UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Chloe Smith – 2012 Speech to ResPublica

    chloesmith

    Below is the text of the speech made by Chloe Smith, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, to ResPublica on 17 January 2012.

    Good morning and thank you for inviting me to speak here today about Charities and Philanthropy.

    It’s a subject of deep interest to me in my role in the Treasury and one that is vital to realising the Government’s vision of a Big Society.

    And I’m pleased to be speaking about this issue here at ResPublica, as it is you that have led and shaped that debate in recent years.

    It’s your innovative insights on public service delivery, emphasising the virtue and the potential of an associative society, that have set the agenda for ambitious reform across public services.

    When we came to Government we knew that we were at a watershed for how we provide public goods and meet public need. Over the previous decade, under the previous Government, power was continuously hoarded to the centre, to Whitehall.

    It became all about central levers and targets.

    But over that decade, the very nature of society itself was changing, becoming less hierarchical in every sector.

    The internet has been the great leveller and across every sphere it gave individuals the tools to take action for themselves, to produce their own solutions, to share their ideas with a wider community.

    And across the board, businesses, pressure groups, social entrepreneurs, and charities seized the opportunity to grow with renewed vigour. And at the same time, or perhaps as a result of this change, there has been a profound shift in attitudes across society.

    Whilst there are still those who point to Government and say “You do it”, there is an ever growing tide of people who are saying “We’ll do it.”

    A wave of people who have the knowledge, tools, and support to take on responsibility not only for their own needs and their family, but the community that they live in.

    A wave of change that brings irresistible pressure to reform at the very heart of Whitehall.

    Big society

    At its heart, the Big Society is about putting more power in people’s hands – a massive transfer of power from Whitehall to local communities.

    Giving local councils and neighbourhoods more power to take decisions and shape their area.

    Encouraging and enabling people to play a more active part in society

    And opening up public services to enable charities, social enterprises, private companies and employee-owned co-operatives to compete to offer high quality services

    We have made some excellent progress towards realising these ambitions. Not least in supporting the charities that drive volunteering and social action across the UK.

    Steps taken to support charities

    We have already taken steps to reduce the administrative burdens which can be a great weight on charities and distract them from their primary purpose and their primary love.

    At Budget we committed to an online filing system for charities to claim Gift Aid, to be introduced during 2012/13. I know from feedback to the announcement that this will make a big difference across the sector.

    And we have already delivered a significant first step with the introduction in April of intelligent forms for charities to apply for and claim Gift Aid.

    These forms contain automatic checks so will considerably reduce the number of mistakes made, the need for manual checking and so speed up the claiming process.

    HMRC will also be working with the sector to develop a Gift Aid database for charities. We have also taken steps to develop new fundraising opportunities for charities.

    We opened a £100m Transition Fund to help charities, voluntary groups and social enterprises affected by reductions as part of the Government’s Spending Review.

    This was part of a £470 million support for the sector, demonstrating the Government’s commitment to building the resilience of voluntary sector organisations.

    We are developing new funding streams like the Big Society Bank, which will draw on money in dormant bank accounts to provide wholesale finance for charities and other groups.

    But we are also working with charities to develop ways and means to galvanise greater giving across society.

    Creating incentives for people to donate more to charities like those represented here so that they can continue and expand their programmes. It’s about identifying what Government can do to incentivise people in to giving more.

    Budget and Autumn Statement 2011

    We want to make it easier for people to give in a range of ways and at different life stages.

    Tax reliefs for charities and charitable giving are an important way to do that, and though they cost over £3bn a year, they are a vital source of support for charities.

    And over the last year we have taken important steps to improve the effectiveness of reliefs, and also expand opportunities for giving.

    We are reducing the rate of inheritance tax from 40% to 36% for those individuals who leave 10% or more of their estate to charity. This will reduce the cost of giving to charity through bequests. We consulted on the detail of this proposal last summer, and will put legislation into place through Finance Bill 2012.

    We have also made changes to encourage greater lifetime giving of pre-eminent works of art to the nation in return for a tax reduction.

    At the Autumn Statement we announced an increase in the annual limit for both tax reductions under the Gifts of Pre-eminent Object scheme and taxes offset under the existing Acceptance in Lieu Scheme, from £20m to £30m.

    And more than that, companies as well as individuals will be able to access the new scheme.

    We have also announced an increase in the Gift Aid benefit limit from £500 to £2,500 to enable charities to better recognise the generosity of their significant donors.

    We have not forgotten smaller charities or donations from those less well off. We are introducing a new Gift Aid Small Donations Scheme from April 2013.

    This will be a big help for those charities collecting so called ‘bucket donations’, allowing them to claim a Gift Aid style payment on small donations up to £10 without collecting Gift Aid declarations.

