Tag: Greg Clark

Below is the text of the speech made by Greg Clark, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, in Coventry on 22 March 2017.

Introduction

Thank you, it’s a great honour to be here for the opening of such an impressive new factory.

50,000 square feet.

An annual production capacity of 20,000 vehicles.

Up to a thousand new jobs.

A £325 million investment in an icon of British culture.

Over the last 60 years, more than 130,000 London Black Cabs have been produced here in the West Midlands.

However, the history of motorised taxi manufacturing in the UK is twice as long as that.

The first purpose-built motorised taxi was manufactured in 1897 – and remarkably it was an electric vehicle.

Because of their bright livery and the sound of their engines, these were known as Hummingbirds – and, for a few years, were a familiar sight on the streets of London.

Sadly, the battery technology of the time could not compete against the petrol engine – and, in the 20th century, electric vehicles were pushed off the road.

However, in this century, we can expect the opposite to happen.

Indeed, we stand on the brink of a road transport revolution: a new age of ultra low emission vehicles that might just well save the world.

This factory is where a better future will be made, while at the same time continuing a great British tradition.

London black cabs not only keep our capital moving, but they help represent our country far and wide.

In 2013, that proud legacy was secured when the London Taxi Company was acquired by Geely.

And, now with vital investment from its parent company, LTC goes on to even greater things.

I’m delighted that the founder and chairman of Geely is with us today.

Li Shufu is one of China’s great business leaders – and, therefore, one of the world’s great business leaders.

Mr Li, on behalf of the Prime Minister and the whole Government, I would like to express our gratitude for your commitment to this company and also to our country.

I greatly look forward to our continued cooperation – and to strengthening the partnership between our nations.

Electric vehicles

Ladies and gentlemen, all relationships, all partnerships, are deepened through shared interests.

Trade is one such interest; another is the fight against climate change.

It is a global endeavour in which China is now playing a leading role.

Not least, in the contribution made by Chinese manufacturers.

By driving down the price of key technologies we are making possible a low carbon future in which energy is not only used efficiently but produced cleanly and cheaply.

Of course, to achieve our climate objectives we also need low carbon transportation – and for that we need low emission vehicles.

After a century in which the internal combustion engine has ruled the roads, we need to persuade consumers that a shift to electric engines and other forms of low emission vehicles is both desirable and achievable.

Electric vehicles must be seen as a reliable, mainstream option.

I can think of no better demonstration than the electrification of the taxi – and not just any taxi, but the London black cab.

Here we have the very image of tradition, comfort and reliability – and one that millions of Londoners, commuters and tourists can experience for themselves.

If people see black cabs go green then they will know that all cars can do the same.

It’s not just the evidence of their eyes that will count, but also the evidence of their lungs.

The global problem of climate change runs alongside the local problem of air pollution.

LTC has already shown it is possible to cut harmful emissions with better diesel engines.

And the vehicles produced in this factory will show that we can cut emissions altogether.

For busy cities, not just in this country but all around the world, that is truly welcome news.

So for all of these reasons the UK Government has identified the continuation of innovation in electric and other low emission vehicles as a key priority for our Industrial Strategy.

And that is why today we’re announcing today £50 million to encourage taxi drivers to switch to cleaner greener vehicles; cabbies here amongst us I’m sure will be pleased to know that there will be up to £7,500 off the price of a new cab and £14m worth of investment in dedicated charge point for electric taxis not just in London but in ten councils.

Ultimately, progress depends on the expertise and commitment of advanced automotive companies like LTC and Geely – but Government can play, and will, play an important supporting role.

Industrial strategy

Unlike the failed policies of the past, a modern industrial strategy does not mean government telling business what to do.

Rather it’s about public investments helping them support their own long-term investment decisions that companies are making.

For instance, Government can nourish the roots of innovation through our funding of science.

This country has many of the world’s top universities and research institutions – and we will maintain and extend this advantage.

That is why, last November, we announced the biggest increase in public research and development funding since 1979.

This will include funding for research that is of direct relevance to the automotive sector – for instance, research into better batteries.

Skills provision is another area in which the government can play a vital role.

If we want British industry to manufacture the next generation of products, then we must nurture the next generation of engineers, mechanics and designers.

We are determined to build on our strengths and to build a system of technical education that can beat any in the world.

And we will continue to invest not just in the quantity but the quality of apprenticeships – of which the training schemes offered by LTC are an excellent example.

We are providing the funds required to achieve these goals – with the Spring Budget described by the Confederation of British Industry as “a breakthrough budget for skills.”

Infrastructure is focus of further action.

We’ve given the go-ahead to a string of major upgrades.

We can’t expect industry to make long-term investment decisions if the government refuses to do the same, which is why we are determined to make these big decisions as part of our Industrial Strategy.

The automotive sector

Just as important as the scale and seriousness of public investment is the care by which it is coordinated.

This requires that decisions are made at the right level and through the right institutions.

For example, to support our diverse local economies we need to empower local decision makers.

That’s why, as part of devolving power from Whitehall, we’ve created local institutions capable of using it – such as the Coventry and Warwickshire Local Enterprise Partnership which continues to be such a big champion of the development of advanced manufacturing in this area.

This £325 million investment was supported by a £16 million investment through the Regional Growth Fund.

In other cases, the most appropriate context for decision making is not geographical, but sectoral.

By creating its own shared institutions, each sector can play an active role in the development of industrial policy – working not just for the benefit of a few incumbents that exist already but for the whole sector including the supply chain.

In this respect the UK automotive sector serves as a beacon of success.

Sector-wide institutions like the Automotive Council and the Advanced Propulsion Centre have played a pivotal role in the coordination of public investment as well as private investment – whether in research, skills or the other foundations of productivity.

Today, our UK automotive sector is the most productive in Europe – a testament to what can be achieved.

A testament also to the benefits of inward investment.

Back in the 1970s, car making in the UK had become emblematic of our post-war decline – but, through partnership with overseas manufacturers, as well as domestic ones, the industry was transformed.

From the North East to the West Midlands advanced automotive engineering and cutting edge vehicle design is a key strength of the modern British economy.

And today, we open the latest compelling chapter in this story of success.

A story in which this Government is proud to play a supporting, but steadfast, role.

It is an honour and a privilege to be with you today at this most auspicious event.

Below is the text of the speech made by Greg Clark, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, in Salford on 8 July 2016.

