UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2018

  • Amanda Spielman – 2018 Speech to Annual Apprenticeships Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Amanda Spielman, the Chief Inspector of OFSTED, to the Annual Apprenticeships Conference on 22 March 2018.

    Thank you for inviting me to speak to you today.

    Introduction

    This is a very important conference, at a critical time for the development of apprenticeship provision. It is gratifying to see apprenticeships on the news agenda regularly: whether as mentions in Prime Minister’s speeches or the subject of thoughtful newspaper columns from journalists you wouldn’t normally expect to care. Apprenticeships are, quite rightly, recognised as a vital component of our education and skills sector. Less gratifying, perhaps, is that too much of this recognition is about the system, not yet, working as it should.

    That’s why I am so pleased to be here today. I see it as essential that providers, policy makers and employers can have open and frank discussions about what works and what needs to be improved.

    It is almost a year now since the introduction of the apprenticeship levy–one of the most significant changes to apprenticeship funding that we have ever seen. Alongside the slow but inexorable move from apprenticeship frameworks to apprenticeship standards, providers and employers are working to secure the training and support that businesses need to develop a well-trained and productive workforce.

    And at Ofsted, we carry on supporting the reform programme. Indeed we’re putting our money where our mouth is, with our own award-winning band of 29 business administration apprentices.

    Challenges

    We know that it has been a challenging year for providers. The levy has required a different relationship with employers. There have been challenges in applying for, and receiving, non-levy allocations. There have also been problems getting on the Register of apprenticeship training providers. And, in too many instances, in finding a replacement standard for a framework–particularly at levels two and three.

    I suspect that the fall in apprenticeship starts is due to a combination of these factors. Nevertheless, any barriers that prevent employers taking on an apprentice, or standing in the way of good providers delivering high quality training, must concern us all.

    The first quarter of 2017 to 2018 saw almost 50,000 fewer starts than the same quarter in 2016 to 2017. There is no denying, that the low number of starts continues to be a concern, which is why I was heartened to see Anne Milton’s recent confidence that numbers will pick up in the new academic year. We all have to hope that this is true.

    It is not just about overall volumes though. We are also experiencing some unintended consequences from the emerging trend towards higher-level apprenticeships. Of course, I understand, indeed applaud, more apprenticeships at higher levels, especially when there is clear progression in an occupation, from level 2 through to degree level. However, around 40% of the standards approved or in-development are at higher and degree levels, while only 7% of apprentices work at these levels.

    This shift may be good for the economy in the long run, but the reduced number of apprenticeships at levels two and three is another destabilising factor in the system. To put it more brutally, there is a risk that young people, fresh from school, get squeezed out of apprenticeship routes because employers prioritise higher level programmes. This makes it more difficult for young people looking for entry-level employment straight from GCSEs.

    In this context, I am pleased to see that the Institute for Apprenticeships is upping the rate at which it develops and approves apprenticeship standards. Up till now, this process really has been too slow. I am also pleased that there is now more flexibility to include qualifications within apprenticeship standards. I see these positive developments as a sign that the institute is listening to the concerns expressed by employers and training providers. However, I would still like to see a greater focus on achieving a set of standards that really reflect the balance of training and development needs of the economy.

    Ofsted’s role

    With all the change, and uncertainty in the system, I am sure you want reassurance about Ofsted’s agility and ability to adapt inspection to fit the new reality.

    We know the challenges you face. We are working hard with you to make sure that inspection takes account of the changing landscape. But, let me be absolutely clear, we will not be excusing poor performance. Regardless of the changes that we are all dealing with: apprentices deserve high quality training at, and away from, work.

    Pilot inspection findings

    We have already carried out a number of pilot inspections to make sure that we are looking at the right things in this new environment. And we found a need for inspectors to focus on the bottom line, not the money, but what knowledge, skills and behaviours apprentices actually develop and acquire.

    Now I hope many of you will know that one of my big interests as Chief Inspector is looking at the substance of education. By this, I mean the entirety of what is actually learnt, whether at school, college or on an apprenticeship.

    As I said at the launch of my first Annual Report, our early research has shown that, all too often, the knowledge that we want young people to acquire is lost in the dash for grades and stickers.

    These pilot inspections of apprenticeship providers have revealed that many of the concerns we have uncovered at a school level are also evident in apprenticeships.

    We are seeing an over-emphasis on simply ticking the box to show that the next part of the qualification has been achieved. There is not enough focus on the actual skills, knowledge and behaviours learned.

    Indeed, most providers in our pilots found it difficult to demonstrate what actual progress their apprentices were really making. As providers, you need to consider how you make sure that apprentices are making progress. This isn’t for inspectors, not for Ofsted, but for apprentices’ and employers’ benefit. It is also to inform the training and development programme that apprentices need to be following to pass end-point assessments.

    The findings from our pilot inspections are informing changes to the inspection handbook. We will carry on iterating and adapting these as the systems develop.

    Inspections of apprenticeships

    More broadly, we are now developing our new education inspection framework for September 2019. How we inspect and report on apprenticeships are important considerations in our thinking and planning for this new framework. What we learn on inspections now, and what we learn from our work with organisations like AELP, the British Chambers of Commerce and the CBI, will inform our development. And of course, we will consult on our proposals.

    But the changes in the system aren’t just about new frameworks and new ways of inspecting. I know that many of you have concerns about the number of untested providers entering the market and the effect this could have on quality. Well, rest assured, we are not standing idly by and waiting for new providers to fail. We are doing all that we can to make sure that no apprentice’s future opportunity is ruined by poor provision. It is essential that poor quality provision is spotted and tackled quickly, so that it doesn’t damage an individual’s prospects or the overall apprenticeship brand.

    We have already begun a series of early monitoring visits to assess the quality of these new providers. Some of you will have heard about our first monitoring visits, which hit the headlines, at least in the trade press, last week. There is no hiding the fact that what we found at Key6 Group was worrying. And I’m very pleased that there has been a prompt reaction by ESFA [Education and Skills Funding Agency].

    But, it is important that we don’t over-interpret this one result as a judgement on all new providers coming on stream with the levy. We are doing more monitoring visits of this type. And I very much hope that positive results will significantly outnumber the disappointments.