    Qualifying charities will be able to claim up to £1,250 in repayments on total donations capped at £5,000 per year.

    These measures add up to a significant pack to support charities and charitable giving. But at the same time, there is no cause for complacency.

    Payroll Giving

    Last year’s Government White Paper on Giving demonstrated our commitment to encouraging more people to donate.

    It included a commitment to raise support for Payroll Giving – a tax effective method for employees to make regular donations to charity.

    Payroll giving provides a sustainable and predictable income stream for charities, and I have asked my officials to work with Cabinet Office to seek out ways to improve take-up.

    We know that we have to do much more to raise awareness of the scheme, and ensure that awareness leads to action. Together with the charity sector and with employers we need to change behavioural attitudes to embed giving, in this case payroll giving, as the social norm.

    Conclusion

    At a time when we are having to cope with the worst fiscal deficit in our history, I hope you will agree that the Government has made an excellent start at supporting the charitable sector.

    That said I believe that we are merely at the outset of a period of huge innovation and change for the charitable and wider third sector.

    Not only in terms of finance and philanthropic support, but also for how charities and third sector will be increasingly intertwined with how we deliver public services for the future.

    It is vital that we continue to engage with policy makers, the charities, and service users to ensure that we get these reforms right, and meet public need and efficient and effective way.

    I look forward to our discussion and learning what more we can do working together in the years to come.

    Thank you.

  • Greg Hands – 2016 Speech on Financial Management

    Gregg Hands
    Gregg Hands

    Below is the text of the speech made by Greg Hands, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, in Birmingham on 28 January 2016.

    Good morning, and thank you for inviting me here to Birmingham today.

    I feel I am returning home to some extent – because half my family is from Birmingham.

    My parents met here, and my father grew up here, one of 18 children in a terraced house in Handsworth.

    He attended Handsworth Grammar School, was brilliant at mathematics – I suppose with 17 siblings you get very good at long division – and went on to study at Birmingham University.

    He was a great example of what we politicians call “aspiration” – that drive which spurs people on to achieve.

    I will speak about my own aspiration shortly!

    It’s great to see so many people here – but then again, HMG Finance is quite a major operation…

    It employs 14,500 staff across 39 departments, manages 4000 billion pounds’ worth of assets and liabilities, and is responsible for over 700 billion pounds’ worth of expenditure a year.

    There are, by the way, many people in the City of London who would like to manage a £742 billion portfolio.

    The difference is, of course, that my indicator of success is not how big I can make that number!

    The point about these numbers isn’t just their size: it’s also that they have a direct impact on the lives of every single person in this country, as well as quite a few beyond.

    However, I never like thinking of it as government money. It is public money.

    That distinction is important, because it’s the public who pay the taxes we allocate; and it is ultimately the public to whom we are accountable.

    Spending that money wisely is one of the most important aspects of public service. I would argue that that should be the case at any time.

    But when the country is on a path of economic recovery, it is particularly crucial.

    So my first message today is this: thank you for the hard work you have put in, over the last few years, to make sure we get the best possible bang for our buck.

    Getting the public finances in order has been one of our biggest areas of focus since 2010, to reduce the deficit – indeed, to eliminate it altogether.

    We’re here now to finish the job. And that’s precisely what we are doing.

    At the same time, we have also been asked to cut taxes; to protect and indeed increase spending in several major areas; and to deliver better public services.

    This builds on the important changes made since 2010 to the way the country is run – with the aim of creating a modern, reformed state.

    Whether that’s reforming the criminal justice system; making tax digital; introducing fresh safeguards to UK borders; or recalibrating the way we finance our infrastructure projects – plenty of big decisions have been taken, and HMG Finance has been at the heart of them.

    So, even at a time of deficit reduction, we also have to continue the important reforms we started five and a half years ago.

    In other words, we have our work cut out.

    To make the job even more of a challenge, in recent months we’ve seen the economic storm clouds once again begin to gather on the horizon: whether it’s the China slowdown, the tumble in oil prices, or the turbulence in various markets.

    Our economy is inextricably linked to other economies across the world – as one would expect from a country whose products and services are sought after worldwide.

    Unfortunately, that means that when other markets slow down, that has an impact on us.

    The best possible antidote to all those external economic risks is making sure that our economy is healthy enough to withstand them.

    As the Chancellor said earlier this month in Cardiff, though we’ve made a great deal of progress, on the deficit as well as on the wider economic picture; it’s still “mission critical” rather than “mission accomplished”.

    So we cannot let 2016 be the year where the foot is taken off the pedal.

    Our long-term economic recovery depends on us continuing to seek ways to be more efficient, more effective, smarter in the way we use our resources.