Thank you, it’s a great honour to address this conference in this place.

The re-empowerment of the North requires both thought and action – and we owe a debt of thanks to ResPublica and to Greater Manchester for breaking new ground.

It is, of course, impossible for me to give this speech without addressing the events of the last fortnight.

So let me begin by saying two things:

The first is that our priority as a government is to safeguard jobs and investment – here in the North and across the United Kingdom.

The decision of the British electorate is a momentous one – and there’s no mistaking the significance of it.

But, equally, there should be no doubt about the resolve of this Government to act in the national interest.

This is a time for cool heads and mutual respect, both at home and as we negotiate a new relationship with our European neighbours.

In fact, the kind of mutual respect that has characterised the negotiation of Devolution Deals back home.

In sitting down with city leaders, I can honestly say that our party political differences have never come between us.

There was some hard bargaining, of course, but on behalf of their communities.

The Government has put in place special arrangements for the EU negotiations – arrangements which include every part of the United Kingdom.

I argued strongly – and successfully – for a place at the table for local government leaders in England.

The interests of every part of this nation: North, East, West and South will be represented.

I also believe it is important that European structural fund allocations – including those benefiting the North – are honoured in full.

The second thing I want to say is that devolution is now more important than ever.

I think that the referendum did not so much create divisions in our country as expose ones that were already there.

London voting to remain, most of the rest of England for out.

Some metropolitan cities voting marginally to stay in; smaller industrial towns voting heavily to leave.

There was a critique that was made of the European Union (whether we think it was accurate or not):

Too remote. Too unaccountable. Too bureaucratic. Too much uniformity. Run by people that don’t know what it’s like for me, where I am.

Travelling around, talking to people during the campaign, I sensed that some of those charges were levelled at the way the country is run too.

So among the answers to the challenge of the referendum result has to be a much bigger role for local leadership in our national life.

Local leadership that is rooted in communities; that is practical and pragmatic not doctrinaire; that understands the neighbourhoods that comprise an area – and the differences from one place to another.

We will not be One Nation until every part of the nation regains a sense of empowerment.

That’s why devolution needs to go deeper – wider too – but especially deeper.

The process is well underway.

Since the first City Deals we’ve seen further waves of City Deals, Growth Deals and Devolution Deals.

Only four years ago when people referred to devolution they invariably meant the transfer of power to Scotland or Wales.

But now the policy very much includes the whole country – with the North of England having an especially high profile.

And quite right too – because many of the most important and exciting developments in devolution are taking place here in the North.

No one should be surprised.

This is where the modern world was brought into being.

A well-spring of innovation that changed the course of history.

Which not even a century of centralisation was enough to exhaust.

We should also mention the geography of the North.

Where once it helped create the conditions for the industrial revolution, it is today helping to drive progress on devolution.

Every part of the country has the potential to benefit from the decentralisation of power, but for cities it is a no-brainer.

A city and its surrounding communities constitute an organic whole, a natural focus from which to join-up services and allocate investment.

Though also blessed with beautiful countryside, the North is the most urban part of the country outside London – home to five of England’s eight core cities and to many of its key cities.

And while these great population centres are close to one another physically, there is more variety in a hundred miles of the North than certain other places manage over the span of a continent.

The city-regions of the North thus provide fertile ground for devolution.

A series of connected-but-distinctive, large-but-local economies – with both the ambition and the opportunity to lead the way.

Many of the most important initiatives on devolution are now coming from local communities themselves.

The more that power is devolved to them, the more they see what they can do with it.

The process of devolution is therefore acquiring its own momentum.

However, momentum needn’t imply a single trajectory or speed of change.

The diversity of the North is a strength not a weakness – and that includes a variety of approaches to devolution itself.

With different geographies and different priorities, each area has moved at its own pace and in its own way.

To those of an excessively tidy frame of mind, this is quite unbearable.

It’s not that they oppose devolution, it’s just that they want it implement in a uniform, one-speed manner from the top-down.

To me, that is to miss the point completely.

Clearly, there are common principles that must be respected – such as democratic accountability and co-operation across local boundaries – but beyond that, I believe that the flexible approach to devolution has been vindicated.

Certainly, cities like Manchester and Liverpool wouldn’t have been able to blaze their trails without it.

A uniform process of devolution would mean devolution at the pace of the slowest, most reluctant participant.

And that would benefit no one.

The most ambitious communities would be held back and the more cautious communities would have no models to follow or adapt.

A healthy sense of rivalry has always sharpened the will to succeed in these parts – and not just on the football field or the cricket ground.

At the same time, however, there’s no denying the common identity and common interests of the North.

Therefore, I’m thrilled to see devolution taking shape not just within each city-region, but between them.

A prime example is the formation of Transport for the North – a major step towards the achievement a pan-regional road and rail network fit for the 21st century.

This, surely, is the way forward: communities choosing to join forces where and when the opportunity arises, in place of the rigid regionalism of the pre-devolution era.

It’s also great to see co-operation between the North of England and its neighbouring communities.

For instance, with North Wales whose close links with Cheshire, Merseyside, Manchester and Lancashire can be strengthened to mutual advantage.

And also with the north Midlands, where Cheshire, Warrington, Stoke and Staffordshire have been working collaboratively over the past year to maximise the growth benefits of HS2.

At a time when other cross-border institutions aren’t faring so well, it’s encouraging that everybody wants to join the Northern Powerhouse.

It is two years since the words “Northern Powerhouse” first appeared in a ministerial speech.

However, that’s not where you left them.

It’s no longer a phrase just used to label government policy – it’s an identity you’ve made your own and, in fact, always was your own.

Indeed, it’s a rebuke to those who talk the North down – who emphasise the failures of the 20th century (most often failures of central government) rather than the potential of the 21st.

A potential that is already being fulfilled.

In the last two years, foreign direct investment in the Northern Powerhouse has increased by 126%.

Since 2010, the long-standing north-south gap in private sector job creation has almost disappeared.

Indeed, we see cities in the North and Midlands at the top of the job creation league.

The entrepreneurial energies of the region have been released and deserve to be celebrated.

Recent research by the London Stock Exchange found that almost 80% of the fastest growing stock listed companies in the UK were headquartered outside of London – with Manchester and Leeds among the locations.

Now more than ever, it is essential that this progress continues.

