to improve female representation in STEM.

    Conclusion

    I’m a firm believer that actions speak louder than words and that’s why I’m passionate about driving this agenda forward, starting with our drive for pay transparency.

    But government cannot do this alone, and that’s why events like today and your commitment are so important. We need you, the businesses of Britain, to seize this opportunity so that together we can make the changes we want to see in our society.

    I want to thank you all for the work you have done so far and for your continuing commitment.

    Your achievements demonstrate what business can do and how important it is in hiring and retaining the best talent. Every business should commit to ending the gender pay gap because in today’s competitive global market, women who don’t feel truly valued will simply look elsewhere. And who can blame them?

    Thank you.

  • Jeremy Wright – 2016 Speech on the Public Interest

    jeremywright

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Wright, the Attorney General, at University College in London on 8 February 2016.

    I welcome the opportunity to speak to you today, here at UCL.

    Ronald Dworkin, who challenged and entranced generations of students and colleagues here, said that law is a branch of morality.

    He was right.

    And although it may not always look like it, politics is another branch of morality.

    And today, without seeking to reach Professor Dworkin’s intellectual heights, I want to talk about one way in which the common purpose of politics and law is exemplified by the office that I hold: that of Attorney General.

    The aspect I want to focus on is my role, as Attorney General, in relation to the public interest.

    This is not a function of the job that receives much comment, even within the legal world.

    But I want to set out why I see it as an important part of my role.

    And I would go even further: it is what puts the Attorney General at the heart of our constitution.

    It is essentially a way in which the Attorney, occupying his or her unique position between and within both the political and legal worlds, upholds a well-functioning and fair justice system.

    That matters to government.

    But it also matters to the Courts, and the legal profession as a whole.

    I want to say why I think that is. And then to say something about who, in a well-functioning justice system, is best-placed to decide what the public interest is.

    So first, why does the role of the Attorney General matter?

    The Constitutional Role of the Attorney General
    The principal role of the Attorney, alongside the other UK Law Officers – the Solicitor General for England and Wales, and the Advocate General for Scotland – is to uphold and promote the Rule of Law through his or her constitutional functions.

    So let’s begin with some history.

    Last year, the common law world celebrated the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta.

    I was honoured to be part of those celebrations.

    The post of Attorney General must be one of very few which is almost as old as Magna Carta itself.

    Last year we also celebrated to slightly less fanfare 700 years since the first formal appointment recorded of a specially designated King’s Attorney, in the year 1315 – although there are records of individuals appointed to “sue the King’s pleas” as early as 1243, within living memory of Magna Carta.

    And the title of Attorney General is first recorded in the 15th century.

    All these centuries later, we are being told by independent observers that the Attorney General has an increasingly important role in relation to the Rule of Law in our constitutional arrangements.

    That is the view for example of the Constitution Committee of our House of Lords. The Law Officers are government ministers, the Attorney General being a cabinet-level appointment. I am the principal legal adviser to government at a ministerial level.

    The Ministerial Code provides that the Law Officers must be consulted before the government is committed to critical decisions involving legal considerations.

    Advising the cabinet, and participating in cabinet discussions, on legal and constitutional questions is the most direct way in which I ensure that the government understands its legal and constitutional obligations.

    I am also head of profession for lawyers within government, and as such have oversight for the legal advice given to government by all government lawyers.

    In other words, I am responsible, ultimately, for ensuring that the government’s decisions and actions respect and uphold the Rule of Law.

    The Law Officers’ public interest functions

    But that is not the only aspect of my role.

    I have other constitutionally significant functions, many inherent, others granted to me in statute, in relation to the public interest in the Rule of Law.

    I exercise these independently of my government functions.

    They include instituting proceedings for contempt of court, considering applications for fresh inquests and referring potentially unduly lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal for resentencing. I have a role in relation to charitable interests, and can intervene in cases before the High Court and the Charity Tribunal.

    These functions differ considerably in nature and scope.

    But their common feature is that they are exceptional and direct interventions in the functioning of the justice system in the interests of supporting the system itself, and maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice.

    They are not normal functions of the executive.

    But they are well-suited to be exercised by the Law Officers, who have a foot in both the legal and political worlds.

    As Sir Elwyn Jones, Attorney General from 1964 to 1970, said:

    The Attorney is the protector … of the public interest generally. This aspect of his duties had a very early origin. He has for long been the proper person to take legal proceedings where the interests of the public are endangered, or acts tending to public injury are done without authority.

    The judiciary have shared that view.

    Lord Wilberforce, in Gouriet v AG [1978], said:

    In all these matters the Attorney-General’s role is to seek a just balance between often conflicting public interests. The functions referred to above may be held by the Attorney as an inherent part of his ancient office or may have been conferred upon him by statute. Thus Parliament has again and again recognised his particular role in this sphere of seeking to balance the public interest in matters of the character which have been mentioned. In doing so it has reinforced his inherent powers.

    And these public interest functions are not amenable to judicial review. In 1902, in the case of London County Council v AG [1902], the Lord Chancellor, the Earl of Halsbury (no less) said:

    In a case where as a part of his public duty he has a right to intervene … the determination of the question whether it is a proper case for the Attorney-General to proceed in, is a matter entirely beyond the jurisdiction of this or any other Court. It is a question which the law of this country has made to reside exclusively in the Attorney-General.

    My superintendence of the independent prosecuting authorities is also a public interest function.

    It requires me to uphold a sensitive constitutional balance, supporting and defending the operational independence of the prosecutors, whilst at the same time consistently promoting their democratic accountabilities both in government and in Parliament.

    It also specifically requires me, in certain cases, to take responsibility for ensuring that the public interest is taken into account when deciding whether to bring or discontinue prosecutions.

    The unifying characteristic of all these functions is that they are a ‘backstop’ to prevent or remedy injustice in or pressures on other parts of the justice system.

    And that is something, as I have said, that the Law Officers are uniquely placed to do.

    A few examples will help to illustrate this point.

    The ULS scheme

    One of the functions of my office is the operation of the Unduly Lenient Sentence (ULS) scheme. In the event that someone (whether or not they have been involved in the case) feels the sentence awarded for a criminal offence to be too low, they are able to refer the matter to my office. If the offence is one of those in the ULS scheme and it is referred to us within the 28 day statutory time limit the Solicitor General or I will personally consider whether it is appropriate to refer the sentence to the Court of Appeal.

    These are public interest decisions, not political ones, and it is essential that Law Officers are trusted to refer what they should and not to refer what they shouldn’t – to make these decisions as lawyers, not as politicians. Of course, these days it seems anyone who is even part politician needs to offer more than just reassurance on a matter of trust, so let me offer some evidence.