    That is my aspiration!

    Agreeing settlements with my Cabinet colleagues was one of the major tasks of last year.

    The task now is to ensure that those settlements are delivered – even though we will of course have to maintain the flexibility to deal with unforeseen issues that will inevitably arise.

    What that means in practice is that the work you all do, as finance experts, will only become more and more important.

    That’s why I regard it as essential that the Civil Service – right across the departments – has the best possible financial capacity and expertise.

    The 2013 Review of Financial Management gave us a set of recommendations to improve our finance function.

    In response, we developed the Financial Management Reform programme – a programme that’s now recognised as the model for delivering change around Whitehall.

    The programme is committed to ensuring five things in particular.

    First, creating a pipeline of talent, one that extends to senior roles.

    Second, developing the skills of everyone working in Finance.

    Third, sharing expertise and developing more standardised processes across departments.

    Fourth, enhanced use of data and management information across Government.

    And fifth, introducing new projects on specific areas of Government spend, so we can develop a more detailed understanding of the spending issues involved.

    Already, you, as our Government Finance Function, have made great strides in putting finance at the heart of decision-making in Government.

    And there’s been impressive progress on all fronts.

    We have a Finance Fast Stream, for the first time ever, alongside two intakes of Finance Fast Track Apprentices.

    There are now established talent forums, and recruitment campaigns, higher up the career ladder.

    And there’s the launch of a Finance Academy in the pipeline – something which will really serve to improve our capabilities in this area.

    We have 10 costing projects completed. Working across government, these have allowed us to implement savings of £100 million for infrastructure policing, or – another example – announce £600 million extra for mental health services.

    I can tell you that the work done in this area was extremely helpful in my cross-Departmental negotiations last autumn!

    And within the Treasury, we now have a Costing Centre of Excellence. Down the line, this will make government much better at forecasting what specific projects will cost – which is invaluable for agreeing budgets.

    We have a strategy in place for improving the data from which we make decisions – not least through “data sprints”, which are 6-week projects to provide immediate insight into particular issues.

    Not least, we’re in the process of agreeing a Finance Operating Model for government. This will enable us to share expertise, and make the finance profession much more effective.

    The future is going to see much more of the same – and to that end, in last year’s Spending Review, we committed to resource our Financial Management Reform programme, setting up standing teams to drive forward our work.

    I wouldn’t call this the sexy part of running a country, necessarily! And I certainly don’t expect to see, for instance, data sprints on the front pages of national newspapers…

    But without getting the finances right, it’s extremely unlikely that in the future, we will be able to meet this country’s aspirations for the public services it receives.

    People demand more from government. They demand better.

    They demand services more quickly, and for longer.

    They want those services to be more accessible. And of course they also have to be affordable.

    Through your work, we can make that happen.

    The last thing I want to do today is to talk for too long.

    Nobody ever leaves an event saying “I wish the Minister had spoken for longer”! And I know that on these kinds of occasions you will be very keen to ask me questions.

    But before I’ll take those questions, I’ll leave you with two quotes, which I hope will provide food for thought for the rest of this conference.

    The first is from the founder of FedEx, Fred Smith. As well as founder, he is also Chairman, President and CEO. I guess he likes to leave no doubt about who’s in charge…

    An interviewer asked him to what he owed his success. His answer, after a brief pause, was:

    “The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing”.

    Our “main thing” is the public finances. I know that, and you know that!

    But it’s in all of our job descriptions to persuade our other colleagues of it, too.

    The second quote is a little less recent.

    In fact, it comes from the earliest ever guide to running the British economy, printed as far back as 1178.

    It says: “The highest skill at the Exchequer does not lie in calculations, but in judgements on all kinds”.

    I find that invaluable advice.

    Because it places the emphasis, when you’re making decisions, on realising it’s never a matter of black or white.

    There are trade-offs and nuances to consider, and the best submissions and briefings I see invariably take those into account.

    Thank you, once again, for the hard work you have put in over the past years.

    Have a great conference. And I’m looking forward to working with you over the next few years, as we secure the foundations of our long-term economic recovery.

  • David Cameron – 2012 Speech to Headteachers

    davidcameron

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, on 17 January 2012.

    Well welcome everyone. It’s great to have you here at Number 10 Downing Street. I’m always – bit terrified with Queen Elizabeth I looking down on me, prove that anything is possible in life. But a very warm welcome. We’ve got some extremely talented head teachers here, we’ve got my policy aide here. We’ve got Michael Barber who spent many years in this building working for a previous government and is helping us now, also working at Pearson. And obviously we’ve got the Secretary of State for Education on my right. Sir Michael Wilshaw who has kindly agreed to become Head of Ofsted and take on one of the toughest jobs there is in public life, but I think one of the most important and I’m really looking forward to working with you.