For local government leaders, Local Enterprise Partnerships and other stakeholders represented here today that means maintaining the momentum of devolution and the local growth agenda.

To support and incentivise locally-led investment in transport, housing, skills and other priorities, the next round of Growth Deals will make £4.3 billion of funding available from the Local Growth Fund.

This money will go to the best schemes, introducing a deliberate element of competition.

I have always been clear that each deal and each piece of decentralising legislation represents a fresh point of departure not a final destination.

To change metaphors, the tide of decentralisation has advanced by waves, each building on its predecessor.

This model of reform has been vital to getting to where we are now, but I believe we are now moving to a new phase:

To one of continuous devolution, in which the transfer of power isn’t negotiated on a central government timetable or according to a set menu of options, but à la carte and as-and-when communities identify new opportunities.

If you lift the lid on Whitehall, what you see is an ongoing negotiation between different departments and ministers, an open process of give-and-take, proposal and counter-proposal.

This is how things work within central government, and I see no reason why it shouldn’t be the same between central government and local government:

Each with its own role and mandate, but equal partners in the governance of the nation.

We’re not quite there yet, but, underpinned by the Cities and Devolution Act, the enabling mechanisms are coming together:

Firstly, combined authorities to provide the heft and coordination that communities need to deal directly with

Whitehall and take control of major investment decisions.

Secondly, elected mayors to provide combined authorities with democratic accountability and high profile leadership.

In May next year we will see metropolitan mayors elected in at least nine parts of the country.

The third enabling mechanism is fiscal devolution – the financial independence, stability and incentives that communities need to push for local economic growth.

The shift to 100% local retention of business rates will be a massive step in that direction – and I’m delighted that Greater Manchester and Liverpool City Region will be the first places to implement full business rate retention.

Whether on fiscal devolution, metropolitan mayors or combined authorities, Devo North is leading the way.

Before concluding, I’d like to mention a fourth foundation for successful devolution.

And that is data devolution.

To make the best investments for local growth… to fully understand the skills and infrastructure requirements of local businesses… to provide public services that respond to local needs… local decision-makers need up-to-date, accurate and meaningful information.

In an over-centralised country, information is sucked upwards, away from the frontline, and into separate top-down bureaucracies.

The only place where data can join up again is in distant centres of control – if indeed it joins up at all.

Furthermore, in such bureaucracies, information is homogenised and aggregated, erasing the fine detail on which the local picture depends.

But when communities take control of service delivery and investment for growth, then data can be joined-up locally – providing the intelligence that enables effective local decision making.

At the leading edge, data devolution is about smart communities – the use of advanced technology to gather and process information in real time.

This is exciting stuff, but perhaps more important is something that relies more on people than machines – and that is the willingness to learn from experience.

Devolution means different things being tried in different places – and so a concerted effort to share the lessons is immensely worthwhile.

These should be communicated between communities, not filtered through central government.

There’s an obvious role here for combined authorities and Local Enterprise Partnerships, but also for independent institutions.

The flourishing of so many think tanks and research institutions in this area of policy is a real encouragement – not least the very welcome debut of ResPublica North.

As the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government I want to boost the prospects of every part of the country.

And indeed I can point to exciting developments in devolution from one end of England to the other – and elsewhere in Britain too.

Nevertheless, there can be no denying the particular achievements of this part of the world.

The Northern Powerhouse is setting the pace and Devo North is breaking new ground.

Speaking personally, it is a great honour to be working with so many impressive leaders from different communities, different sectors and different political parties.

At a time when we as a country must overcome our divisions, the willingness of so many different people to work together towards the common good is an inspiration.

This is a time of great change for our country.

Not least changes of leadership.

I would urge of all of you to make your voices heard.

To not only ask, but to insist, that those chosen to lead work for, and not against, your empowerment.

You have already demonstrated your ability to take responsibility, show leadership and take control.

There is no doubt of your capacity to make your own decisions, so don’t settle for anything else.

In the end, Finding True North means setting your own direction.

Thank you.

Below is the text of the speech made by Greg Clark, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, at the Bournemouth International Centre on 5 July 2016.

Colleagues,

We meet today in circumstances that a year ago, few of us would have expected.

The United Kingdom resolved to leave the European Union.

The Prime Minister – only recently re-elected – resigned and a contest to replace him underway.

The principal party of Opposition contemplating a second contest within a year for the post of Leader.

In these turbulent times it is more appropriate than ever to be grateful for the stability and confidence that local government brings to our national life.

While some Westminster politicians can give a good impression of losing their heads and blaming it on everyone else, that doesn’t wash in local government.

In fact, when the Local Government Association (LGA) had a spot of political instability after the local elections in May it was resolved amicably within days.

One of the reasons why I’ve always been passionate about getting power out of the hands of central government and into yours is that there is a practicality and a directness in local government.

You focus on the job in hand.

Local government is agile, dependable, hands-on.

As the author Benjamin Barber put it in the American context: “Presidents pontificate, mayors pick up the garbage.” Literally, and metaphorically.

So let me thank you and, through you, all your fellow members and officers. Not just for picking up the garbage. But for educating our children, giving security and respect to our elderly. For making those who would be left out of our society welcomed in. For catching people when they fall into homelessness or debt or despair. For providing refuge for people fleeing violence whether perpetrated in their home or from brutal regimes the other side of the world.

Thank you for helping our cities, towns and villages be better places to live and to work and do business, through your hard work in making them more attractive, making them greener, cleaner, and healthier.

Thank you for running a planning system that brings you no end of brickbats but which has, for the first time in decades, produced planning permissions which match the growing population.

Thank you for keeping our roads running – we’d certainly know if you didn’t – our parks beautiful and our neighbourhoods safe.

And it’s not just the things that have to be done everyday. Local government proves itself time and again as being exceptionally agile at dealing with the unexpected.

In December last year floods struck the North of England. The first to respond – alongside the emergency services – were officers and lead members of local authorities. As I saw first-hand during my time there, they worked round the clock for days on end – Christmas holidays literally washed away – to evacuate people affected, check on those isolated, to get money and help to people and businesses who needed it.

I want to thank everyone who came to the rescue of our communities in their hour of need.

I would like to thank Gary Porter for his leadership of the LGA during the last year, and the Group Leaders David Hodge, Nick Forbes, Gerald Vernon-Jackson and Marianne Overton.

Let me now talk about the matter of Europe.