    Besides these monitoring visits to new providers, we have increased our inspection focus on subcontractors, many of whom are providing apprenticeship training. We are doing this in two ways. Firstly, as part of our standard inspections, where providers have a significant proportion of subcontracted provision, we are increasing our focus on this part. This will mean that teams can evaluate and report, in more detail, on the quality of education and training in individual subcontractors.

    In addition, we are making monitoring visits to a number of directly-funded providers to look specifically at subcontracted provision. This way, we can make sure that apprentices are getting the best possible training. We expect the first of these to be published in the next couple of weeks.

    Our message here is simple. As the direct contract holder, you are responsible for your learners. If you subcontract, for whatever reason, you are still responsible for making sure your apprentice gets high quality training. If you are sitting back and collecting the money, without taking proper responsibility for quality, you are failing your apprentices. We are determined to expose this in the system.

    And, just in case, any of you were being kind enough to worry about us, and whether Ofsted has the resources to deliver this increased volume of inspection, please don’t worry: we are being equally robust in our approach to government for funding. Indeed the DfE has already acknowledged that it needs to fund us properly for this work.

    Standards

    With the experience of Learndirect still prominent in all of our minds, I have no doubt that you are all acutely aware of the risks when large sums of money flow into a system.

    It is sobering, in that respect, to look at recent inspection outcomes. Between September 2017 and February 2018, we made a judgement on the apprenticeship provision at 55 providers. We found three-fifths of them to be good or outstanding, with 16 requiring improvement. Six were inadequate. This means that 4 in 10 providers did not offer high quality training for apprentices. There is no way of dressing this up – it is not good enough.

    But looking at it another way, the good and outstanding providers were generally the larger ones, so 33,000 apprentices were in good or outstanding provision – almost 80% of the overall places. And this is a lot higher than the provision looked at in the previous year. Then, only 60% of apprentices were being trained in providers of the same quality, we have excluded Learndirect from those figures. To be clear, it is not a perfect year-on-year comparison because inspection priorities and scheduling decisions affect which providers are selected for inspection. However, I do believe the figures are cause for optimism about quality in the sector.

    So, while we rightly shine a light on concerns in the system, and I do have to talk about where things are going wrong. I also believe it is important to celebrate where things are going well. We see outstanding apprenticeship providers like National Grid and Craven College and Fareham College. There we see leaders and managers who work very closely with local employers to make sure that apprenticeships meet the needs of the local economy. They expect the best of their apprentices who show exemplary skills, getting the qualifications and competencies they need.

    And whether it’s TTE Training with 160 engineering apprentices on various pathways, Busy Bees Nurseries and its range of early years apprenticeships or CITB supporting 10,000 apprentices in the construction industry–these very different types of outstanding provider are similar in one thing: the determination to give their apprentices top-notch training and to set them on a path to a successful and fulfilling career.

    Conclusion

    So, to conclude, we cannot escape the fact that this is a testing time for apprenticeships, a period of significant change that has inevitably brought a level of uncertainty alongside great opportunity.

    There is still a way to go before we can confidently declare the new approach a success, but it is possible to see it beginning to take shape.

    My inspectors are seeing some excellent provision around the country, but not enough of it and we need to see more. The sector is adapting confidently to change, but we need to make sure that the pace doesn’t slacken.

    Ofsted’s overarching goal, as set out in our corporate strategy, is to be a force for improvement in all the sectors we inspect and regulate. This is as relevant for apprenticeship provision as it is for schools or child protection. Through our work, we will provide the evidence of what is working and the early warning of where things are going wrong. For a system in the midst of change, this could not be more vital.

    After all, success of this ambitious apprenticeship programme is essential, not only to the needs of our wider economy, but for the young people and adult learners so desperate for the right opportunity to prosper.

    I know all of you in this room are working hard to ensure this success. I am delighted to be joining all the winners of the inaugural AAC apprenticeship awards at tonight’s ceremony in recognition of that commitment.

    Thank you.

  • Nick Gibb – 2018 Speech to the International Conference for the Teaching Profession

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nick Gibb, the Minister of State for School Standards, to the International Conference for the Teaching Profession on 22 March 2018.

    It is a pleasure to be here in Lisbon at the ISTP 2018, a year on from the successful and fruitful ISTP 2017 in Edinburgh co-hosted by the United Kingdom and Scottish Governments.

    Last year, we agreed to promote greater equity through commitments to ensure that:

    Every pupil has the opportunity to achieve their potential, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds;

    We raise the status of the teaching profession; and

    Teaching is firmly grounded in high quality research.

    Over the course of the last year, England has continued to make strides in these important areas.

    In 2010, the government introduced the English Baccalaureate – known as the EBacc. This is a school performance measure rather than a qualification. It is designed to increase the number of pupils taking core academic GCSEs – English, maths, sciences, a language and either history or geography. These GCSEs provide pupils with the broad academic grounding up to the age of 16 that they need to be successful, whatever route they choose to pursue post-16.

    Many countries represented here today will consider it axiomatic that pupils study these subjects to at least the age of 16. But in England in 2010, only 1 in 5 pupils were taking this combination of academic GCSEs. That figure is now almost 2 in 5. The government is ambitious for this figure to rise further – to 90% of year 10 pupils studying the EBacc by 2025.

    Already, there are promising signs. This year, we saw the highest proportion of disadvantaged pupils, those who receive free school meals, pupils with special educational needs and pupils with English as an additional language taking these core academic GCSEs.

    Not only this, results show that the attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils and their more affluent peers has shrunk at primary and secondary school. Since 2011, the attainment gap at age 11 has decreased by 10.5%. Whilst at 16, it has shrunk by 10% since 2011.

    The government is raising standards for all pupils, but the tide is rising fastest for those who need it most.

    Academies and free schools – which now make up over 70% of secondary schools and over 25% of primary schools – operate independently of local government.

    Free schools are amongst some of the highest performing schools in the country and pupils in free schools made more progress, on average, than pupils in other types of school in 2017.

    Free schools are amongst some of the highest performing schools in the country and pupils in free schools made more progress, on average, than pupils in other types of free schools in 2017.

    Dixons Trinity Academy – a free school based in Bradford – achieved extraordinary results with its first set of GCSEs, placing it in the 10 top schools in England for the progress achieved by its pupils. Strikingly, the progress score for disadvantaged pupils was higher than for that of their more affluent peers.