    The subject we’re going to look at today which I’m very passionate about is the issue of coasting schools. I think we’d all agree that the last government and this government taking very, very strong action to try to turn around schools that are failing. Also, I think this government is doing a lot to celebrate the excellence there is in the secondary state sector and the primary state sectors, really good schools that are powering ahead to show what can be done. But I think there’s a danger in all of this to miss what is in the middle in terms of some schools that are just above failing – they get left for too long – and also, I think this is a subject that doesn’t get addressed enough, schools that might be ranked as satisfactory or even actually might be ranked as good schools but that could actually do so much better.

    And I think one of the consequences of recent years where we’ve seen some extraordinary stories of turnarounds and new schools in relatively deprived areas and of course Michael for many years ran the Mossbourne Academy in Hackney which is a classic example – a brilliant example – of this. We’ve seen schools that were previously failing turned around with incredible results at GSCE and A-level. And that’s prompted me – but I’m sure many others as well – to ask the question: if you can do that in Hackney, if you can do that in inner city Manchester or inner city Birmingham, why aren’t we doing that everywhere across the country and actually striving for better results?

    Now it’s not just a question of the aspiration of head teachers, or the aspirations of teachers, it’s also about the aspirations of parents and I think our great allies in this agenda as well as – and we’ll hear about Ofsted inspections and what teachers and heads should do – I think our great allies in this should be well-informed parents who want their schools to do more and I think try to raise the rate of… the level of aspiration not just in schools but actually in the home and in society about schools is a very big part of this agenda. That’s enough from me.

    I’m going to ask Michael to set out what he’s talking about today and the proposal he’s making and then perhaps Michael will come in and we’ll open it up and please feel free to agree, disagree, challenge, promote, argue or indeed anything else. Mike, over to you.

  • David Cameron – 2012 Speech at Street League Reception

    davidcameron

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, at the Street League Reception on 17 January 2012.

    Good evening. Please come on through. Good evening and a very warm welcome to Number 10 Downing Street. It gives me real pleasure to welcome Street League here after such a successful year, but I am very, very nervous tonight because the last time we had a Street League party here at Number 10 Downing Street, I was standing next to Cesc Fabregas and I said, ‘I know what’s going to happen? It’s going to be the curse of Cameron. Five minutes after this party, you’re going to be off back to Spain.’ He said, ‘No, I’m not going to be off back to Spain.’ Five minutes after the party, he was. So, Robin – great to have Robin van Persie. I’ve told him he’s not allowed – I know it was a difficult day yesterday. Some pretty tidy football from Swansea, but I wasn’t going to mention that. But anyway, you’re not allowed to go anywhere after this, but thank you very much for what you’re going to do to help support Street League.

    That’s really what I want to say tonight, is just what a fantastic charitable organisation I think this is. I think it brings three really brilliant things together. The first is the idea of using the power of football and the power of sport to do real good in our country and to turn people’s lives around. I think it’s a brilliant idea and listening to some of the people who have been involved this year, some of the graduates – these are really inspiring stories about how Street League has come to town, it’s inspired people, it’s taken them on, it’s given them new hope. So, I think it’s a fantastic idea because it’s harnessing something that we are mad about in this country, football, and turning it to good use.

    The second thing I love about it is that it is also about social action, social enterprise. I’m really proud of the fact that Number 10 Downing Street, in spite of the fact that this can be quite a busy place, that around 40 people in Number 10 have taken part, partnering with Street League and put their time and their effort in to help young people. I said I wanted to help and everyone pointed out that I was completely rubbish at football, but I did a little bit of interview training, some mock interviews for people, and what was great about it was you would think that if you came to Number 10 Downing Street for a mock interview and your mock interviewer was the Prime Minister, it might just be a little bit intimidating, but actually it worked incredibly well. We had some great sessions and it was a huge privilege to take part.

    I think the third and the really key reason why this is such a great idea is what you really get from listening to the – there are, I think, 40 graduates here tonight, but there are 400 overall this year – is just hearing their stories about how this organisation gave them confidence and a chance to go on and do better things. I think that, in the end, is what it is all about: confidence and turning people’s lives around, and giving them a fresh start. It’s a brilliant idea and it’s a charity I’m very proud to be associated with. I want to thank all of the backers, and there are many of them here tonight. I want to thank all the staff who have been involved with Street League. I want to thank also the FA and everyone involved in football that has also partnered Street League. The FA have had a slightly better – and the football league, a slightly better record in terms of luck, because of course there was the first Street League international, which was when England played Spain in a friendly, and we won. It was probably because I wasn’t there, so I didn’t bring my normal curse. But thank you to everyone who has been involved.