The first thing to say is that whether we’re in local government or national government, government is about leadership. We have the responsibility to keep a cool head.

The referendum was an instruction to negotiate terms for leaving the EU. Nothing has changed and should not, in my view, until we have a clear view of the change that we want.

We are still members of the single market, we are still members of European Councils with full voting rights. People from other European countries have a perfect right to continue to live and work here.

The second is that I think it is essential that we conduct ourselves with the courtesy and respect which not only is a hallmark of Britain’s reputation but an essential condition for any successful negotiation.

Our European neighbours will continue to be our partners and must be our friends.

Our society and our communities must be open, tolerant and welcoming.

The Polish men who fought the Luftwaffe were welcome here.

The Polish and other European men and women who have come more recently and who contribute to our national life – you too are welcome here.

To those who come to us because they have fled persecution and to whom we have offered sanctuary – you are welcome here.

Just because we have voted to leave the European Union does not mean we should abandon our international outlook, out openness to the world, our strength in being one of the most diverse, welcoming and civilised places on the planet.

I’m proud of the work that my department supports, that many of you lead on, in tackling hate crime. We must redouble those efforts on behalf not just of those members of our society who have been subjected to sickening abuse in recent days, but of the whole of Britain whose repugnance at the behaviour of an unrepresentative few must prevail.

I think that the referendum did not so much create divisions in our country so much as expose ones that were already there.

London voting to remain, most of the rest of England for out.

Some metropolitan cities voting marginally to stay in; smaller industrial towns voting heavily to leave.

There was a critique that was made of the European Union – whether we think it was accurate or not. Too remote. Too unaccountable. Too bureaucratic. Trying to be too uniform. Run by people that don’t know what it’s like for me, where I am.

Travelling around the country, talking to people during the campaign, I sensed that some of those charges were levelled at the way the country is run too.

So among the answers to the challenge that the referendum result poses has to be a much bigger role for the local in our national life.

Local government that is rooted in communities; Is practical and pragmatic not doctrinaire; Understands the communities that comprise an area – and the differences from one place to another.

Local government has local, powerful leadership.

Our great towns and cities over centuries have been led by – and in some cases founded by – people who have had the ability, but also the freedom, to pursue a bold vision for their city, town or county. To be proud of it and to care little for being told what to do.

It was always the case that local leaders put national leaders in their place.

One of my favourite stories is from my home town of Middlesbrough where the Prince of Wales came, in 1887, to open the new town hall. In his speech, the Prince admitted, with a condescending note, that he expected to see a smoky town.

The Mayor instantly and publicly upbraided the Heir to the Throne:

His Royal Highness owned he had expected to see a smoky town.

It is one, and if there is one thing more than another that Middlesbrough can be said to be proud of, it is the smoke (cheers and laughter).

The smoke is an indication of plenty of work (applause) – an indication of prosperous times (cheers) – an indication that all classes of workpeople are being employed, that there is little necessity for charity (cheers) and that even those in the humblest station are free from want (cheers).

Therefore, we are proud of our smoke (cheers).

In my view, local leaders should be similarly assertive in our day, the response to leaving the European Union has to be a radically expanded role for local government.

That means that local government must be represented at the negotiating table. I argued successfully last week for English local government to be part of the negotiations on the terms of our exit.

In the days ahead I will ask Gary to put together a team representing all parts of local government; all parties and all parts of the country to make sure we make good use of this seat at the table.

When we are transferring powers from the EU to Britain I think it is essential that Whitehall is not the default destination for them.

For years we have been urging subsidiarity – the principle that power is held as close to the people as possible – on the European Union.

We now must apply it at home and ask first whether powers and funds can be transferred to local government. I also think it is essential that we confirm, as soon as possible, that the continued availability of the structural funds which co-fund many important investments in infrastructure and economic development, including in the North, the Midlands and the South West.

The programme runs from 2014 to 2020 and it would be madness to put at risk major job-generating projects when they are already underway and much-needed.

Although you could be forgiven for thinking so, there are many other matters that we need to discuss at this conference apart from our relationship with the EU.

The Communities and Local Government Select Committee used to fret in the past about whether the department’s agenda was prominent enough in government. That is not a question they ask anymore.

During the last 12 months, local government has played a more prominent and influential role in government policy than at any time I can remember.

Ten Devolution Deals for combined authorities have been negotiated covering 30% of the population of England. Local government will retain 100% of business rates from 2019 to 2020 and will be financially independent of central government.

Every part of England is on the point of submitting proposals for the Local Growth Fund which I launched in 2014 and is now driving growth in all parts of the country.

There is much more to do, and I am determined that you should drive the reforms that are needed.

During the last few months I have been working closely with the group leaders and officers in the LGA on how to make sure business rates retention is implemented in a way that is fair and effective to all types of councils an all parts of the country.

I have argued strongly in government that we should get on with the preparations and specifically invite local government to recommend its preferred solution.

So I can announce today that I am publishing the official consultation on business rates retention that will allow us to continue the momentum for reform. The consultation is open enough – rather than narrowly prescriptive – to give ample space for colleagues here to shape the solution that we arrive at.

There is a major opportunity – arising from a major challenge – to transform the way in which the NHS and local councils work together to care for our elderly and vulnerable.

In the Local Government Finance Settlement I negotiated with the Treasury and was able to secure a proposal that had been made to me by local government – the 2% social care precept, which has raised £308 million extra for social care in its first year, and a new fund available to local government to improve social care. But I am well aware that there is further to go.

At its best, local NHS bodies work efficiently with local councils to ensure that hospital patients and elderly residents – who are one and the same people – are helped to get the best care they need in the most appropriate setting.

But too often this is the exception rather than the rule, and the genuine full-hearted collaboration that is necessary has too often been lacking. That that must change – culturally, as much as structurally.

I will redouble efforts to work with the Health Secretary to support any area that brings forward new ways of working that can improve social care. I will help ensure that you are not held back because it hasn’t been done before, or because budgets held by health providers have proved elusive to local government.

I thanked you earlier for the transformation that you have made in providing the planning permissions we need to provide the homes that we need for the next generation. But while more planning permissions were granted, the number of new homes actually built has increased but not at the same pace.

We need to close this gap. There is nothing more frustrating to you – or to me – than seeing a plot that has been granted planning permission taking years to be built out.