    But the success of the free school and academy movement is not confined to individual schools. The growth of multi-academy trusts has seen excellence spread across schools. Multi-academy trusts are combinations of academies, from 2 or 3, to as many as 50 or 60 academies, all reporting to one group of independent trustees.

    Made up of a combination of schools that have been taken out of local authority control because of that poor performance, which we call sponsored academies; and high performing schools that have voluntarily opted out of local authority control, which we call converter academies; and newly created academies, which we call free schools. These high performing multi-academy trusts demonstrate what it is possible to achieve when power is placed in the hands of high-performing, competitive trusts.

    Irrespective of the history of the schools they run, these multi-academy trusts have generated excellent academic results for the pupils they serve, as they compete with other multi-academy trusts in terms of their reputation for academic rigour.

    So, the clear advantage of taking schools away from local authority control, is that for the first time, schools are now accountable to their trustees rather than to bureaucracies and there is genuine competition between groups of schools which forces them to respond to the concerns of parents for higher standards of behaviour and stronger academic results.

    Thanks to a forensic approach to curriculum design and the implementation of evidence-based approaches to managing poor behaviour, the Inspiration Trust and the Harris Federation – two of the best performing multi-academy trusts – have conclusively demonstrated that all pupils can achieve – whether they live in coastal Norfolk or inner-city London.

    They demonstrate that neither the socio-economic context of pupils nor the historic reputation of a school need be a barrier to excellence. And – just as importantly – they provide a model for ensuring that all children succeed. As with Dixons Trinity, schools in these leading multi academy chains are characterised by knowledge-rich curricula, high behavioural expectations and evidence-based teacher-led instruction.

    As well as providing the freedom and autonomy to leading free schools and multi-academy trusts, the government is determined to support and empower teachers to raise standards in their schools. The recently closed consultation on how to improve career support and progression for teachers was designed in tandem with the profession. We will respond to the proposals outlined in that consultation – including how we can take forward plans for an Early Career Content Framework – later in the spring. And we will continue to work closely with teachers and teacher representatives on these proposals.

    Another key strand of the government’s work to support and empower teachers is the government’s priority of reducing teacher workload. Teachers should be freed from spending hours on marking and entering progress-data, particularly when evidence suggests these do not improve pupil outcomes.

    And headteachers need the security of knowing that their autonomy won’t be compromised by rogue school inspectors. That is why the government – in tandem with Ofsted, the schools inspectorate – has been clear on what inspectors will, and will not, ask when they visit schools.

    We are also committed to clarifying the roles of different actors within the system, including what we call Regional Schools Commissioners, the 8 regional offices of the Department for Education. In order to provide teachers and headteachers with the opportunity to innovate and raise standards, they need to know that the accountability system within which they work is fair, transparent and – when needs be – supportive rather than punitive.

    The government has played an active role in raising standards in schools and in empowering and supporting teachers. But, it is by standing back and promoting teacher voices, that the government has helped to make the most progress in promoting evidence-based teaching.

    There is still a long way to go in empowering all teachers with the knowledge they need. But the success of ResearchED – a series of teacher-led research conferences founded by the teacher Tom Bennett now spanning 4 continents – shows teachers’ appetite for research. Tom Bennett wrote recently about the movement of teachers who are dedicating their Saturday’s to discussing and sharing research with one another. Writing powerfully and metaphorically he penned the following:

    My ambition is that we start to drive this voluntary professional development, which then cascades back into schools and starts conversations that starts sparks in classrooms that catch fire and burn down dogma. That initial teacher training makes evidence its foundation (where it does not do so already), platforming the best of what we know rather than perpetuating the best of what we prefer. For new teachers to be given skills to discern good evidence from bad. For that to bleed eventually into leadership and from there into the structures that govern us.

    But time and again, teachers run up against entrenched views held by those in positions of authority. For example, late last year, an academic from Durham University called the government’s promotion of systematic synthetic phonics ‘seriously flawed’; flying in the face of decades of evidence from around the world that phonics is the most effective method for teaching children to read. He went on to claim that drawing on scientific evidence to inform policy making in science “can be especially dangerous”.

    Thankfully, the results from the PIRLS international reading tests came out within a month of these comments. This assessment of 9 and 10 year olds’ reading comprehension showed that England had risen from joint 10th place in 2011 to joint 8th place in 2016, thanks to a statistically significant rise in our average score. And low-attaining pupils had gained most showing again that the government is raising standards for all, but the tide is rising quickest for those who need it most.

    These results were a vindication of the government’s evidence-based insistence on the use of systematic synthetic phonics in teaching children to read.

    Too often in education, academics use their positions of authority to ignore the evidence and promote their own beliefs. For too long, education has suffered from putting belief over evidence.

    As policy makers, if we are to empower teachers to pursue evidence-based approaches, we must confront the evidence as we find it, not as we would wish it to be.

    So, when we come to discuss so-called ‘pedagogies of the future’, I hope that we will treat unfounded claims sceptically. Instead, we should discuss the data from PISA 2015, which showed that in all but three countries, higher levels of teacher-directed instruction led to significantly higher science results. And we should interrogate the data showing that in the majority of countries, pupils reporting higher levels of enquiry-based instruction achieved significantly worse results.

    As we would expect of teachers, data and evidence should be the starting point for our conversation, not something to fit with our pre-existing conceptions.

    But we must not ignore these conceptions. These too must be interrogated and the nuance explored. The caricature of teacher-led instruction as turgid and dull must be dispelled. Rosenshine’s Principles of Instruction make clear that teacher-led instruction should be interactive. These evidence-based principles suggest that teachers, amongst other things:

    ask a large number of questions and check pupil responses; and
    provide models and worked examples.

    And the evidence from PISA 2015 supports these findings. According to the data, the most successful science classrooms were those where teachers explained scientific ideas, discussed pupil responses to questions and clearly demonstrated an idea.

    Rosenshine’s principles, which draw heavily on cognitive science, are backed up by the PISA 2015 data.

    Reflecting on the relationship between researchers and teachers in the conclusion to his 2002 essay Classroom Research and Cargo Cults, E. D. Hirsch – the educationalist who has most influenced my thinking – stressed the need for this relationship to evolve.

    Drawing on the comments of a colleague, he laid out his vision for cognitive science research and teaching practice to mirror the relationship between biochemistry and medical science.