    I think this is a fantastic organisation. I think it’s a great idea and it is turning young people’s lives around – 400 people this year, building on 370 last year. So, the question is: what are you going to do next year? How can you go on growing and expanding and building, and getting to more parts of our country? I am absolutely committed to doing what I can to help, as is everyone in Number 10 Downing Street and your other partner organisations. So, a very, very big thank you for what you do, and now I am going to hand over to the man of the match, who did, in spite, scored yesterday – Robin van Persie. Thank you very much.

  • Mark Hoban – 2012 Speech to the London Stock Exchange

    markhoban

    Below is the text of the speech made by Mark Hoban, the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, at MiFID on 18 January 2012.

    Good morning and thank you for inviting me to speak at the here today. It’s a pleasure to speak to many leading figures from across the financial system, and from across Europe, and do so here at one of the world’s oldest stock exchanges.

    From the earliest coffee houses surrounding the Royal Exchange to its formation over two hundred years ago, and through to the global powerhouse that it is today, the London Stock Exchange has always been the beating heart of the city.

    The LSE has been critical to the growth of financial markets in the UK that have enabled UK companies to raise £445bn in funds since 2005.

    With financial and professional services firms that employ almost 2 million people across the UK, with more than two thirds employed outside of London.

    As home to 230 foreign banks, channelling more FDI to the UK than any other sector, but also facilitating a huge amount of foreign investment right across the EU.

    And as the Chancellor said on Monday we are committed to working with the Hong Kong Monetary Authority to promote the development of a strong RMB market here in London.

    Of course as well as growth, over the last 300 years the stock exchange has also borne witness to a fair few crises, most recently, the financial crisis of 2008.

    We still live under the shadow of those events just over four years ago, as what was once a crisis of private and banking debt has transformed into one of sovereign debt.

    As everyone here knows, the instability in the Eurozone continues to undermine confidence and growth across all our economies. Not just across Europe, but across the world.

    Resolving the Eurozone sovereign debt storm is the immediate crisis that we all have to deal with, and we are as eager as our Euro area counterparts to see a comprehensive resolution to the crisis.

    European regulatory reform – challenge

    But over the longer term, we have the equally substantial task of financial sector reform correcting the regulatory failures of the last decade, and ensuring that regulation keeps pace with evolving markets.

    In driving forward regulatory reform, we need to learn the lesson of yesterday, but also recognise that today’s markets could trigger tomorrow’s financial crisis.

    So in the UK, we are reforming the structure and approach of our regulation, looking ahead as well as behind.

    There are those who argue that regulatory reform is the enemy of growth – that we should postpone reform.

    But we reject that argument – ineffective regulation and supervision of banking led to a massive contraction in our economy.

    A stable and resilient financial system provides sustainable economic growth. But we must understand the impact that reform can have on growth – disproportionate regulation can restrict investment, lead to higher costs for investors and lower returns for business.

    Growth is aided by open and competitive markets and we must be aware of those who will use reform to fragment markets – reform must be consistent and non-discriminatory. Reform should not erect barriers either within or around Europe.

    To allow that to happen would be to diminish the opportunities available to businesses and investors of all types.

    That is why we are vigorously guarding against that retreat. A free and open Single Market has brought huge benefits to the whole of the EU and is the most powerful tool that we have to foster renewed growth as we recover from the financial crisis.

    European regulatory reform – principles

    We will support the Commission wholeheartedly in its duty to protect and promote the Single Market in financial services even as we embark on vast regulatory reform.

    Now more than ever, it is critical that Member States are able to have confidence and trust in EU institutions to see through regulatory reform in full and to stand up for the Single Market.

    That means ensuring full and consistent implementation of high minimum regulation standards across the EU, whilst allowing member states to impose higher requirements where needed to ensure financial stability.

    It means protecting the integrity of the single market, ensuring that regulation does not fragment the Single Market by currency, geography or firm.

    And it means applying one of Europe’s core principles – the free movement of capital – to countries outside Europe’s boundaries and as much as to those within it.

    London and Europe thrives because of our freedoms – erecting barriers around Europe impoverishes everyone by denying opportunities for European firms to grow using capital from outside Europe and restricts out opportunity to support growth in Africa and Asia.

    It was because of the value we attach to the Single Market, the maintaining and Open Europe and protecting taxpayers and consumers alike by backing tougher regulation and supervision that the Prime Ministers sought safeguards at last month’s European Council.

    That approach characterises our robust approach to regulation reform at home and abroad.

    In the same way, we cannot afford to impose a Financial Transaction Tax if it is not going to be applied globally.

    Without global consistency, those transactions covered by the tax would merely relocate to countries not applying the tax.