    On the subject of referring what we should, let’s take a recent case – that of Sarah Sands, convicted of manslaughter for killing a convicted paedophile. Much of the public and political audience doubted she should have been convicted at all, let alone that her sentence of three and a half years should have been increased. My office received comments from members of the public that the sentence was too long, as well as those complaining that it was too short. As an offence within the scheme I was required as a lawyer to consider the sentence in law, and it seemed to me to be unduly lenient. So I referred that sentence and the Court of Appeal subsequently agreed and increased it to seven and a half years. If I was acting on the basis of political expediency, I may have done something different.

    On not referring to the Court of Appeal what we shouldn’t, our approach is clear from the outcomes of the cases that have been referred. Of 674 cases referred to my office in 2014 only 122 were referred to the Court of Appeal. That’s a fairly small percentage of cases brought to our attention. And that percentage has remained constant even as the volumes of referrals have increased.

    Of those 122, 117 were granted leave to be heard; and of those 117, the Court of Appeal agreed with the Law Officers and found in 109 of the cases that the sentence was unduly lenient. Were referrals made for reasons of political expediency, the outcomes may very well have been different.

    I am rather proud of those figures – they show we are exercising this power where it is really necessary to do so, and that we generally get our judgments made in the public interest right. But it is also worth saying that the power is there to rectify problem cases which are far better avoided in the first place. My ambition is for us not to have to exercise it nearly as much, because cases where it is necessary to challenge a sentence become fewer and fewer – and we work together to bring clarity to the sentencing framework and provide consistency in sentencing decisions.

    It is also important to mention that any decision to refer is part of a continuing process; it does not stop at the point of referral. When a case is referred to the Court of Appeal we write to those representing the offender to explain the process, and invite them to make submissions. On occasion, we receive information that even leads to the reference being withdrawn, as happened in a case very recently.

    Inquests

    The ULS scheme is an alternative to a more general right for prosecutors or victims to appeal against a sentence. As such, it represents a filter mechanism to prevent ill founded cases clogging up the criminal justice system. It helps the Courts and the judges by ensuring their time is spent hearing deserving cases. Other of my public interest functions fit this bill too.

    For example, the Law Officers consider requests by an interested party – often but not always the family of the deceased – who feels that an inquest should have been held but wasn’t, or that the inquest which did take place was in some way flawed.

    If I agree, then I will grant permission for an application to be made in the High Court for a fresh inquest.

    In considering sentences or inquests, the Law Officers are responsible for determining whether a case should be put before a Court.

    That is a question that in other areas might be considered by the Court itself, through a permission stage, as is the case in applications for judicial review, for example.

    But in these instances Parliament has said the Attorney General must grant permission before the Court can consider it. The decision the Law Officers take is not just whether previous sentencing decisions or inquests were legally flawed, we also look at whether there is a public interest in reopening matters.

    Let me emphasise again that we take these decisions extremely seriously and can only decide where the balance of the public interest lies by considering all aspects of it. These are executive powers to make rare exceptions to the important principles of legal certainty and the finality of court decisions. They are there for an important purpose. But they must be exercised circumspectly.

    So for example, in a request for a fresh inquest: we will consider the views of the person requesting the fresh inquest; we will seek and consider the views of the other interested parties, including the coroner; and we will then put the views of the interested parties back before the person making the request.

    Careful consideration is given to the representations of all concerned before I take a decision. And again, that decision is a public interest one, not a political one. And again let me offer some evidence of that.

    Recently, I granted permission to allow an application for a fresh inquest relating to deaths in Loughgall in Northern Ireland in 1987 potentially involving British soldiers, RUC officers, suspected IRA members and civilians. That decision was made at the height of fractious talks between unionists and nationalist parties, and so its timing was at the very least extremely inconvenient politically. Nevertheless it was the right legal decision, and it was the decision I took.

    Let me turn to one more example of public interest decisions for the Law Officers, again in the Criminal Justice sphere.

    Consents to prosecution

    There are certain offences which cannot be prosecuted without the consent of the Law Officers. The list is not obviously a logical one – the offences for which consent is required are many and diverse covering areas from agricultural credits to war crimes.

    Some of the offences are rarely prosecuted, others – such as terrorism offences – are sadly and increasingly far more common.

    Generally speaking, prosecutors are perfectly able to decide whether a prosecution should be brought and any consent required is that of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

    However, in some limited instances a further check is needed as to whether prosecution is in the public interest.

    Or it may be that a vexatious private prosecution has been launched and it is appropriate for the Law Officers to step in to prevent the Criminal Justice system from being abused.

    In acting as that check, the Law Officers bring consistency of approach. We are able to give consideration to the public interest. And because of our special position, we are able to consult colleagues in government when important issues of public policy or international affairs are concerned, for example in prosecutions for official secrets or hijacking offences.

    And of course we are also accountable to Parliament for the decisions we make.

    This underlines Parliament’s role in holding the government to account in relation to the public interest.

    Other useful backstops to secure proper functioning of Courts
    Finally, my office also has a series of functions in respect of the Court process itself, one of which is policing contempt of court.

    If an editor is planning to publish, or does indeed publish, an article or other piece of media which causes a substantial risk of serious prejudice to on-going court proceedings, then it is my office that will intervene.

    Another function is the appointment of an advocate to the Court; or amicus curiae. So if a novel and important point of law arises in proceedings in which the Court feels that it would benefit from the assistance of argument from independent Counsel, then it is my office that will consider whether independent Counsel should be appointed as an advocate to the Court. These functions are interesting because they frequently involve judges coming directly to me asking for safeguards to the trial process; an unusual intersection between the judiciary and the executive.

    In my view it is entirely right that there is some central oversight of decisions whether to instigate contempt proceedings, or to appoint advocates to the Court.

    Having that central oversight ensures both that a consistent threshold is applied and that questions of broader public interest can be considered.

    The Courts and indeed prosecutors may simply not have the information or expertise to come to a view where there is a difficult public interest balance to be made.

    There are a number of other public interest functions – I will spare you a recital of the whole list. I would though like to take some credit on behalf of the AGO for the unsung work we do in protecting the justice system, and the public purse, from vexatious litigation.

    But the list of functions is not set in stone, and as any minister must, I have to constantly review whether public money is being spent appropriately.

    My role in relation to charities is an important one.

    But we also now have a highly-regarded and professional Charity Commission. Some of my functions overlap with theirs. And I think there is scope for the Commission to perform more of its functions without interference from me where that is the right approach.

    A question for another day.

    Who decides?

    A question I want to raise today is one which occurs in many areas of my role, but has particular resonance given my public interest functions: within our constitutional and legal arrangements, who should decide what constitutes the public interest?

    This is a topical question.

    It goes to issues such as, “who should have the final say on whether information should be released under the Freedom of Information Act?”, or “who should approve warrants to authorise intrusive surveillance?”. I will come back to both of those.