So we need, together, to speed up the implementation of planning permissions. One of the ways we can do that is to provide smaller sites – or subdivide bigger sites – so that they are available to the small and medium-sized local and regional builders who literally built the Britain we are familiar with today, but whose balance sheets and access to finance puts them at a disadvantage when it comes to acquiring large sites.

At the Spending Review we secured £20 billion for investment in house building and I am determined to work with you so that we can – in partnership – turn around the 30 year deficit in house building that has caused so much anguish for the millions of young people who want only to do what our generation was able to do with confidence – count on a home of their own.

We have important further work to do on devolution. The devolution deals we have agreed already cover a third of the country by population – but they are very much available to all of the country.

No place is the same and no deal should be the same.

The geography and powers and governance that are right for one place will not be right for another. But in every case I will look for local agreement, not central imposition.

Now I know that in many cases it would seem easier to give a standard blueprint and compel authorities to adopt it.

But if you believe in devolution as I do that is to miss the whole point. I will not compel any council to join any devolution arrangement. It needs to be locally agreed.

But in a Britain in which the question has changed from whether to devolve to how significantly, there is a huge opportunity for leaders who are willing to work together in harmony to take powers and budgets which can be used to magnify the impact on the lives of their residents.

Mr Chairman, Conference. In at least 3 political parties – the Conservative Party, the Green Party and UKIP – there is a leadership contest underway – and if Labour were to join it would make 4.

My advice to local government in these leadership contests is not to take the new found resurgence of interest in local government for granted.

For many years devolution to local government was campaigned for locally, but was thwarted nationally. Some departments of government are recent converts, but in the recent past they were the most implacable opponents.

A year ago I said I wanted to see a nation of muscular communities. Now is the time to exercise that muscle.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– lower transportation costs

– the availability of local knowledge to inform investment decisions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, what do our cities need to compete globally?

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

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

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

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

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

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

– as the human face of a responsive local democracy

– the honest broker of an active civil society

– the chief ambassador of a thriving urban economy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Below is the text of the speech made by Greg Clark, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, at the Guildhall in London on 27 January 2016.

Ladies and Gentlemen.

It is an honour to be speaking here this evening, on this most sombre and important of days.

It’s not only my privilege to represent Her Majesty’s government.

The government wishes, of course, to pay its respects to those whom we honour this evening, such as the 10 British prisoners of war who saved Hannah Sarah Rigler from the Danzig death march.

Hiding her, feeding her, nursing her back to health.

But it is also my privilege and responsibility to speak as a citizen, husband and father, one who wants his children to grow to maturity in a peaceful, tolerant and supportive society, free from the blight of sectional hatred.

This duty to speak up is one borne by each of us.

Because Nazi Germany taught us – hard though it is to say – that genocide happens not just through the choices made by those who perpetrate it, but through the choices made by those who fail to stop the perpetrators.

It’s not just that bystanders look away; it’s that they choose to look away. The soil of hatred is fertilised by indifference to wickedness.

That starts with tolerating small acts of hatred, such as casual stereotyping; only if “everyday evil” remains unchecked can wickedness take root, and grow, into the acts which blight humanity.

William Wilberforce urged Parliament towards the abolition of slavery by saying:

“You may choose to look the other way but you can never say again that you did not know”.

On Holocaust Memorial Day, on behalf of the government – and myself – I commit never to choose to look away.

We must all recognise hatred, and challenge it; wherever and whenever we see it.

Below is the text of the speech made by Greg Clark, the then Minister of State for Decentralisation and Planning, at the Birmingham Chambers of Commerce on 25 January 2012.

I’m delighted to have this opportunity to speak alongside Lord Adonis and Lord Heseltine, who have done so much to galvanise the debate on the future of our cities.

It’s also an honour to share a stage with Mike Ward and Sir Peter, each of whom brings so much passion and intelligence to working for the future of their respective cities.

All I want to do today is answer a simple question. It is to explain why, in the Coalition Agreement, the Government made a commitment to establishing elected mayors in cities outside London, subject to a confirmatory referendum of local people.

Let me start with an example that will be familiar to everyone here. Nearly one hundred and forty years ago, Joseph Chamberlain became mayor of Birmingham. At the age of 37, he was not what would now be called a career politician. He had spent his early life running family businesses – trading in ironware and shoes. But his business acumen equipped him well for civic life. After just three years as mayor, he was able to boast that he had left his city “parked, paved, assized, marketed, gas and watered and improved.”

His influence is still evident today, from parks that soften the city, to fine buildings on Corporation Street, to the University. But his legacy is more than physical: he has become a symbol of what good local government can achieve, and an abiding inspiration to generations of people who believe in public service in their city.

It is no coincidence, I would argue, that Chamberlain represented a particular brand of leadership. He was a charismatic individual who assumed the captaincy of his city, exercised broad powers, and set a clear personal vision.

Today, the great challenge before us is one of economic growth. And I am convinced that the battle for Britain’s prosperity will be won or lost in our cities. It is a challenge on a global scale. Consider Birmingham, the second largest city economy in the United Kingdom, but only now the 71st largest in the world. A world, in which economic power is shifting from West to East and North to South. Where, when it comes to competing for the brightest graduates and the best investment, you don’t just have to beat Barcelona, but Bangalore too.

Our cities have great strengths and a proud history, but they need to fight harder than ever to be heard in world that is dawning. Vigorous local leadership is becoming more important as every year goes by.

It is self evident that each of our cities is distinct and unique. Bristol and Newcastle, Manchester and Leicester, they all have different ambitions, different assets. No team of ministers or officials in London – no matter how bright or well-intentioned – can devise one set of solutions that fit these very different circumstances. To achieve their ambitions, to fulfil their potential, cities need to take charge of their own destinies. The drive must come from within, not without.

To achieve their ambitions, to fulfil their potential, cities need to take charge of their own destinies.

Where we can see strong leadership, complemented by clear accountability to local people, we in central Government are ready to help cities do things their way. Our great cities should not be run as branch offices of central Government. This may turn the established order on its head, but it’s time that Whitehall knew its place. Let Birmingham be Birmingham, let Manchester be Manchester. Let cities have the powers and freedoms they need tailored to their individual circumstances. I am, for example, looking forward to talking with Sir Peter about the new freedoms he needs to help him shape Leicester’s future.