    As the Commission’s own impact assessment shows, a unilateral European tax could reduce EU GDP by as much as 3.4%, or €422bn.

    European regulatory reform – UK leadership

    Even as we embark on a period of unprecedented regulatory reform, we rightly have to have to protect European competitiveness globally, and promote the Single Market within.

    On the Capital Requirements Directive, we continue to press for full and consistent implementation of Basel III as a minimum not a maximum basis.

    High, common and consistently applied minimum standards for capital, liquidity and leverage are vital for stability, reducing fiscal risk and protecting a Single, un-fragmented market.

    On EMIR we have worked hard to ensure a clear recognition of the principle of non-discrimination in the Council and it’s why we are challenging the ECB’s location policy in the ECJ.

    We have also secured a commitment to close loopholes with respect to the clearing obligation, and to ensure fair and open access in future legislation.

    And it’s exactly the same commitment that we are taking on negotiations on MiFID.

    MiFID

    The MIFID Review offers a huge opportunity to promote competition and the Single Market in financial services.

    We have already seen the beneficial impact that MiFID has had in lowering costs and spurring growth in equities markets, and it is right that we seek to update the directive for the significant changes in the market since its original implementation.

    But any reform of MiFID has to be driven by evidence not political whim.

    It is vital that the Commission undertakes the necessary analysis and deliberation to understand the impact of reform, and considers any unintended consequences.

    For instance, whilst it is clear that greater transparency has had a positive effect in equity markets, it is not necessarily the case that that precisely the same measures are directly transferrable to other market classes.

    Both bond and derivative markets are considerably less liquid than equity markets, and extreme care is needed to ensure that transparency requirements are carefully designed to work for each asset class.

    For example, the component bonds that make up Markit’s iBoxx bond indices are some of the most actively traded bonds in Europe. But looking at over 9000 of these bonds, only 52% actually traded at least once in a six month sample period in 2010.

    It is because of this complexity that the Commission must undertake rigorous impact assessments to fully understand the costs and benefits of increased transparency.

    Likewise, the Commission must undertake the same analysis when it comes to updating MiFID to reflect changes in the commodities market.

    The Commission cannot succumb to knee jerk reactions which may only serve to increase costs for European citizens.

    It is vital to remember that the commodities derivatives market serves a critical economic function in allowing end users to mitigate commercial risk.

    That is why we are sceptical about blanket position limits across all markets – they have a role to play in defined circumstances.

    But more often than not active position management by exchanges and authorities will be much more effective in tackling market abuse and indeed provide a more rigorous approach.

    It is incorrect to think that blanket limits will enable governments to control prices as some would seem to suggest.

    Furthermore the Commission must resist pressure to use MiFID to raise barriers against third countries seeking to trade with the EU.

    Across EU dossiers there has been an increasing and worrying tendency to try to implement strict equivalence or reciprocity provisions through EU legislation. It’s an approach that could serve to effectively close EU financial markets to third country firms.

    For instance, it seems that no third country would meet the standards as set out under the current MiFID proposal.

    From the moment that MiFID is passed and until equivalence decisions are taken, it would close the EU market entirely to any new third country firm.

    And barriers would be placed in the way of outward investment flows too, for example restricting access to emerging markets.

    At a time when we have to do everything we can to attract ever more investment within but also beyond the EU’s borders, it’s an approach that merely undermines our growth ambitions.

    Emerging economies are already taking steps to meet global standards of regulation, but change will take time.

    We gain nothing by browbeating emerging economies and their most successful firms and sovereign wealth funds with additional and unnecessary burdens.

    These are all complex debates and underline just how important it is to get the evidence base right to ensure that reform is effective and doesn’t undermine free, competitive and open markets.

    In a post-crisis market where we have seen extensive consolidation across the board, we cannot afford to sit back and sacrifice competition and customer welfare.

    DG Competition in particular has a fierce reputation for objective and rigorous economic and competition analysis, and a record of upholding their Single Market obligations in the European Treaty.

    It is vital that DG Competition lives up to those duties in the weeks and months to come, without political interference.

    To protect and promote the Single Market as we implement a vast agenda of reform.

    Across the European financial services agenda, the Commission must not let political expediency trump economic evidence.

    Responsibility of the European Commission

    I fully understand nonetheless that the Commission faces a huge challenge to resist pressure to delay, obfuscate and pander to vested interests in the EU.

    We see the Commission as parties in our commitment to protect and promote the Single Market in financial services…to meet its responsibility to secure regulation in the interest of all 27 members of the EU.

    Regulatory reform that is ambitious, effective and based on rigorous economic analysis.

    Domestic regulation – supervision

    It’s exactly the same approach that we have taken in our domestic reforms.