    But first let me say that when it comes to matters of the public interest, there is a tone to the debate sometimes that government is partisan, making decisions for its own benefit. It is sometimes said that only judges are sufficiently detached to be able to take decisions which truly balance competing public interests.

    But the reality is more complex than that.

    There are both constitutional and practical reasons why it is not necessarily Courts that are best placed to take decisions involving matters of public interest.

    In my view there are circumstances where it is clearly right that decisions on matters of public interest should be taken by an elected, accountable politician, rather than by a Court. I hope we can all agree on where some of those areas lie – how to carry out the United Kingdom’s foreign relations for example. Or our national security. My question for today is how much further those circumstances might extend? I believe we should ask ourselves where else that logic might apply.

    Example 1 – Evans

    Let’s look at one possibility. The future of the Freedom of Information Act is especially topical at the moment.

    An Independent Commission on Freedom of Information (FOI) is considering whether the current legislation strikes the right balance between the public interest in transparency and accountability on the one hand, and the need for sensitive information to be robustly protected on the other.

    I won’t comment on that – the government will consider its position once the Commission has reported.

    But one of the reasons the Commission was set up was to look at the act following the case of Evans – the so called ‘Prince Charles letters’ case.

    In that case, the Supreme Court considered the operation of the power in the act for ministers to decide not to release information even if the Information Commissioner or tribunal said that it should be disclosed.

    Section 53 of the FOI Act gave cabinet ministers the power to use a ‘veto’ to prevent the disclosure of information.

    This ‘veto’ has been used very sparingly – only 7 times since 2005. To put that in context, there were some 263 appeals to the ICO in relation to central government FOI decisions in 2014/15 alone. The veto is a measure of last resort to ensure that sensitive information is not released in circumstances in which the government considers that it would be against the public interest to do so.

    This was at least how the position was understood prior to the judgment.

    Evans was a case in which, unusually, an Attorney General had exercised the veto, not as the holder of information himself, but because the material belonged in papers of a previous administration of a different political colour, and the Law Officers had a role as guardians of the public interest aside from their government functions. The key issue in the case was the constitutional one: who in the end decides what is in the public interest. The Supreme Court held that the act could not have been read as permitting the executive to take a different view of the public interest to that of a tribunal.

    I should make clear that of course, the government complied with the Court’s decision and released the letters in question.

    But in my view, Parliament intended that the exercise of the veto should be an executive function with democratic accountability for its use through Parliament. It constitutes a rare, but as I have set out far from unprecedented, recognition that the courts cannot constitutionally be the sole guardians of the public interest, and that there are important exceptions to the principle that Courts’ views are final. Of course, the exercise of the veto would always be subject to the checks and balances of judicial review, so the veto was no sort of ouster clause. But a proposition that complex balances of the public interest – which are after all the daily business of modern government – can only be done by courts is plainly wrong.

    The judgments in Evans, which the Supreme Court clearly found a difficult case, challenge all of us who have a part to play in maintaining the balance of our constitution, to reflect on the respective roles of judges, ministers, and indeed Parliament, in defining and defending the public interest.

    The respective roles of ministers and judges have also been much debated in relation to the approval of warrants. This brings me on to my next example in determining where the public interest lies: the Investigatory Powers Bill.

    Example 2 – The Investigatory Powers Bill

    Many of you will be aware of the Investigatory Powers Bill; it was published in draft form towards the end of last year.

    The bill contains a revised oversight regime including a novel authorisation model for the use of interception warrants.

    This model builds on recommendations made by David Anderson QC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, in his June 2015 report: “A Question of Trust”.

    The model is just one of a number of safeguards designed to ensure that the powers in the bill are completely transparent and that the public can have confidence in their use.

    Under the authorisation model, a senior judicial commissioner would review warranted powers on judicial review principles. In all but a small number of urgent cases, the review will take place before the warrant is issued. Importantly, judicial commissioners would have the power to quash warrants where they see fit.

    This would mean that a warrant authorised by the Secretary of State must also be approved by a judicial commissioner, almost always in advance.

    This authorisation model strikes a balance between democratic accountability and independent judicial scrutiny of the exercise of the most intrusive powers. Secretaries of State will have the powers to grant warrants, and that must be right: ministers are ultimately accountable to Parliament and the public for national security matters. However, this ‘double lock’ mechanism retains accountability while also ensuring independent judicial examination of the government’s actions.

    And the system is a good example of where ministers and the Court can have different but complementary roles.

    Conclusion

    I hope I’ve shone a light on some of the areas where the Attorney General exercises public interest functions, designed to work with the Courts.

    And in some of those areas, I believe the Attorney is better-placed than the Courts, or indeed other ministers, to decide what the public interest is.

    I mentioned when I started this speech that I also wanted to say something about who is best placed to decide matters of public interest.

    As the examples I have given show, decisions on matters of public interest are not always straightforward.

    There is often a question of whether political accountability or judicial independence is the more appropriate safeguard.

    These questions have exercised Attorneys past.

    And they will continue to be relevant to problems confronted by me and my successors, I have no doubt.

    They illustrate that the role of Attorney General is a unique one in our constitution; they illustrate too that it can be difficult.

    But in my view it’s an essential one, and one that it’s a privilege to perform.

  • Michael Gove – 2016 Statement on Changes to Criminal Legal Aid Contracting

    michaelgove

    Below is the text of the statement made by Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, to the House of Commons on 28 January 2016.

    My department is committed to upholding the rule of law, by defending the independence of the judiciary, guaranteeing access to justice and supporting the highest quality advocacy in our courts.

    My department has also had to play its part in the broader requirement to reduce our budget deficit and bring our national finances back into balance. Economies have had to be made in every area of expenditure, but steps have been taken to ensure our judiciary remain the best in the world, to provide a fair system of publicly-funded legal support and to explore how we can strengthen the quality of advocacy in all our courts, but most particularly in criminal proceedings.

    In the last Parliament spending on legal aid was reduced from £2.4 billion to £1.6 billion. That reduction was achieved by my predecessors following consultation with the profession and they were both determined to ensure those most in need were not denied public support. Indeed at the start of this Parliament expenditure on legal aid per capita was more generous than any other EU nation or comparable common law jurisdiction. I would like to place on the record my gratitude for the determined, yet sensitive, way in which my predecessors pursued these economies.