    In England, it is clear that schools are beginning to take this ambition to heart. The Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL), whose General Secretary Carl Ward is here today, and PTE, Parents and Teachers for Excellence, a pressure group calling for more subject knowledge in the curriculum – and whose CEO Mark Lehain is also here – together they organised a pamphlet to support teachers to adopt a knowledge-rich curriculum.

    In this pamphlet, titled The Question of Knowledge, Luke Sparkes – headteacher of Dixons Trinity Academy – explained how that school uses cognitive science to inform their curriculum planning:

    A knowledge-based curriculum is about harnessing the power of cognitive science, identifying each marginal gain and acting upon it; having the humility to keep refining schemes of work, long term plans and generating better assessments.

    Examples such as this show that Tom Bennett is right; teachers demanding better evidence is slowly changing education.

    Thank you.

  • Sajid Javid – 2018 Update on the Grenfell Tragedy

    Below is the text of the statement made by Sajid Javid, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, in the House of Commons on 22 March 2018.

    With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement to update the House on support for those affected by the Grenfell tragedy and on the second report from the independent recovery taskforce. This report will be published in full on gov.uk and placed in the Library of the House.

    Nine months on, the shocking and terrible events of 14 June continue to cast a long shadow. I know that it cannot have been easy for the survivors and the bereaved to hear last week about the failure of a fire door from the tower, which was tested as part of the Metropolitan Police Service’s investigation. I am confident that the police and the public inquiry will, in time, provide answers. But, having met survivors and heard their stories, I know that that does not take away from the pain and loss being suffered now by those left behind. Their welfare remains our highest priority, and we see that through our continued work supporting the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and through the valuable work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd), the Minister responsible for the Grenfell victims. We are ensuring that the voices and concerns are heard right across Government. That work is supported by my Department and, more widely, by the NHS, by local government and by the voluntary sector.

    I give my thanks to everyone who has gone that extra mile to be there for a community that has gone through so much. I also thank the taskforce for its work in helping us to ensure that, after the slow and confused initial response to the disaster, the people of North Kensington are receiving better support from RBKC to help them to recover and to rebuild their lives.

    I was clear when I reflected on the taskforce’s first report in November that, while progress was being made, I expected to see swift, effective action to address all the issues that were highlighted, particularly the slow pace of delivery and the need for greater empathy and emotional intelligence—two things that are vital if RBKC is to regain the trust of the people that it serves.

    My Department has been working closely with RBKC throughout to provide the support and challenge necessary to drive this work. I am pleased to see, from the taskforce’s second report, that some important progress has been made. RBKC, alongside the Government, has put in significant resources and increased its efforts to provide those affected with greater clarity about the support that is available to them. We have also seen a stronger focus on implementing new ways of working to drive much needed cultural change across the council in collaboration with external stakeholders, and a greater candour about the improvements that still need to be made. But there is much more to do to ensure that residents can see and feel that things are getting better on the ground. Nowhere is this more important than the vital task of rehousing those who lost their homes—a task that I have always been clear must be sensitive to individual needs, but not use these needs as an excuse to justify any type of delay.

    Five months on from the fire, at the time of the taskforce’s first report, 122 households out of a total of 204 had accepted an offer of temporary or permanent ​accommodation. Only 73 households had moved in, and only 26 of those had moved into permanent homes. Today I can report that 188 households have accepted an offer of accommodation. Just over two thirds of these—128 households—have already moved into new accommodation, including 62 into permanent homes. This is welcome news but, as the taskforce’s second report highlights, progress has been far too slow.

    It was always going to be a challenge to respond to an unprecedented tragedy on this scale and to secure new accommodation in one of the country’s most expensive locations, but progress has not been made as quickly as it should have been. There are still 82 households in emergency accommodation, including 15 in serviced apartments, with 25 families and 39 children among them. This is totally unacceptable. The suffering that these families have already endured is unimaginable. Living for this long in hotels can only make the process of grieving and recovery even harder. As the taskforce has said, it is unlikely that all households will be permanently rehoused by the one-year anniversary of the fire. This is clearly not good enough. I hoped to have seen much more progress. It is very understandable that the people of North Kensington will feel disappointed and let down, even if there are encouraging signs that the pace of rehousing is speeding up.

    The council now has over 300 properties that are available to those who lost their homes, so each household can now choose a good quality property that meets their needs, with the option of staying in the area if that is what they wish. To ensure that these homes are taken up, I expect all households, regardless of their level of engagement, to be given whatever support they require to be rehoused as quickly as possible. The Government will continue to play their part, providing help with rehousing and other support for survivors, including financial support currently worth more than £72 million. The weeks ahead will be critical for ensuring that efforts to rehouse survivors go up a gear. I will be closely monitoring progress and will of course keep the House updated.

    As I said earlier, if the council is to regain trust it is paramount that the Grenfell community is not just being told that things are changing, but can see that its views and concerns are being heard and acted on. A good example of this, as highlighted by the report, is the transfer of responsibilities from the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation to RBKC on an interim basis. This happened after residents made it clear that the tenant management organisation could no longer have a role, not only on the Lancaster West estate but more widely in housing management throughout the borough.

    Residents have been engaged in the process of refurbishing the Lancaster West estate, with the Government matching the £15 million that the council is investing in this programme. Alongside this, the council will shortly be consulting residents on the long-term delivery of housing management needs across the borough. The voices and needs of the residents will also be at the heart of the process to determine the future of the Grenfell site and the public inquiry, which has just begun its second procedural hearing.

    There must be an even stronger focus on needs as we step up efforts not just to rehouse survivors, but to help them to rebuild their lives and, vitally, to rebuild trust. ​It is a process that will clearly take time and unstinting commitment on all sides. As the taskforce has noted, some progress has been made, but there is no room for complacency. I expect the council to take on board the taskforce’s recommendations and do more to listen to the community, improve links with the voluntary sector and act on feedback that it gets from those on the frontline.

    I thank the members of the taskforce once again for their valuable contribution, which will continue for as long as it is needed. As they have noted, despite the many challenges, there is

    “a level of community spirit and attachment not often seen in local communities in London”.

    It is a dynamic and diverse community spirit made stronger during the darkest of days—a spirit that is determined to secure a brighter future for the people of North Kensington. We share that determination and will continue to work with the bereaved, survivors and others. I commend this statement to the House.