Local leadership can come in many forms. Look at Mike’s past eight years as leader here – producing ambitious plans for the city centre, securing improvements to New Street Station, and getting the new library underway. Or take Mike’s key role in making a success of the new Local Enterprise Partnership, for example by securing the involvement of Andy Street – the MD of John Lewis – one of Britain’s most outstanding business leaders in one of Britain’s most admired companies. Mike’s achievements stand as testament that great things are possible under current arrangements.

But I believe the evidence also shows that some forms of leadership are better suited than others in helping cities reach their full potential. The experience, both in this country and abroad, suggests that the leadership model with the greatest promise of all is the elected mayor.

Research undertaken on behalf of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in 2005 found that the democratic mandate provided by directly elected mayors has – and I quote “provided a basis for a stronger, more proactive style of leadership than other models.”

The world’s great cities have mayors who lead for their city on the national and international stage, attracting investment and jobs.

Look at the cities that Birmingham is twinned with: Chicago, Frankfurt, Johannesburg, Lyon and Milan. All led by an executive mayor.

We believe that mayors can help English cities achieve their full potential too.

In its twelve years of existence, the Mayoralty of London is already hailed across the world for its influence in raising the profile of the capital and for securing major projects the city needs – from Crossrail to the Olympic games.

Mayors have clout – a personal mandate to speak truth to central Government, to argue for the interests of those they represent.

Mayors are visible – with a profile that makes them natural ambassadors for their cities, especially when it comes to attracting investment.

And with a four-year term, mayors have the space to think for the long term, to make tough strategic decisions, to get public and private sectors working together effectively.

In short, I believe that mayors have the greatest potential of any leadership model, which is why we are asking our largest cities to vote on whether they want to move to a mayoral system.

To those who worry that our proposals represent an imposition on communities – I would say that, on the contrary, referendums give people a chance to look at the evidence and decide for themselves. All we are doing is insisting on the debate – and giving the people of each city the chance to have their say.

Last Thursday, Parliament considered the order that would allow the people of Birmingham can have their say on the 3rd May. Subject to further parliamentary debates, we soon hope to confirm that ten more cities will be having a referendum in May too. If cities vote yes to having a mayor, a further ballot will take place to decide who that first mayor should be.

The new mayor should be in place sooner rather than later to get on with the job. So I can announce today that our intention is that this ballot will take place on November 15: the same day as the elections for the first police commissioners – and hence a day that I hope will be a landmark in the shift of powers and influence from Whitehall to communities.

2012 will be a mayoral year in Britain. We will see a contest that will decide who will be leader of our capital city in this, its Olympic summer. We will see mayoral referendums in 11 of our great cities. Where cities want it, we will see further votes in November. There is every prospect that by the end of this year a new generation of mayors will be in post.

Now it’s over to you. This May, the people of our cities will have the chance to have their say. Now is the time to start weighing up what a mayor can do for your city, and so I welcome today’s debate as just such an opportunity.

Thank you to the Chamber of Commerce for hosting this occasion. Birmingham has made a rich contribution to the history of municipal leadership. I can’t think of a better place to witness a debate that is key to its future.

Below is the text of the speech made by Greg Clark, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, to the NHBC at Church House in London on 26 November 2015.

A turnaround decade for housing

Thank you, it’s an honour to speak to so many of you today – in a momentous week for housing, especially at an event hosted by the NHBC. Your timing couldn’t be better after the Spending Review, so that I couldn’t possibly come empty handed.

The NHBC is a credit to the industry – an example of how standards can be raised and maintained independently of government.

Not only does the NHBC certify houses, it also helps insure them – providing warranties on around 80 per cent of all the new homes built in this country:

A model of taking direct responsibility that ought to be applied more widely.

We can be proud that as other countries seek to establish similar organisations, it is to this country that they look for inspiration.

The same cannot be said for every aspect of our country’s record on housing.

The first decade of the 21st century was not our finest hour:

• housing bubble that burst with devastating consequences
• industry in debt
• sites mothballed
• workers laid off
• skills lost
• the lowest level of peacetime house building since the 1920s
• post-war low in house building by the private sector – and by councils
• shrinkage in the stock of affordable housing
• sustained fall in home ownership
• chaos in the regulation of lending
• and a planning system grinding to a halt

The roots of this failure run deep.

Through decades of a complacency about different components of the housing market.

Decades of political inertia.

And decades in which this country consistently failed to build enough homes.

The Prime Minister has spoken of his determination to make this our turnaround decade.

A decade in which we eliminate the budget deficit. But also the housing deficit.

This may not be a familiar term, but if the level of house building falls below the level of household formation then a housing deficit is exactly what we have.

And, furthermore, a housing deficit that builds up into a housing debt – one that cashes out not just in house price inflation and falling ownership, but contributes to economic instability, social inequality and stunted opportunities.

For the good of us all – and especially of the younger generation – we must, and will, put this right.

Progress to date

So, five years into this turnaround decade, what progress have we made?

Most importantly, there’s been a significant recovery in the level of house building.

This can be seen across of a variety of measures, there’s no shortage of competition for housing statistics on any given week, but on this occasion let me refer to NHBC figures.

In 2009, they registered 81,000 new homes; this year they expect to register 160,000.

This is based on a pretty consistent 80 per cent share of the market and approximates to a doubling of building levels during this period.

And good progress continues to be made. The most recent year of figures shows a ten per cent increase in registrations.

In fact, the net supply of housing has shown the biggest annual increase in almost three decades.

This hasn’t happened by accident. From the start, we did what was needed to get the house building industry back on its feet:

• by stabilising the banking system
• through financial guarantees for development; and in helping first time buyers
• over 230,000 households have been helped into home ownership through government schemes
• over 100,000 through the various strands of Help to Buy
• the number of first time buyers is at a seven-year high – and now stands at double the low established in the previous decade
• crucially, we’ve increased the stock of affordable homes. Over 263,000 affordable homes have been provided in England since April 2010 – nearly one third of them in London.

I might also add that twice as many council homes were built in these five years than during the previous 13 years.

We reformed the planning system. I want to express my gratitude to many people in this room who supported us in this reform.

They said it couldn’t be done, but the National Planning Policy Framework is now four years old – and bearing fruit.

In 2010, most local authorities didn’t even have a Local Plan. Instead they had 1,300 pages of central planning guidance. And thousands more from the Regional Spatial Strategies.