    Further changes to the legal aid system, agreed in the last Parliament, were due to be implemented in this. One of those changes, a further reduction in the advocacy fees paid to barristers and solicitor advocates was not implemented by my department while we conducted work to ensure the quality of advocacy would not be adversely affected by any change. My department is particularly committed to retaining a vibrant independent bar. The health of the independent criminal bar in England and Wales is an important guarantor of good advocacy, and Sir Bill Jeffrey’s report, commissioned by my predecessor, described the independent criminal bar as a ‘substantial national asset’. Without quality advocacy in the criminal courts the risk of injustice is greater. The liberty, and reputation, of any individual who finds themselves in court depends on a high quality advocate making their case effectively, and testing the case against them rigorously. That is why my department has been so grateful to the Bar Council, circuit leaders and others for their work to help inform our review of advocacy quality.

    Another change, which has been pursued, is the move to reduce litigation fees and encourage greater efficiency in the provision of litigation services.

    The first reduction to litigation fees of 8.75% occurred in March 2014. The second occurred in July 2015. At the time the fee reduction was first proposed the market was made up of around 1,600 legal aid firms and it was proposed to drive greater efficiency and consolidation within the market by simple price competition for legal aid contracts.

    The legal profession opposed this model and after careful negotiation my predecessor decided to adopt a system known as ‘dual contracting’.

    Under the dual contracting system, two types of contract were to be awarded to criminal legal aid firms.

    An unlimited number of contracts for ‘own client’ work based on basic financial and fitness to practise checks – in others words continued payment for representing existing and known clients.
    And a total of 527 ‘duty’ contracts awarded by competition, giving firms the right to be on the duty legal aid rota in 85 geographical procurement areas around the country, with between 4 and 17 contracts awarded in each. In other words, these contracts would allow a limited number of firms the chance to represent new entrants to the criminal justice system.
    The dual contracting model was a carefully designed initiative from my department that aimed to meet concerns expressed by the legal profession about price competition.

    But over time, opposition to this model has been articulated with increasing force and passion by both solicitors and barristers.

    Many solicitors firms feared that the award of a limited number of “dual” contracts – with a restriction therefore on who could participate in the duty legal aid rota would lead to a less diverse and competitive market. Many barristers feared that the commercial model being designed by some solicitors’ firms would lead to a diminution in choice and potentially quality.

    And many also pointed out that a process of natural consolidation was taking place in the criminal legal aid market, as crime reduced and natural competition took place.

    These arguments weighed heavily with me, but the need to deliver reductions in expenditure rapidly, and thus force the pace of consolidation, was stronger.

    Since July 2015, however, two significant developments have occurred.

    Firstly, thanks to economies I have made elsewhere in my department HM Treasury have given me a settlement which allows me greater flexibility in the allocation of funds for legal aid.

    Secondly, it has become clear, following legal challenges mounted against our procurement process, that there are real problems in pressing ahead as initially proposed.

    My Department currently faces 99 separate legal challenges over the procurement process, which has required us, anyway, to stay the award of new contracts at least until April.

    In addition, a judicial review challenging the entire process has raised additional implementation challenges. Given how delicately balanced the arguments have always been, how important it is to ensure we maintain choice and quality in the provision of legal services, how supportive HMT have been of our broader reform agenda and how important it is to provide as much certainty as possible in the face of legal challenge, I have decided not to go ahead with the introduction of the dual contracting system. I have also decided to suspend, for a period of 12 months from 1 April 2016, the second fee cut which was introduced in July last year. As a consequence of these decisions the new fee structure linked to the new contracts will not be introduced. My decision is driven in part by the recognition that the litigation will be time consuming and costly for all parties, whatever the outcome. I do not want my department and the legal aid market to face months if not years of continuing uncertainty, and expensive litigation, while it is heard.

    The Legal Aid Agency will extend current contracts so as to ensure continuing service until replacement contracts come into force later this year. I will review progress on joint work with the profession to improve efficiency and quality at the beginning of 2017, before returning to any decisions on the second fee reduction and market consolidation before April 2017.

    By not pressing ahead with dual contracting, and suspending the fee cut, at this stage we will, I hope, make it easier in all circumstances for litigators to instruct the best advocates, enhancing the quality of representation in our courts.

    I will also bring forward proposals to ensure the Legal Aid Agency can better support high quality advocacy. Furthermore, I intend to appoint an advisory council of solicitors and barristers to help me explore how we can reduce unnecessary bureaucratic costs, eliminate waste and end continuing abuses within the current legal aid system. More details will follow in due course.

    We have an ambitious programme of reform to our courts planned for the rest of this Parliament. It is designed to make justice swifter and more certain. The reforms to our legal system, including taking more work out of courts, moving from a paper-based system to a digital platform, tackle unnecessary costs and reduce harmful delay. Criminal legal aid solicitors perform a vital role in our justice system and these reforms will need the support of all in the legal profession. But these reforms also provide an opportunity for the legal profession to offer better access to higher quality advice and representation to more individuals.

  • Sajid Javid – 2016 Statement on the Enterprise Bill

    CBI Conference

    Below is the text of the statement made by Sajid Javid, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, to the House of Commons on 2 February 2016.

    I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

    On my Christmas reading list was a book by Labour’s policy adviser, Andrew Fisher. I am not going to throw a copy at the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), because I am sure that she already has a copy of her own.

    In his book [he says]:

    “The sole focus of economic debate today seems to be about what leads to economic growth.”

    “Why”, he asks, “are we so obsessed with economic growth?”

    In the blurb, the shadow Chancellor called it the best thing he has read in years. On the Government Benches we know why sensible people are obsessed with economic growth: it means more jobs, it means prosperity, it lifts people out of poverty, it pays for our health service and our schools, and it allows us to invest in the future of our nation.

    We know that growth is not created by politicians or by civil servants. It is not delivered by Whitehall diktat, or by printing money, or by creating an ever-expanding public sector.

    Economic growth comes from one thing and one thing alone.

    Successful private businesses.

    The role of Government is to create an environment in which businesses can thrive. So, while Labour’s policy chief dreams of handing taxpayers’ money to trade unions so they can buy out companies, this Government are taking action to back British business.

    We’ve cut corporation tax and red tape.

    We’re devolving the power to cut business rates and have doubled small business rate relief.

    We’ve lifted nearly half a million employers out of National Insurance contributions.

    We’ve supported more than 30,000 companies with Start-Up Loans.

    And we’ve just launched a 5-year programme to help British businesses make the most of export opportunities around the world.

    All this work is paying off.

    In 2016, Britain is home to more private businesses than at any point in history.

    Almost 5 and a half million of them.

    Over the past 8 years more than 600,000 people have made the courageous decision to become self-employed, many in highly skilled professions.

    But I want to do more.

    Because, for my sins, I am obsessed with economic growth…

    That’s why I’m proud to have introduced the Bill that’s before the House today.

    The Enterprise Bill will strengthen the UK’s position as one of the best places in the world to start and grow a business.

    It will cut the red tape that too often strangles growth.

    It will support investment in the skills that British businesses need to be competitive now and in the future.