  • Philip Hammond – 2018 Speech at FinTech Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Philip Hammond, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at the FinTech Conference on 22 March 2018.

    Thank you, it’s great to be here for the second year running…

    …and to welcome so many brilliant fintech leaders, entrepreneurs and investors from around the world.

    When I look around this room I see the great strength of the British fintech community.

    A community that is full of countless stories of incredible vision, groundbreaking innovation, and tireless hard work.

    One such is the story of Ismail Ahmed.

    Ismail began his life in Somaliland, in northern Somalia.

    In 1991, civil war engulfed Ismail’s hometown. His family, like so many others, lost everything. They became refugees in Ethiopia.

    Ismail eventually made his way to the UK and became an economics student at the University of London.

    He worked hard putting himself through university – and even as he was working, he would send money home to his family.

    Every few weeks, he would trek across London to visit a money transfer agent, pay an exorbitant fee, and sent a very modest sum of money home.

    During this time, Ismail thought a lot about money transfer systems and how to make payments cheaper and more efficient.

    And in 2010, he founded a little company you may have heard of, called WorldRemit.

    From its base here in London, WorldRemit raised $220m from investors to make sending money abroad as easy as sending an instant message.

    Today, millions of people use WorldRemit to transfer money quickly and affordably in more than 140 countries – and Ismail is one of the world’s leading fintech entrepreneurs.

    The reason I’m sharing his story isn’t just because he deserves enormous respect or recognition, or because he makes many of us look like terrible underachievers.

    It’s because this is a story that exemplifies Britain’s FinTech experience – and a story that is being repeated over and over again across Britain’s fintech industry.

    So much so that today, Britain is the global capital of fintech.

    Fintech contributes nearly $7 billion to the UK economy each year;

    London is home to 17 of the top 50 international fintech firms;

    And last year investment in UK fintech more than doubled…

    …and UK firms attracted almost four times more funding than Germany…

    …and more than France, Ireland and Sweden combined.

    And I am pleased to welcome great examples of this success today:

    Citi have announced London as the destination for their next Innovation Lab.

    Next month NatWest will launch new fintech accelerators in London, Edinburgh, Bristol and Manchester.

    Level 39 will soon expand into a 100,000 square foot building in Canary Wharf – making it one of the largest FinTech hubs in the world.

    Augmentum have created a £100m fund for fintech investment, here in the UK.

    And just last week Estonia’s LHV Bank announced it was opening a UK branch to serve the finch industry – a great sign of confidence that cross-European collaboration and investment will continue and grow beyond Brexit.

    But none this progress can be taken for granted.

    The very nature of this industry means that it moves incredibly quickly and is fiercely competitive.

    So let me restate my commitment and determination to ensure Britain remains the best place in the world to set up and grow a Fintech business…

    …and to continuously build upon our unique strengths to offer the most attractive home for global fintech leaders.

    Of course, we’ve been working on these strengths for quite some time.

    In 1649, we were the first country to issue permanent banknotes…

    …you might say the Bank of England is the original fintech unicorn.

    We were the first to lay telegraph cables under the ocean…

    …and by connecting France in the 1850s, and then the United States, we built the essential infrastructure for a global financial system.

    We had the first ATM in the world, installed in 1967 – two full years before the United States caught up…

    …in fairness, I should say they were busy landing on the moon that year…

    …but, if you want to get on…

    …you have to be able to multi-task.

    And while the British inventor, Tim Berners-Lee is rightly credited with unlocking the digital revolution by inventing the World Wide Web…

    …it was a much earlier British pioneer who kickstarted the computer age.

    In 1823, Charles Babbage asked the then Chancellor of the Exchequer for £1,700 to build his ‘Difference Engine,’…

    …the first advanced mechanical computer – apparently sold it to the then Chancellor on the basis that it would cut down on the amount of paperwork officials did.

    Mr. Babbage, can I say I’d like that money back.

    And while we are at it, his collaborator Ada Lovelace, can probably claim to have pre-empted our Women in Finance initiative by nearly 200 years.

    And now, on top of these deep historical foundations…

    …we have built the best modern ecosystem in the world for innovation.

    We are home to the English language, the global language of business. Our legal system is the jurisdiction of choice for international commerce.

    Our world-class universities have pioneered many of the breakthrough discoveries powering today’s digital revolution – with more Nobel Prizes than any country outside the United States.

    And British cultural products and talent inspire huge global audiences – as witnessed by the 30 British Oscar nominations this year.

    All of that makes London a Fintech-friendly pluriculture.

    And when it comes to innovation, Britain is a workshop for the world – the innovation leader for Europe.

    We have the greatest tech hub in Europe, Tech City.

    We are home to more than a third of all Europe’s billion-dollar tech firms – with a record £8.26 billion invested in UK startups last year.

    London is home to more than 250,000 software developers – more than anywhere in Europe – and the UK is Europe’s top destination for tech talent.

    Every hour, a new tech business is founded in the UK.

    And my ambition is to see that become every half-hour.

    And my message to everyone in this room today is that…

    …when it comes to building the Fintech companies of the future…

    …you need never doubt that you are among friends in Britain.

    Our doors will always be open to the innovators and inventors.

    And we will keep working to support you – and ensure Britain remains the best place in the world for fintech.

    First, we are committed to building the most pro-growth and pro-innovation regulatory environment in the world for fintech.

    We’ve introduced new rules on open banking….

    …and I’m delighted to see products here today made possible by this initiative.

    We legislated to require big banks to share credit information on small and medium-sized businesses…

    …helping more entrepreneurs to get the funding they need to grow…

    …and helping alternative funders to grow their market presence.

    The FCA’s world-leading ‘regulatory sandbox,’ allows firms to test and refine their products with consumers in a safe environment.

    And I know it’s a great idea…

    …because multiple other countries around the world have already copied it.

    But there’s more to do.

    So today I’m proud to launch our new strategy for the fintech sector.

    As part of which, I’m pleased to announce that the FCA and Bank of England will take the first steps towards automating regulatory compliance…

    …reducing costs for financial services firms, and removing a key barrier for fintechs as they enter financial services markets.

    A new code of industry standards will make it easier and cheaper for fintechs to partner with established financial service providers…

    …both boosting the ability of banks to offer new services, and helping fintechs to find a ready market for their products.