    It’s no exaggeration to say that the UK has been leading the way on regulatory and banking reform, taking tough and far reaching decisions to remedy the failures that preceded the crisis.

    We are fundamentally reforming our system of financial supervision, remedying the failures of the Tripartite system.

    Putting the Bank of England back in charge of prudential regulation;

    Creating the Financial Policy Committee to monitor risks across the financial system, whilst also requiring the FPC to take economic growth considerations into account when pursuing financial stability;

    And we are creating a Financial Conduct Authority to oversee the conduct and operation of firms and markets, putting the consumer protection at the heart of the financial system.

    We have also introduced a permanent bank levy on wholesale funding that is higher in relative terms than any other major European jurisdiction, targeting short term funding in particular.

    And we have introduced the toughest and most transparent pay regime of any major financial centre in the world.

    Domestic regulation – ICB

    But even with such ambitious reforms, there is no room for complacency.

    We are also learning the lessons of the crisis to implement radical reform to the structure of the banking system itself on the basis of recommendations from the Independent Commission on Banking.

    Recommendations which seek to answer how to create successful but stable financial services sector.

    Recommendations that seek to preserve the innovation that fuels the sector’s success without putting the wider economy at risk.

    As the Chancellor set out last year, we will separate retail and investment banking through a ring fence, ensuring that services that are vital to families, businesses and the whole economy can continue without resort to taxpayer money.

    We will also ensure that banks have bigger cushions to absorb losses without recourse to the taxpayer.

    That means requiring ring fenced retail banks hold equity capital of at least 10%, more than required under the Basel III agreement, with minimum loss absorbing capacity for the bigger banks of at least 17%.

    Through these proposals on loss absorbency, and through our initiative on Recovery and Resolution Plans, we are tackling the perceived implicit taxpayer guarantee for UK banks.

    That perceived guarantee for banks not just in the UK, but across the UK, is one of the greatest distortions to the Single Market.

    We are tackling that distortion at home, and we will continue to work with the Commission to reconcile that distortion at the international level through the Crisis Management Framework.

    Conclusion

    It is the UK that has been at the vanguard of regulatory reform.

    Our domestic reforms strengthen regulation of the banking sector, promote competition and protect the interests of the taxpayer.

    Our willingness to act on capital and liquidity in delivering the international consensus has strengthened and protected our banking sector at a time of stress in European markets.

    It is the UK that has been leading the way to ensure that we implement tough, consistent and non-discriminatory reforms that safeguard the stability, openness and competitiveness of the European financial system.

    But on all these fronts, we need the support and the evidence base of the industry. We need to hear your voices not just here in London, not only in Brussels, but right across the EU.

    It’s no easy task in the current environment, but we remain committed to working tirelessly to protect the Single Market, and we will continue to press the European Commission to resist vested interests that would seek to undermine it.

    It is only by working with the likes of yourselves here today that we can embed reform that is credible, effective, and protects the open competition which has allowed financial services to support growth across all 27 members of the EU.

    I look forward to working with you in that task in the months and years to come

    Thank you.

  • Justine Greening – 2012 Speech at the Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning and Transport Annual Dinner

    justinegreening

    Below is the text of the speech made by Justine Greening, the then Secretary of State for Transport, on 18 January 2012.

    Thank-you Matthew for that introduction [Matthew Lugg – ADEPT President].

    And thank you also for inviting me along.

    ADEPT and its members don’t just help to shape the transport debate in this country – you also help to set the transport agenda, so it’s a real pleasure to be with you this evening.

    Now there are 2 important lessons I’ve learned since going into politics.

    The first is that the words, “I wish the minister had gone on longer…” are rarely on the lips of an audience at the end of a speech.

    And the second is that you don’t win applause, or for that matter any votes, by keeping people from their well-earned dinner.

    So, with both of those lessons in mind, I promise to keep my speech brief.

    Good transport equals good economics

    I am honoured and proud to be the Transport Secretary, just as I was honoured and proud to serve as a Treasury minister.

    And, in each of these roles, I have come to understand the crucial importance of a certain equation.

    Now, as equations go, it’s a pretty straightforward one. But it drives my policy approach at DfT.

    The equation I’m talking about is this: good transport equals good economics:

    – cutting commuting times and speeding up journey times

    – moving people and products faster

    – connecting our businesses and wealth creators with the global economy

    That’s how you generate growth and put people back to work. That’s how you make Britain’s competitive edge razor sharp.

    The plain truth is that we cannot afford to sit back and look on while other countries invest in world class transport networks.

    In the emerging economies of Asia and Latin America, In the Middle East and Africa, and even in the United States and the European Union, nation after nation is upgrading and expanding their infrastructure.

    They are our competition in the international marketplace, in the race to win the future.