    And it will help deliver the economic growth and security that benefits every single one of us in this country.

    Deregulation and Sunday trading

    Let me turn to deregulation.

    According to the British Chambers of Commerce, regulations introduced by the last Labour Government cost British businesses almost £90 billion. No doubt this contributed to Labour’s great recession, destroying thousands and thousands of jobs across the country. That is a staggering burden for any employer, but it is a particular problem for Britain’s millions of small businesses, because when people are running their own company they do not just have one job: they have to be a manager; they have to be an accountant; they are in charge of human resources and procurement; they have to issue and chase invoices, source new suppliers and arrange marketing and advertising.

    All that on top of the day job.

    There are not enough hours in the day as it is.

    And the last thing you need is the government on your back, weighing you down with petty rules and regulations.

    One way in which we certainly do help businesses is through further deregulation. That is why in the last Parliament we scrapped £10 billion of Labour’s red tape. We have already committed to scrapping another £10 billion between now and 2020.

    But business owners have told us that the actions of regulators are just as important as the content of regulations.

    So this Bill will extend the deregulation target to include statutory regulators.

    And it will increase transparency, with a new annual reporting requirement for regulators subject to the growth duty and regulators’ code.

    It will also extend the hugely successful Primary Authority scheme to give more businesses access to reliable, consistent regulatory advice.

    This will save them money, and give them the confidence they need to invest and to grow.

    The Enterprise Bill will also end the “Whitehall knows best” approach to the regulation of Sunday trading.

    We are a One Nation government and we want to see the benefits of economic growth being felt in every corner of our country.

    But no two parts of our great nation are identical.

    The needs and wants of a small rural community in the South West may be very different to those of a bustling city in the North East.

    And the people living and working in those communities understand them far better than any MP or civil servant sitting in a comfy London office.

    So we will introduce amendments in this Bill to allow local authorities to decide whether to extend hours in their areas.

    Central government will not be dictating how to use this power.

    The decision will be entirely local, reflecting local preferences, shopping habits and economic conditions.

    If the people of Bromsgrove or Barking say they want to see longer Sunday opening hours, who are we here in Westminster to stand in their way?

    Small Business Commissioner

    Any of our friends in the press gallery who have spent time freelancing will be all too aware of the problem of late payment.

    I’ve heard of one writer who has said he hasn’t been paid for copy he filed two years ago.

    But the most shocking aspect is just how common this is.

    In my six years as MP for Bromsgrove I have been contacted by many dozens of local business owners who have been pushed to the brink by one thing…

    The failure of larger corporations to pay up on time.

    When it comes to late payment my department is leading by example.

    We pay more than 95% of invoices within 5 days, and more than 99% within 30 days.

    But many organisations are less scrupulous, including some in the public sector.

    The average British small business is owed almost £32,000 in overdue invoices.

    It’s a huge sum.

    For many, it can be the difference between success and failure.

    Between keeping going for another year and throwing in the towel.

    But it’s not easy for a small business or sole trader to challenge a larger firm.

    You might not be happy, but you need the contract.

    You can’t afford to bite the hand that feeds.

    It’s not right, it’s not fair, and this Bill will do something about it.

    We are establishing a Small Business Commissioner with a remit to handle complaints by small businesses about payment-related issues with larger businesses.

    The commissioner will also have the resources to give general advice and information to assist small businesses with supply relationships and direct them to mediation services.

    It’s not just late payment of invoices that’s a problem.

    As we’ve seen all too graphically with the recent flooding, it’s absolutely vital that insurance companies also pay out quickly.

    Doing so helps small businesses to help themselves, getting them back on their feet.

    Yet this doesn’t always happen.

    Unnecessary delays by insurers can spell the end for vulnerable small businesses, hitting employees, suppliers, and the wider community and economy.

    So this Bill will create a legal obligation on insurers to pay up within a reasonable timeframe.

    Apprenticeships

    Insurance can protect many of a business’s assets from floods, theft, or fire.

    But at any company, the most precious asset isn’t its bricks and mortar.

    It’s not stock in the warehouse.

    It’s not even money in the bank.

    It’s the skilled, dedicated workforce without which no business can succeed.

    Developing and growing our skills base is the key to unlocking increased productivity.

    It’s the key to raising living standards, and driving that all-important economic growth.

    That’s why the government has committed to 3 million new apprenticeships by 2020.

    We’ve also introduced a new apprenticeship levy on the very largest employers to help pay for them.

    The Enterprise Bill will build on this success.

    It will introduce apprenticeship targets for public sector bodies in England.

    It will protect the ‘apprenticeship’ brand.

    Unscrupulous providers will not be allowed to offer shoddy training, undermining businesses and letting down apprentices.

    And I am proud to say that the Bill will create an Institute for Apprenticeships.

    An independent employer-led body, the institute will regulate the quality of apprenticeships, and see that standards are driven by the needs of employers.

    As well as quality assurance and approval functions, the institute will also have an advisory role on funding allocations for each apprenticeship standard.

    And we will be introducing amendments to give employers genuine control of apprenticeship funding through digital accounts as part of the digital apprenticeship service.

    Together, these measures will make it easier than ever for young people to access vocational training.

    And, just as importantly, for businesses of all sizes to develop the skilled workforce they need to innovate, to compete and to grow in the years ahead.

    Business rates

    Of course it’s much easier to achieve that growth if the taxman isn’t hovering over you at every turn.

    I’ve already talked about how we’ve slashed corporation tax, ending years of punishing entrepreneurs for their success.

    But this isn’t the only tax issue facing Britain’s high streets.

    It’s often said that small business owners are ‘working for themselves’.

    But because of flaws in the business rates system, entrepreneurs can sometimes feel like they are working for their local authority.

    We have started to tackle this by capping business rate rises.

    And we know the appeals system also needs reform.

    So we are working with ratepayers to develop a modern business-focused approach to local taxation.

    This Bill will further reduce the burden on businesses by applying the government’s ‘tell us once’ policy to business rates.

    And it will put in place legislation to pave the way for better information-sharing between local government and the Valuation Office.

    Pubs

    Now, allow me to turn to pubs. I’m sure we all agree that local businesses are the heart of the communities they serve.

    And that nowhere is this truer than in the great British pub.

    I assume that’s one type of business that Hon and Rt Hon members of all parties will be familiar with.

    The Small Business Enterprise and Employment Act, passed in the previous Parliament, required the creation of a Pubs Code.

    When enacted, the Pubs Code regulations will make life a little fairer for more than 12,000 tied pub tenants across England and Wales.

    We have just completed a consultation on these regulations and will publish the final version in time for the code to be in place from the end of May.

    Many responses to the consultation raised an issue concerning the market rent-only option, or the so-called ‘MRO’.