    And we’re appointing new envoys to England, Wales and Northern Ireland to promote the adoption of fintech by regional banks and building societies, complementing the work of the existing Scottish envoys.

    Secondly, we’re driving our global collaboration in fintech.

    Before today we had signed four FinTech Bridges with Singapore, China, Korea, and Hong Kong…

    …committing governments and regulators to collaborate on supporting growth and investment in fintech across markets.

    And today, I am delighted to announce that the Australian Treasurer, Scott Morrison and I have just signed an agreement for a new FinTech Bridge between the UK and Australia.

    This is our most ambitious collaboration to date, bringing together regulators, policy-makers and private sector leaders to collaborate on growing our respective fintech markets in tandem.

    But our strategy is about more than sector specific interventions.

    It is about championing the UK’s position as a pro-business, pro-innovation environment…

    …about making it easier for knowledge intensive scale-up businesses to raise the funding they need…

    …in short, about creating the best possible ecosystem for Fintech to thrive.

    Last Autumn I announced the launch of an action plan to unlock over £20 billion of finance for high-growth innovative firms in the fintech sector and beyond.

    And today I can set out some next steps:

    From April, changes to the Enterprise Investment Scheme will take effect, significantly increasing investment in high-growth and knowledge-intensive firms.

    And earlier this month, we published consultations on further extensions to this scheme and to Entrepreneurs Relief.

    Alongside greater investment by individuals, greater institutional investment in venture funding is needed.

    So alongside changes to tax relief, the British Business Bank will launch a new £500m programme in May that will invest in a series of funds to encourage co-investment by leading institutional investors in those businesses.

    Later this year, the British Business Bank will launch a new ‘British Patient Capital’ investment fund– which will co-invest with the private sector to unlock £7.5 billion of public and private investment.

    UK pension funds have relatively low allocations to patient capital and we are determined to fix that. The Pensions Regulator will clarify guidance on how trustees can invest in illiquid assets such as venture capital.

    And as part of our plan to get the best Brexit deal for jobs, business and prosperity…

    …we are discussing with the EU our future relationship with the European Investment Bank and European Investment Fund…

    …and we will keep the financing needs of high growth businesses under continuous review as we leave the EU, and if necessary, we will use the British Business Bank to provide an alternative to the EIF, which has done great work in supporting the industry.

    Britain is, and will remain, a great place to do business.

    It is the global capital for Finance, Fintech, and a major hub of Fourth Industrial Revolution technologies…

    …and my priority as Chancellor is to go on pushing us to do even better.

    We will go on creating the conditions and providing the resources that have allowed pioneers from Charles Babbage to Ismail Ahmed to succeed.

    Because Fintech offers the chance to connect the world…

    …to deliver financial services and innovations that can drive widespread growth and prosperity…

    …create millions of jobs, and build stronger, fairer, faster financial services that serve the common interests of all the peoples of this interconnected planet.

    My commitment to you is that Britain will continue to drive this agenda…

    …will continue to be the best place for fintech to thrive.

    Because, Fintech is the future of global finance…

    …and working together, we have a chance to reach that future faster.

    We look forward to continuing to welcome you, from wherever you come from around the world, to stay and build for many years to come – and we wait with baited breath, to see the astonishing innovations you are going to reveal next.

    Thank you.

  • Holly Lynch – 2018 Speech on UK Fisheries

    Below is the text of the speech made by Holly Lynch, the Labour MP for Halifax, in the House of Commons on 20 March 2018.

    I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this urgent question and to the Secretary of State for his response. However, I am afraid I still have several questions.

    The Secretary of State, alongside the Fisheries Minister, has asserted time and time again that the UK would take back absolute control of our waters from day one of leaving both the European Union and the 1964 London fisheries convention. However, following announcements made in the last 48 hours, we now know that the rest of the Government has been having very different conversations with the EU27. The announcement made by the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and the EU’s chief negotiator Michel Barnier, ahead of formal phase two negotiations, made it clear that the UK would continue to be part of the common fisheries policy for the duration of a 21-month post-Brexit transition period, extending up to 2020.​
    The announcement that Britain’s share of the total allowable catch will remain unchanged during the transition period contradicts all other previous Government statements in relation to post-Brexit fisheries, and it is understandable that many coastal MPs and fishing communities feel so angry and let down. The Government’s failure to meet their previously stated aims through negotiations is one that now requires greater explanation and examination on the Floor of the House. The Government must be absolutely clear about who is leading the negotiations on fishing and what their position is. Have the Government failed to secure their desired position, as advocated by the Secretary of State and the Fisheries Minister, or was that never the position of our negotiating team and the rest of the Cabinet? If that red line has moved, can the Secretary of State tell the House whether there has been an exchange, and if so, what was secured instead?

    Less than a month ago, in a Westminster Hall debate on the UK’s fisheries policy secured by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), I asked the Fisheries Minister whether he had seen the draft proposals from the European Parliament’s Committee on Fisheries—the PECH Committee—and what the Government’s response was. He informed me that

    “at the end of the day, it does not really matter what the European Union asks for, but what we are prepared to grant it.”—[Official Report, 27 February 2018; Vol. 636, c. 314WH.]

    With that in mind, can the Secretary of State now be explicit in outlining what the Government are prepared to grant the EU in relation to fisheries? Can he also inform the House what the transition arrangement with the EU will mean for the London convention?

    The Secretary of State will have seen the comments from the less-than-satisfied representative fishing organisations and the bold statements—and actions—of his own Back Benchers. Any post-Brexit fisheries policy must be rebalanced to work for our coastal communities and have a sustainable approach at its very core. What we need now from the Government is a move away from the chaotic approach we have seen this week and, instead, honesty and clarity about their negotiating position and exactly what that means for the fishing industry.

  • Michael Gove – 2018 Statement on Fisheries

    Below is the text of the statement made by Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, in the House of Commons on 20 March 2018.

    Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to update the House. I begin by paying tribute to the hard work of the Ministers and especially the civil servants in our country’s negotiating team, who this weekend concluded an agreement on the nature and length of the implementation period, which will help us to prepare for life after Brexit. Taskforce 50, on behalf of the EU, and our own team of dedicated civil servants secured an agreed text, which will now go to the March Council of the European Union at the end of this week, and after that the Prime Minister will update the House on Monday.