We removed this smothering blanket of verbiage and replaced it with the NPPF – a clear and accessible document of just 52 pages.

Now, the great majority of local authorities do have a Local Plan – and we will ensure that the rest are in place by 2017. Moreover, these are better Local Plans.

Those adopted since the NPPF set targets equivalent to 109 per cent of national household projections – versus 86 per cent for pre-NPPF plans.

Planning permissions in the year to the 31 March 2015 were up 13 per cent on the previous year and 64 per cent on the year to March 2010.

Overall, we now permit around a quarter of a million new homes every year; which, if built out, would be enough to close the housing deficit.

The ongoing challenge

But there’s more to do.

Of course, planning for all the homes we need isn’t enough. We have to build them too.

We must therefore go further and faster to ensure that this happens.

Since the election this year, my department has continued with the most effective measures of the previous parliament.

We’ve pressed ahead with the release of publicly-owned land for development.

And we’ve introduced the Housing and Planning Bill, which is in committee stage as we speak.

This Bill includes:

• provision for 200,000 Starter Homes by 2020
• an automatic register of brownfield land
• and measures to speed up the CPO process
• measures to support the extension of the Right to Buy from council tenants to housing association tenants

Instead, we’ve agreed a deal with the housing associations to get on with the job without delay. In return, the government will ensure that the proceeds of Right to Buy sales are used to build new affordable homes for rent and purchase.

The housing associations have set an example here for the whole industry:

• a willingness to move forward in order to build the homes we need; a readiness to be part of the progress we all hope to benefit from
• to get to where we need to be, we must give something in return
• and all parts of the industry do have something to give

We need to see a re-diversification of the sector. A big role not only for the housing associations, but also for councils, self builders, custom builders, small-and-medium-sized enterprises and overseas companies in that sector.

This doesn’t mean a smaller role for the biggest players in the industry.

Quite the opposite.

To house a growing population we need more houses from everyone.

This is not a zero-sum game.

If we tried to play it that way, zero would be the sum of the progress made.

The Spending Review

Of course, a government shouldn’t ask others to move out of their comfort zones if it isn’t willing to do the same.

For any Chancellor of the Exchequer, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, or Conservative government, intervening in the market and committing public money is not something done lightly.

Yet we are determined to invest in what matters most to Britain’s future.

As the Chancellor said yesterday in the Commons: “in this Spending Review we choose housing.”

Specifically, we have secured over £20 billion from the Spending Review to support our wider ambitions to deliver one million new homes and to double the number of first time buyers.

Individual measures include:

• extend the Help to Buy: equity loan scheme to 2021 – supporting the purchase of more homes
• in London, a doubling of equity loans to 40%, providing the capital’s aspiring home owners with a better chance to buy
• and a £1 billion Housing Delivery Fund to support small and custom builders
• there will be £8 billion for a total of over 400,000 affordable homes – the largest affordable housebuilding programme for many decades
• and we’re making major investments in large-scale projects – including Ebbsfleet Garden City, Bicester, Barking Riverside and Northstowe

So, while the Chancellor has made clear his determination to close the budgetary deficit, he was equally clear that this will go hand in hand with action on the housing deficit.

Both are required to make this the turnaround decade.

Both more and better

Ladies and gentlemen, in the last five years both we and you have pulled house building up from the record lows of the previous decade.

In the next five years we intend to push it up further, to levels not sustained for many decades.

But this is not the limit of our ambitions.

The challenges that I’ve described in this speech were many decades in the making.

And so, as our focus moves from rescue to reform, we must address the deep structural weaknesses in the way that this country plans and builds for the future.

This work is already underway through reforms like the NPPF, and the work must go on.

Though the investment announced in the spending review is vital and necessary – we must also move to a future in which we which we can provide new homes without constant intervention from the centre.

In which demand for housing can be met as readily as demand for other goods in our society.

This goes beyond numbers alone.

As well as building more homes, we must build better homes.

Indeed, better streets and neighbourhoods too.

I am proud that we have made – and will continue to make – such progress together on quantity.

But let’s not waste the chance to also make progress together on quality.

We must redouble our efforts.

To achieve our objectives we don’t just need the commitment of the government and the industry, but of the nation as a whole.

Ultimately that means convincing people that development is a force for making places better not worse.

Therefore, the task before us is build both more and better.

And, together, we will.

Thank you.

Below is the text of the speech made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Greg Clark, on 29th October 2012 in London at the City Deals Wave Two Launch.

I would first like to thank the Centre for Cities for hosting today’s event.  I can think of no better organisation to help us announce the Government’s plan for unlocking the economic potential of UK cities. Like me, the Centre for Cities is committed to decentralisation, ensuring that cities are given the opportunity to develop bespoke solutions to local economic issues. As the Centre’s Chief Executive, Alexandra Jones, has said previously, the introduction of City Deals represents “the biggest shift in central and local government relations for decades.”

Today the Government is launching the second wave of City Deals. Building on the success of Wave One we are inviting a further twenty cities to bid for a City Deal. But before I go into the detail of today’s announcement I’d like to reflect on the success of Wave One, the principles behind Wave Two and the process I am launching today.

It would be fair to say that people were at first sceptical about City Deals. In fact, the motto of the Royal Society, in whose magnificent hall we stand today, ‘Nullius in verba’, which roughly translates as ‘take nobody’s word for it’, pretty much summed up people’s reaction when we launched Wave One ten months ago. And yet now Wave One has exceeded all expectations.

I think the figures speak for themselves. The deals agreed earlier this year will create up to 175,000 jobs and 37,000 new apprenticeships.  But what has been achieved is about more than simply numbers. It is about no less than a transformed relationship between national and local government, in which cities, not just Whitehall, have the right of incentive over new policy.

I am delighted these deals have been agreed and I am committed to ensuring they are implemented with vigour.

Why City Deals?

To prosper, and for people to realise their ambitions, we need to grow. We need the right macroeconomic environment – a sound economy with low interest rates – and the right microeconomic conditions – competitive taxes, labour laws that are flexible and workforces that have the right skills.

But, or course, growth doesn’t take place in the abstract , at a national level. It happens in particular places, where new businesses locate and take on people, or existing businesses expand and increase their sales. Our cities have a particularly important place in this. In fact, I believe that the drive for growth – for Britain’s economic future – needs to be most energetic in our cities.