    Specifically, they said that the eligibility of a tenant to choose MRO at the point of rent assessment should not be contingent on the rent being increased.

    Now, good government is all about listening and responding positively.

    Clearly this proposal would have had an effect we did not intend.

    So I’m happy to announce that we will be accepting the argument regarding MRO.

    Members in the ‘other place’ tabled amendments to the Enterprise Bill on this issue.

    Obviously we now accept their intent, and we will be tidying them up during the committee stage.

    Government-owned businesses and spending

    The Opposition have a renewed enthusiasm for seizing control of the means of production, distribution and exchange. I think it is fair to say that Conservative Members do not share that enthusiasm, but we are committed to delivering the best possible value for money from those assets where the taxpayer retains an interest.

    We are committed to delivering the best possible value for money from those assets where the taxpayer retains an interest.

    Last May the Chancellor announced plans for a new company, UK Government Investments Limited (UKGI), to better manage taxpayer stakes in businesses across the economy.

    This Bill contains a provision on UKGI, ensuring the necessary funding powers are in place so it can carry out its vital work.

    That will include overseeing the sale of government assets in a way that will benefit the taxpayer.

    And that will include the sale of the Green Investment Bank (GIB).

    Established in the last Parliament to address a failure in the market, the GIB has demonstrated to the wider world that investment in green projects makes good business sense.

    In fact that bank has proved so successful that it has outgrown the need to be financed by the taxpayer.

    Moving the bank into private ownership will give it access to much greater volume of capital, mobilising more investment and getting more green projects financed.

    The Enterprise Bill contains provisions that will ensure this move to the private sector can take place effectively and transparently.

    This will mean the GIB can continue to go from strength to strength delivering the ambitious green business plan it has.

    It is that expertise and that business plan that private investors will be buying into.

    As the name suggests, green investment is what the Green Investment Bank does.

    It is what has made the bank such a success.

    No sensible investor would look to change that.

    To address concerns raised in the ‘other place’, GIB will create a special share.

    This will ensure that its green mission is guarded by an independent party once the bank is sold.

    And the share will be put in place without legislation, to ensure we can move the bank to the private sector.

    Mandating this in legislation is entirely unnecessary, and unlikely to work.

    Finally, this Bill will bring the public sector into line with private sector best practice on exit payments.

    Too many public sector fat-cats are currently handed 6-figure pay-offs when they leave a job, often little more than a reward for failure.

    This is an insult to the hardworking taxpayers and business owners who finance them.

    The Enterprise Bill will end this practice.

    Conclusion

    Mr Speaker, when Napoleon called Britain a nation of shopkeepers he meant it as an insult.

    I see it as a badge of honour.

    I grew up above the family shop.

    I saw for myself how hard my parents worked, day and night, 7 days a week, to make their business a success.

    It takes a special kind of dedication to build something like that from scratch and keep it going for 30 years or more.

    And before becoming an MP I spent two decades at the other end of the business spectrum, working for some of the world’s biggest companies.

    So for as long as I can remember I’ve been surrounded by people who have created, they’ve managed and grown successful private businesses.

    And when they create businesses they create jobs.

    They create prosperity.

    They create opportunity.

    Businessmen and women are the heroes of Britain’s economic recovery.

    And whether they’re running an international corporation from Canary Wharf…

    …or running a one-woman start-up from a kitchen table…

    …they deserve our respect and they deserve our support.

    This Enterprise Bill gives them all that and more, and I commend it to the House.

  • Nick Gibb – 2016 Statement on Reformed GCSEs and A-Levels

    nickgibb

    Below is the text of the statement made by Nick Gibb, the Schools Minister, to the House of Commons on 4 February 2016.

    We are reforming GCSEs, AS and A levels to make sure that they give students the best possible preparation for further and higher education, and for employment. We want new GCSEs to set expectations which match those of the best education systems in the world, with rigorous assessment that provides a reliable measure of students’ achievement. The reforms are extensive and represent a new qualification gold standard.

    Schools are now teaching some of the new reformed GCSEs and A levels, and we have already published reformed subject content for those GCSEs and A levels to be taught from September 2016. Content for reformed GCSE subjects and for AS and A level subjects can be found on GOV.UK.

    The new GCSEs will be more academically demanding, and reformed AS and A levels will better prepare students for undergraduate study.

    Today I am publishing revised subject content for some of the GCSEs and AS and A levels that will be taught in schools from September 2017:

    GCSEs in ancient history, classical civilisation, electronics, film studies, media studies and statistics.

    AS and A levels in accounting, ancient history, archaeology, classical civilisation, electronics, film studies, law and media studies.

    Accounting AS and A level requires students to understand and to apply double entry accounting methods. A greater emphasis is placed on the use of accounting concepts and techniques in the analysis and evaluation of financial information. There is also a better balance between financial and management accounting.

    The new ancient history GCSE, and AS and A levels will require students to study events, individuals, societies, developments and issues drawn from the period 3000 BC to 500 AD. At GCSE students must study the history of at least 2 societies, at least 1 of which must be Roman or Greek. At A level students must study the history of both ancient Rome and ancient Greece. At GCSE students will have to undertake 1 period study covering at least 50 years, 1 longer period study covering at least 150 years, and 2 depth studies focusing on shorter time spans. At A level students will undertake 2 period studies of at least 75 years and 2 depth studies.

    The new archaeology AS and A levels will require students to study 2 archaeological contexts in depth (1 at AS) and what the archaeological evidence can tells us about that society’s social structure, belief system, art and technology. Through 2 breadth studies (1 at AS) students will also study at least 3 different societies in relation to specific issues such as religion and ritual, or economics and material culture.

    The new classical civilisation GCSE, AS and A levels will require students to study both Roman and Greek civilisation (and their surrounding worlds). All students will now study literature (at least 30% of the GCSE and A level) and visual/material culture (at least 20% of the GCSE and 15% of the A level), and at A level students will also study classical thought. Students will develop their understanding of the classical world through study of the social, historical, and cultural context of the literature and sources selected.

    The new electronics GCSE increases the demand of the subject by increasing the breadth and depth of content students are required to study. The new electronics AS and A levels have improved depth and breadth with new topics such as the principles of semiconductors added. The GCSE, AS and A level content also includes strengthened mathematical requirements and a detailed list of equations that students will be required to know and understand.

    The film studies GCSE, AS and A levels will require students to study critically recognised, culturally and historically significant films. At GCSE and AS students will study at least 6 films including at least 1 British, 1 non-English language and 1 independent film and at least 1 historical film made before 1961. A level students will study at least 12 films from at least 3 continents covering pre 1930 to present day, including documentary, experimental and silent film. Overall the content emphasises a more academic approach with greater emphasis on a critical and contextual understanding of film, and at A level of film theory.