    The House will be aware that there are important legal and technical questions relating to fisheries management, which means that it occupies a special position in these negotiations. Both the EU and our own negotiators were always clear that specific arrangements would have to be agreed for fisheries.

    Our proposal to the EU was that, during the implementation period, we would sit alongside other coastal states as a third country and equal partner in annual quota negotiations. We made that case after full consultation with the representatives of the fisheries industry. We pressed hard during negotiations to secure this outcome, and we are disappointed that the EU was not willing to move on this.

    However, thanks to the hard work of our negotiating team, the text was amended from the original proposal, and the Commission has agreed amendments to the text that provide additional reassurance. The revised text clarifies that the UK’s share of quotas will not change during the implementation period, and that the UK can attend international negotiations. Furthermore, the agreement includes an obligation on both sides to act in good faith throughout the implementation period. Any attempts by the EU to operate in a way that harmed the UK fishing industry would breach that obligation.

    These arrangements will of course only apply to negotiations in December 2019. We are at the table as a full member state for negotiations in December 2018 and, critically, in December 2020 we will be negotiating fishing opportunities as a third country and independent coastal state—deciding who can access our waters and on what terms for the first time in over 40 years.

    It is important that we use this transition period to ensure that we can negotiate as a third country and independent coastal state in 2020 to maximise the benefits for our coastal communities, ensure that we can control who accesses our waters and on what terms, and ensure that we manage our marine resources sustainably. We are already looking at a range of data to support ​consideration of future fishing opportunities, including the nature of catches and zonal attachment of stocks in the UK exclusive economic zone.

    There is a significant prize at the end of the implementation period, and it is important that all of us in every area accept that the implementation period is a necessary step towards securing that prize. For our coastal communities, it is an opportunity to revive economically. For our marine environment, it is an opportunity to be managed sustainably. It is critical that all of us, in the interests of the whole nation, keep our eyes on that prize.

  • Sajid Javid – 2018 Statement on Local Government Finance

    Below is the text of the statement made by Sajid Javid, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, in the House of Commons on 20 March 2018.

    The current 50% business rates retention scheme for local government is yielding strong results. Local authorities estimate that in 2017-18 ​they will keep around £1.3 billion in business rates growth, which we expect will be at least maintained into 2018-19 and 2019-20. On top of the 50% business rates retention scheme which is in place for all local authorities, in 2017-18 the Government established pilots of 100% business rates retention in five areas of England and extended business rates retention to 67% in London. The pilot programme will be expanded further in 2018-19 to cover an additional 10 areas.

    My officials have worked through the necessary calculations to prepare for the extension of the piloting programme in 2018-19. In doing so, an historic error has been identified in the methodology used to calculate the sums due to pilots. An adjustment is therefore required to the methodology, which will reduce the amount due to these local authorities for participating in the pilot programme to the correct level. This adjustment does not affect the local government finance settlement nor the core spending power of the local authorities concerned. The relevant local authorities have been informed today.

    Background

    Under the business rates retention system, local authorities retain a percentage of the business rates they raise locally. Since 2014-15, locally-raised business rates have been lower than they would have been because Government have under-indexed the business rates multiplier in each of 2014-15, 2015-6 and 2018-19. To compensate local authorities for their loss of income, therefore, the Government have calculated the extent of the loss caused by under-indexation and paid that amount as a grant under section 31 of the Local Government Act 2003.

    The compensation to be paid to local authorities is paid on account during the course of a year, based on estimates made by authorities before the start of that year. It is then adjusted once outturn figures are available, following the end of the year.

    When on account compensation payments were calculated for the six 2017-18 pilot areas, the methodology used to adjust tariffs and top-ups contained an error. This resulted in 27 local authorities and the Greater London Authority being over-compensated by £36 million.

    These local authorities will have been operating on the understanding that this funding has already been secured and, at this this late stage in the year, a sudden reduction in their funding could potentially have an impact on the delivery of the objectives agreed as part of their devolution deals. Therefore, although the rules of “Managing Public Money” indicate that the Department should recover the overpayment, I have issued a direction requesting that the permanent secretary does not do so in this extraordinary circumstance. My correspondence with the permanent secretary will be published on the Department’s website.

    In respect of the payments due to 2018-19 business rates retention pilot authorities, my Department will use the corrected methodology to calculate the section 31 grant compensation due to authorities. Local authorities will shortly be notified of these amounts.

    Review

    In recognition of the importance of the business rates retention system to the sustainability of local government, I am also today announcing an independent review of the internal processes and procedures that underpin the ​Department’s oversight of business rates and related systems. This should include modelling and analytical work, how officials manage the interface with policy decision making, and resourcing and skills.

  • Chloe Smith – 2018 Speech at Democracy Week Launch Event

    Below is the text of the speech made by Chloe Smith, the Minister for the Constitution, on 21 March 2018.

    Welcome

    Thank you Minister Atkins for those inspiring words. As you have said so clearly, this year is a tremendous opportunity to reflect on how far our democracy has come and the people who made that happen.

    Lessons of the Equal Suffrage campaign

    Looking back I am struck by the energy and determination of the women and their allies who fought for equal suffrage. They pressed on with their campaign, often in the face of fierce opposition and ridicule, because theirs was a struggle for justice. Their commitment re-shaped our democracy.

    Democratic Progress

    Since 1918 we have seen our democracy transformed. By 1928 women had finally achieved equal suffrage and the franchise was broadened, with property owning restrictions stripped away.

    Fast forward a century and the General Election in 2017 saw the largest ever electoral register, standing at 46.9 million.

    The modernisation of our electoral system, including the introduction of individual electoral registration and the launch of the online digital service, has made it easier than ever to make an application to register to vote. 75% of applications are now made online, but for young people this is closer to 100%.

    Future Challenges

    As Minister for the Constitution I am aware of how much has been achieved but also of the distance still to travel. I want to open up, protect and improve our democracy.

    National Democracy Week

    So, in this Suffrage Centenary year, our inaugural National Democracy Week will kick off on Monday 2 July through to 8 July 2018, the 90th anniversary of the 1928 Equal Franchise Act which gave women the same voting rights as men.

    National Democracy Week is being delivered in collaboration with NDW Council members, Cabinet Office and our combined extended networks. National Democracy Week is an opportunity to use all of our experience, insight and passion to increase democratic participation. We believe that regardless of who we are or where we are from, we must work together to ensure that every member of society has an equal chance to participate in our democracy and to have their say.