There’s a good reason for that. As the Harvard economist, Ed Glaeser, has recently argued “cities are our greatest invention”. They lower transport costs, help us share knowledge and spark innovation. As the world becomes ever more complex, the role of cities in bringing people together and facilitating collaboration will become increasingly important. Cities are the building blocks of the global economy.

Cities are where things happen. 74% of Britain’s population lives in a city or its surrounding area. And they account for 78% of all jobs. Take the 20 urban areas assembled here today for the second wave of City Deals. Their assets include 2 of the top 10 universities in the world, one of the largest concentrations of oil and gas and process and marine engineering industries in Europe, and the heart of Europe’s automotive industry, including its most productive plant. In short, the cities represented here today can count on global assets and huge growth potential.

And yet too many of our cities haven’t done as well as those in other countries. Even in the supposed boom decade leading up to 2008, the number of private sector jobs in Nottingham and Birmingham actually fell.

In England, Bristol is the only one of the eight largest cities outside London that has a GDP per head above the national average – while in Germany, every single one of the eight biggest cities outside Berlin has better than average GDP per head. In other words, German cities are the engines of national growth, generating wealth and prosperity, pulling the rest of the country behind them. Most of England’s big cities have not been doing the same – yet.

So that is why this Government introduced City Deals.  For our economy to operate at its potential our cities must achieve their potential.

So now to extend them

If the Government had decided to stop, having done deals with only the biggest cities, then I believe we would be failing in our task of putting urban policy at the heart of our economic growth agenda. Instead, we are pushing forward by opening up discussions on a second wave of City Deals, potentially benefiting more than 7million people, and signalling this Government’s desire to promote growth across the country.

First the next biggest urban areas:

• The Black Country
• Bournemouth and Poole
• Brighton and Hove
• Coventry and Warwickshire
• Hull and The Humber
• Leicester and Leicestershire
• Plymouth
• Preston and Lancashire
• Reading
• Southampton and Portsmouth
• Southend
• Stoke and Staffordshire
• Sunderland and the North East
• The Tees Valley

Just think of their strengths. Plymouth; home to the largest naval base in Western Europe and one of the largest marine and maritime clusters in England. Sunderland; home to Nissan’s super-productive car plant. Coventry; home to Jaguar’s corporate and research headquarters. The Tees Valley; the UK’s fourth largest port, with strengths in petrochemicals, steel and process industries.

We are also extending city deals to fast growing cities. The Centre for Cities, in its Private Sector Cities report in 2010, said some of England’s cities “have been creating thousands of new jobs in the private sector, but need to be expanded further to help businesses and workers take advantage of the opportunities being generated.”

So, in addition to our biggest cities, we are extending an invitation to some of our fastest growing cities.

• Cambridge
• Milton Keynes
• Norwich
• Ipswich
• Oxford
• Swindon and Wiltshire

Wave Two won’t be identical to Wave One. Each city and their Local Enterprise Partnership will be invited to put forward a proposal that addresses a significant local economic issue requiring a transformative response. The big challenge here will be identifying and prioritising a specific local challenge that needs to be addressed and coming up with a tailored plan to deal with it. Every place is different. Unique, in fact. So come forward to us with a proposal that reflects that uniqueness – that takes a new direction at solving a problem that is holding back your area.

We also want to ensure that cities have a suite of powers that give them the flexibility to respond to local challenges as they arise. Bespoke arrangements will, therefore, be complemented by a ‘core package’, consisting of measures that will devolve significant powers and functions to all cities that go on to negotiate a deal with Government. This will capitalise on the progress we have made so far, demonstrating our commitment to the devolution of powers from central to local government, if local areas are willing to offer significant reform in return.

Another difference is that there is now a competitive element. We are inviting 20 cities to put forward an initial proposal. We will use this to assess your appetite to do a deal; and that you are thinking boldly about how you might unlock growth in your city.

We are therefore having a three month period to determine which cities are ready to proceed. Selected cities will then go forward to work with us to develop and negotiate proposals over the following months.

Cities will need to make a case for new investment and powers, with a clear evidence base and a strong economic rationale. You will need to show how new flexibilities will benefit local people. And you will need to demonstrate how you would manage budgets, and hold yourselves accountable to residents. Every deal is a two-way trade. We expect you to be ambitious in your asks of Government, but you should expect the Government to be equally demanding in return. There must be significant benefits and credible commitments for both parties.

You will, of course, shortly receive detailed guidance on the process but the priorities for me are:

One.  Governance. I have already covered this, but you must demonstrate strong and collaborative governance across your economic area. We have already encouraged local leaders to think and work together in ways that reflect their true economic geography. We want to see this approach continuing so that the decisions necessary for the growth of the area as a whole can be taken quickly and effectively.

Two.  Doing more with less. The Government is looking for proposals that can create new jobs and growth and that will drive better outcomes with the same, or fewer resources. If you can demonstrate to us that you can achieve better outcomes with the same or fewer resources why would we not say yes?

Three.  Your ability to harness significantly greater private sector input, expertise and resources.  Where urban policy does not involve the private sector it is much more likely to fail.  So ensure that your LEPs are at the heart of your proposals, make sure you test your ideas with local business leaders and above all demonstrate to us how your proposals can unlock private sector investment. We know that the public sector resources are limited so we need to make sure those that we do invest get as much leverage as possible.

Four.  I want you to be under no illusions, this will be a tough negotiation with difficult decisions required along the way.  We therefore need to know that you are as committed as we are. Your ability to demonstrate your readiness to put resources into delivering the deal and your willingness to take on risk is crucial to you moving forward.

Five. Propositions should address a clearly defined economic problem. My advice would be to not come back to us with a shopping list of projects that you have dusted off the shelf.  Instead, take the time to have another look at your evidence, focus in on a particular economic problem and start to think about what you, by working across your functional economic area and with specific empowerment from central government could achieve. Your proposed solutions should be of significant scale and cannot be achieved through existing mechanisms.  They should also demonstrate how they will support the government’s objectives of reducing regulation, create well functioning markets and promote an enabling environment for business and boost private sector growth and investment.

A hundred years ago there was no question that the future of every one of our great cities was driven by the initiative of the leaders and people of those cities. Yet during the last century, year by year, the power has ebbed away from the City Hall to Whitehall.

I am determined that this Government will turn that tide and once again restore initiative, power and – through that- prosperity to our cities, and through them, to our country.