    The new law AS and A level content will ensure students study a greater number of areas of substantive law. At AS, 1 area of public law and 1 area of private law; and at A level at least 3 areas of law. Students also need to study the nature of law including links to moral concepts, how law interacts with society, and the English legal system.

    The new media studies GCSE, AS and A levels will ensure that students have an understanding of the main theoretical concepts underpinning the subject. Students will study media language, representation, media industries, and audiences, and will apply all 4 of these to at least 1 audio visual, 1 print and 1 online media form. Overall, students will study 9 forms of media and all products studied must be culturally, socially and historically significant. The AS and A level also require students to study a wide range of specified theories and theorists.

    The new and more demanding statistics GCSE requires students to study the statistical enquiry cycle and to perform key statistical calculations such as interpercentile range and standard deviation. Students will be required to know and use fundamental formulae, for example to determine Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. New content has been added, such as using collected data and calculated probabilities to determine and interpret risk, and interpreting the characteristics of a binomial distribution.

  • Justine Greening – 2016 Statement on Syria

    justinegreening

    Below is the text of the statement made by Justine Greening, the Secretary of State for International Development, to the House of Commons on 8 February 2016.

    With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement updating the House on the recent Syria Conference, which the UK co-hosted with Kuwait, Norway, Germany and the United Nations last Thursday.

    For nearly five years the Syrian people have suffered unimaginable horrors at the hands of the Assad regime and, more recently, Daesh.

    Inside Syria there are 13.5 million people in desperate need and a further 4.6 million people have become refugees.

    As we have seen over the past 72 hours alone the impact of this crisis on the people of the region is terrible and profound.

    I was in Lebanon and Jordan last month and spoke to refugees, some of whom are now facing their fifth winter spent under a tent, and their stories are similar. When they left their homes, they thought they’d be back in weeks or perhaps months at most.

    It’s turned out to be years, with no end to in sight.

    UK response

    Syria is now not only the world’s biggest and most urgent humanitarian crisis. Its far-reaching consequences are being felt across Europe and touching our lives here in Britain.

    More than 1 million refugees and migrants risked their lives crossing the Mediterranean last year. Of these around half were fleeing from the bloodbath in Syria.

    Mr Speaker, since the fighting began, Britain has been at the forefront of the humanitarian response to the Syria conflict.

    Aid from the UK is helping to provide food for people inside Syria every month, as well as clean water and sanitation for hundreds of thousands of refugees across the region.

    Our work on the Syria crisis gives people in the region hope for a better future and is also firmly in Britain’s national interest. Without British aid, hundreds of thousands more refugees could feel they have no alternative but to risk their lives by seeking to get to Europe.

    But more was needed.

    The UN Syria appeals for the whole of last year ended up only 54% funded – other countries needed to follow the UK’s lead and step up to the plate.

    That’s why the UK announced we would co-host an international conference in London on behalf of Syria and the region. This would build on three successful conferences held in Kuwait in previous years.

    Supporting Syria & the Region

    Mr Speaker, on Thursday last week, we brought together over 60 countries and organisations including 33 heads of state and Governments.

    The stage was set for the international community to deliver real and lasting change for all the people affected by this crisis – but in the end it would all come down to choices.

    Could we pledge the record-breaking billions needed – going much further than previous conferences? And could we commit to going beyond people’s basic needs and deliver viable, long-term solutions on jobs and education for Syria’s refugees and the countries supporting them.

    At the London Conference the world made the right choices to do all of those things – countries, donors and businesses all stepped up and raised new funds for this crisis to the amount of over $11billion (£7.7 bn). This included $5.8bn (£4 bn) for 2016 and another $5.4billion (£3.6 bn) for 2017-2020.

    This was the largest ever amount committed in response to a humanitarian crisis in a single day. It means more has been raised in the first five weeks of this year for the Syria crisis than in the whole of 2015.

    The UK, once again, played our part. We announced that we would be doubling our commitment – increasing our total pledge to Syria and the region to over £2.3 billion.

    Going beyond people’s basic needs, at the London Conference, the world said there must be no lost generation of Syrian children, pledging to deliver education to children inside Syria and education to at least 1 million refugee and host community children, in the region outside Syria, who are out of school.

    This is an essential investment not only in these children, but in Syria’s future. It also gives those countries generously hosting refugees temporarily the investment in their education systems that will benefit them for the longer term.

    The London Conference also made a critical choice on supporting jobs for refugees and economic growth in the countries hosting them.

    We hope historic commitments with Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan will create at least 1 million jobs in countries neighbouring Syria, so that refugees have a livelihood close to home. This will also create jobs for local people and leave a legacy of economic growth.

    By making these choices, we’re investing in what is, overwhelmingly, the first choice of Syrian refugees: to stay in region and closer to their home country and their families still in it. And if we can give Syrians hope for a better future where they are, they are less likely to feel they have no other choice left but to make perilous journeys to Europe.

    Mr Speaker, I’d like to thank all of those civil servants from my own department, the Cabinet Office, the Foreign Office, and BIS, who worked tirelessly as a team to help deliver such a such a successful and vital conference.

    It’s not often that civil servants get the thanks that I believe they deserve, but on this occasion I’d wanted to put that on record.

    The political process

    Mr Speaker, the world has offered an alternative vision of hope to all those affected by this crisis but only peace will give Syrian people their future back.

    The establishment of the International Syria Support Group at the end of 2015 was an important step on the path to finding a political settlement to the conflict. The Syrian opposition has come together to form the Higher Negotiations Committee to engage in negotiations on political transition with the regime and the UN launched proximity talks between the Syrian parties in January.

    The UN Special Envoy for Syria took the decision to pause these talks following an increase in airstrikes and violence by the Assad Regime, backed by Russia.

    The UK continues to call on all sides to take steps to create the conditions for peace negotiations to continue. In particular Russia must use its influence over the regime to put a stop to indiscriminate attacks and the unacceptable violations of international law.

    Across Syria, Assad and other parties to the conflict are willfully impeding humanitarian access on a day-by-day basis. It is a brutal, unacceptable and illegal action to use starvation as a weapon of war.

    In London world leaders demanded an end to these abuses, including the illegal use of siege and obstruction of humanitarian aid.

    Our London Conference raised the resourcing for life-saving humanitarian support. It must be allowed to reach those in need as a result of the Syria conflict, irrespective of where they are.

    The campaign against Daesh

    I also want to take this opportunity to provide an update on the campaign against Daesh in Iraq and in Syria.

    Since my Right Honourable Friend the Foreign Secretary last updated the House on the campaign against Daesh in Syria and Iraq, the Global Coalition, working with partner forces, has put further pressure on Daesh.

    Iraqi forces, with Coalition support, have retaken large portions of Ramadi. In Syria, the Coalition has supported the capture of the Tishreen Dam and surrounding villages as well as areas south of al-Hawl.