    Together we will deliver a range of democratic engagement activities in the lead up to and during the week.

    Our aim will be to get results. To increase understanding of how to take part in decision making, and also to grow those who say they are more likely to participate. I want to do this across the whole UK.

    I would like to thank the National Democracy Week Council for their time and commitment so far. They have been working with Cabinet Office to produce our new branding, which you can see around the room today and features real people our Council works with every day.

    Parliamentarian Pack Launch

    Parliamentarians are at the forefront of our democracy, the embodiment of the principle of representation and a vital connection between people and parliament. In recognition of this unique role, I am delighted to launch this new toolkit to support the crucial work that you do to promote our democracy amongst young people.

    Many of you will have been inspired at an early age to explore how you make your voice heard on issues that are important to you. For many, their first awareness of politics and how decisions are made comes from contact with their local representative, in schools, youth clubs and other extracurricular activities.

    It is a prime opportunity for engagement which can have a lasting effect on our young citizens’ understanding of our electoral system and how it works for them. I ask you to join me in making use of this new resource throughout the year designed to make your interactions with young people effective and powerful.

    Awards – Nominations Open

    The National Democracy Week Council have also helped determine the categories for the National Democracy Week awards, which I am very excited to announce today.

    We know that individuals and organisations across the UK are working tirelessly to engage people in our democracy. Their work, particularly with under represented groups, has the potential to help people understand their democratic rights and make their voices heard. This service is not always recognised, but as part of this summer’s festival of democracy, I want to acknowledge the great contributions that so many have made.

    The categories, as determined by the National Democracy Week Council, are:

    Young Advocate of the Year Award

    Diversity Champion of the Year Award

    Changemaker of the Year Award and

    Collaboration of the Year Award

    So please, if you know of a young person who champions democracy, someone who is committed to ensuring diversity, if you have been blown away by the change that an individual, project or organisation has driven, or there is a partnership you feel breaks new ground, make sure you nominate them through our new National Democracy Week website www.gov.uk/nationaldemocracyweek. Nominations will close 5pm Sunday 27 May and we will hold an Award ceremony during National Democracy Week.

    Our democracy should be as inclusive as possible – let’s celebrate those who are rising to this challenge. Let us also each commit to do our bit to engage others, during National Democracy Week and beyond. I am delighted to introduce my colleague, Andrea Leadsom MP, Leader of the House of Commons, who will talk further about the Parliamentarian Pack and how it can help with that task.

  • Mark Sedwill – 2018 Statement on Salisbury Attack

    Below is the text of the statement made by Sir Mark Sedwill, the UK National Security Adviser, on 21 March 2018.

    On Monday EU foreign ministers expressed “unqualified solidarity” with the UK after the terrible attack in Salisbury and gave their support for our efforts to bring those responsible for justice, demanding urgent and full answers from the Russian government. EU ministers agreed the need to focus on the implications of this shocking incident.

    Tomorrow the Prime Minister and other EU leaders will discuss this at the European Council. I came to Brussels today as part of the preparations for those discussions.

    I had the opportunity to meet the High Representative and other senior EU officials and to brief representatives of all the Member States.

    I set out the reasons for our clear assessment of Russian responsibility, the measured but clear response we were taking, the wider pattern of malign behaviour into which Salisbury fits, and the importance of a renewed and wider international focus, including from the EU, on the challenge Russia represents to our shared interests and values.

    It was clear from my discussions not only the strong solidarity with my country but also the shared sense of gravity and determination to look carefully, calmly but purposefully at the implications, given the high stakes involved for our shared European security and the rules based international order.

  • Richard Harrington – 2018 Statement on the Competitiveness Council

    Below is the text of the statement made by Richard Harrington, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Minister for Business and Industry, in the House of Commons on 20 March 2018.

    The Competitiveness Council (Internal Market and Industry) took place on 12 March in Brussels. I represented the UK.

    EU industrial policy

    Ministers had a wide-ranging discussion on the future of EU industrial policy and the need for European industry to adapt to changes in the global economy and the digital revolution. The UK noted that its recently published industrial strategy identified many of the same challenges and drivers of growth, and stressed our commitment to an open, liberal market economy based around fair competition and high standards. Commissioner Bieńkowska updated Ministers on the first meeting of the “Industry 2030” High Level Roundtable which took place in February. The roundtable would work towards a future vision for EU industry. Ministers also agreed the draft Council conclusions (doc. 2793/18).

    The UK also raised concerns at the recent announcement by the US Administration to introduce tariffs on steel and aluminium imports. The UK stressed that unilateral tariffs were not the right way to tackle global overcapacity. Other member states stressed the need for a solution that respected the role of the WTO which Commissioner Bieńkowska supported in her response.

    Digitalisation of the EU economy

    Ministers considered how to better focus national reform efforts and funding decisions, to seize the opportunities presented by digitalisation for European industry and citizens. There was wide agreement on the need to boost digital skills, to provide clear regulatory frameworks, and to see SMEs and the public sector as potential beneficiaries as well as large businesses. Member states considered that both private sector and EU funding should be easier to access and complement existing national investment in infrastructure.

    Single Market

    Ministers held a policy debate on the single market to mark the anniversary of the treaty of Maastricht. A number of member states, including the UK, called for better enforcement of single market rules and an analysis of barriers to the services market to realise the single market’s full potential.

    Commissioner Bieńkowska hoped that member states would reflect their aspirations for the single market in responding to Commission legislative proposals. The UK underlined our continuing interest in the success of the single market and support for ongoing efforts to reduce barriers, and reiterated the Prime Minister’s call for an ambitious UK-EU partnership.​

    Other items

    Commissioner Bienkowska set out the key elements of the Commission’s plastics strategy and highlighted the objectives of a review of the REACH regulation. On better regulation, the presidency presented work to highlight the role of scientific evidence in the EU’s regulatory decision making. Belgium presented a short note to highlight the risk of start-ups and scale-ups being captured by the rescue and restructuring guidelines in the state aid rules. Under the regular “Competitiveness Check-up” Commissioner Bieńkowska gave a presentation on the link between services reforms and productivity in manufacturing. Commissioner Jourova updated Ministers on the forthcoming package of consumer protection proposals which are due in April.