    The UK is playing our part. As of 5th February, RAF Typhoon, Tornado and Reaper aircraft have flown over 2,000 combat missions and carried out more than 585 successful strikes across Syria and Iraq.

    We are also leading efforts to sanction those trading with or supporting Daesh. My Right Honourable Friend the Prime Minister gained agreement at the European Council in December on asset freezes and other restrictive measures.

    Conclusion

    Mr Speaker, in conclusion since day one of this crisis the UK has led the way in funding and shaping the international response. We have evolved our response as this incredibly complex crisis itself has evolved.

    There will be no end to the suffering until a political solution can be found.

    The Syria Conference, co hosted by the UK and held here in London, was a pivotal moment to at least respond to help those people affected and those countries affected. We seized the chance to offer the Syrian people and their children hope for a better future.

    The UK will of course now be at the heart of making that ambition a reality and keeping the international community’s promise to the Syrian people.

    This is the right thing to do on behalf of those suffering and, fundamentally, it is also the right thing to do for Britain too and I commend this statement to the House.

  • Greg Clark – 2016 Speech on Local Government Finance

    gregclark

    Below is the text of the statement made by Greg Clark, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, in the House of Commons on 8 February 2016.

    Mr Speaker,

    I am pleased to report to the House my response to the consultation on the provisional local government financial settlement for the next financial year.

    I have considered all 278 responses to the consultation; my ministers and I have met with local government leaders of all types of authority, from all parts of the country.

    I have listened carefully to each of them.

    I am grateful to everyone who has taken the trouble to make such suggestions.

    The provisional settlement contained a number of important innovations.

    Firstly, although the statutory settlement is for 2016 to 2017, I set out indicative figures to allow councils to apply for a 4 year budget, extending to the end of the Parliament. Such a change permits councils to plan with greater certainty.

    This offer was widely appreciated in the consultation; this is not surprising, since it has been a key local government request for years.

    I want to give councils the time to consider this offer, and formulate ways to translate this greater certainty into efficiency savings. I will therefore give councils until Friday 14 October to respond to the offer – although many have done so positively, already.

    Secondly, in the provisional settlement I responded to the clear call from all tiers of local government to recognise the important priority – and growing costs – of caring for our elderly population.

    In advance of the Spending Review, the Local Government Association and the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services had written to me requesting an additional £2.9 billion a year be available by 2019 to 2020.

    Through a dedicated social care precept of 2% a year – equivalent to £23 per year on an average Band D home, and a Better Care Fund of £1.5 billion a year by 2019 to 2020 to address pressures on care.

    The provisional settlement made up to £3.5 billion available by 2019 to 2020.

    Thirdly, recognising that council services in rural areas face extra costs, I proposed in the provisional settlement that the Rural Services Delivery Grant should be increased from £15.5 million this year to £20 million in 2016 to 2017 – the year of this settlement – and to £65 million in 2019 to 2020.

    Councils and colleagues who represent rural areas welcomed this, but some asked that the gap between rural and urban councils, in terms of central government grant, should not widen, especially in the year ahead for which this statutory settlement is concerned.

    Fourthly, this year’s provisional settlement marked the turning point from our over-centralised past.

    At the start of the 2010 Parliament, almost 80% of council expenditure was financed by central government grant; by next year Revenue Support Grant will account for only 16% of spending power; by 2019 to 2020 only 5%.

    Ultimately, Revenue Support Grant will disappear altogether, as we move to 100% business rates retention.

    Local financing – through Council Tax and business rates – rather than central government grant, has been a big objective of councils for decades.

    However, some authorities argued for transitional help in the first 2 years, when the central government grant declines most sharply; they argued that other local resources would not have had time to build up fully.

    So, much in the provisional settlement was welcomed, but specific points were made about:

    the sharpness of changes in government grant in the early years of this Parliament
    concerns about the costs of service delivery in rural areas
    Another very important point was made. Many councils felt that too much time has passed since the last substantial revision of the formula which assesses a council’s needs, and the costs it can be expected to incur in delivering services.

    These responses to the consultation seem to me reasonable and ought to be accommodated if at all possible.

    Everyone will appreciate that the need to reduce the budget deficit means that meeting these recommendations is extraordinarily difficult.

    I am pleased to be able to meet all of the most significant of them.

    I can confirm that every council will have, for the financial year ahead, at least the resources allocated by the provisional settlement.

    I have agreed to the responses to the consultation which recommended additional funding to ease the pace of reductions during the most difficult first 2 years of the settlement for councils with the sharpest reductions in Revenue Support Grant.

    I will make additional resources available in the form of a transitional grant, as proposed in their responses to the consultation by colleagues in local government. The grant will be worth £150 million a year, paid over the first 2 years.

    On the needs formula itself, it is nearly 10 years since the current formula was last looked at thoroughly.

    There is good reason to believe that the demographic pressures affecting particular areas – such as the growth in the elderly population – have affected different areas in different ways, as has the cost of providing services.

    So I can announce that we will conduct a review of what the needs assessment formula should be in a world in which all local government spending is funded by local resources not central grant, and use it to determine the transition to 100% business rates retention.

    Pending that review, I recognise the particular costs of providing services in sparse rural areas.

    So I propose to increase by more than fivefold the Rural Services Delivery Grant from £15.5 million this year to £80.5 million in 2016 to 2017.

    With an extra £32.7 million available to rural councils through the transitional grant I have described, this is £93.2 million of increased funding compared to the provisional settlement available to rural areas.

    Significantly, this proposal ensures no deterioration in government funding of rural areas compared to urban areas for the year of this statutory settlement.

    I have also, at the request of rural councils, helped the most economical authorities by allowing them to charge a de minimis £5 more a year in Council Tax without triggering a referendum.

    I will also consult on allowing well-performing planning departments to increase their fees in line with inflation at the most, providing that the revenue reduces the cross subsidy that the planning function currently gets from Council Tax payers.

    A final point from the consultation: although the figures for future years are indicative, a small number of councils were concerned that, as their Revenue Support Grant declined, they would have to make a contribution to other councils in 2017 to 2018 or 2018 to 2019.

    I can confirm that no council will have to make such a payment.

    Mr Speaker, these are important times for local government. The devolution of power and resources from Whitehall is gathering momentum.

    Yet I am aware that there is serious work for councils to do to provide excellent services to residents – at the lowest cost possible – over the years ahead.

    I acknowledge the important role of councils which deliver the services on which all our constituents depend.

    I am grateful for all of their contributions.

    My response to the consultation has responded positively to sensible recommendations, in as fair a manner as possible, while holding firm to our commitment to free our constituents from the dangers inherent in the deficit.

    I commend this statement to the House.