    Every bridge they repair and every road they improve, every rail track they lay and every global gateway they open drives their growth and increases their prosperity.

    So, if Britain is to out-produce, out-innovate and out-compete the rest of the world, then we too must update our transport infrastructure and make it fit for the 21st century.

    And that’s precisely what this government is doing.

    A different choice

    We know that ageing, past their best transport links are a tax on British businesses and British families. They cost them time and money.

    Which is why we made a different choice.

    Instead of taking the axe to capital investment, as previous governments did when the fiscal going got tough, we looked long-term and chose to invest in transport.

    Take last year’s spending review – over £30 billion for road, rail and local transport across the country.

    We set up the £560 million Local Sustainable Transport Fund – a fund to give local communities more power to design and deliver local transport schemes.

    We put in place a Growing Places Fund – half a billion pounds worth of support to help kick-start infrastructure projects.

    And, in the Chancellor’s ‘Autumn statement’, a multi-billion pound investment package in which transport took centre-stage – everything from electrifying more of our rail network, to easing congestion on our motorways.

    HS2 decision

    This government made a different choice about transport investment because we were looking well beyond the horizon.

    Taking decisions to improve our national well-being, not just for the next four or five years, but for the next four or five decades. And not in spite of the economic challenges we face, but as a means to overcome them. And it’s that same long-term national interest which motivated my recent decision to give the go-ahead to HS2 – a national high speed rail network

    HS2 will slash journey times, shrink our country and radically improve the connections between our cities and regions.

    It will help to create jobs and generate growth, promote social mobility and spread prosperity.

    That’s why I am absolutely convinced that pushing this project over the finishing line is the right thing to do for our country’s success and our children’s future.

    Local matters

    But it’s not just the big-ticket national projects that can make a difference.

    Improving our quality of life and enhancing our economic prospects also means investing in transport at the local level.

    Nearly all journeys start, or end, on local transport networks. And those journeys can shape your entire day, for better or for worse.

    It only takes a late bus, a packed train or a congested road and a short commute becomes an endurance test and a good day turns into a bad one.

    So, as the members of ADEPT know better than anyone, local matters.

    And, because it matters so much, not only did we announce 20 local transport schemes in the ‘Autumn statement’, just before Christmas I gave the green light for a further 21 local major transport schemes. That’s an investment package worth £854 million.

    Smart localism

    Modernising local transport networks, getting the very best out of them, isn’t simply about putting in the resources, as crucial as that is.

    It’s also about devolving power – giving local people a real say over the transport services and issues that affect their lives.

    It’s what I call smart localism.

    Smart because it recognises that a one size fits all approach cannot work in the modern, consumer focused world.

    Smart because it enables local services, like transport, to be tailored to local needs.

    And let me walk you through just a few of the ways we’re making smart localism an everyday reality. We’ve simplified funding, cutting the number of separate local transport grant streams from 26 to just 4 and transferring some funding into formula grant.

    And the end result of this radical reform? Local communities will have greater flexibility and freedom to decide their own priorities.

    We are cutting red tape and ending pointless top-down bureaucracy.

    One practical example: after the biggest review into Britain’s traffic signing system for 40 years we published a new framework that will free up local councils to remove expensive and unsightly clutter from our roads – a reform that will save money and improve the local environment.

    We’re looking at ways to devolve more responsibility for commissioning local and regional rail services – a move that could increase transparency, strengthen accountability and, by doing so, improve the passenger experience.

    And we are also committed to implementing a more devolved system for local major schemes beyond 2015 – enabling local communities and businesses to take real decisions about the transport improvements in their areas; constructing a system that’s much more responsive to local economic conditions and needs.

    And with greater devolution must follow greater local accountability.

    For example making sure new schemes achieve genuine value for money. We are ready to work with individual transport bodies to put in place a system that works for them.

    I hope to publish a paper soon and invite views on early proposals for a new system and I look forward to seeing your response.

    Concluding remarks – productive partnership

    Investment, reform, localism.

    These are all important ways of transforming our country’s prospects by transforming its transport system.

    But so is productive partnership – government and stakeholders coming together and working together, pulling in the same direction to bring about real and positive change.

    And I’m pleased to say that partnerships don’t come more productive than the one between my department and this association.

    Whether it’s helping us improve winter resilience in the transport sector; leading work streams in the highways maintenance efficiency programme; or assisting us to review future options for the integrated transport block allocation, ADEPT and its members have shown that they are sector leaders as well as productive partners.

    So, before I conclude, and more importantly, fulfil my pledge not to keep you from dinner for too long, there’s one final thing I’d like to do – and that’s pay tribute to the work you do and the difference you make.

    For decades, you have been at the forefront of the transport debate, both as the County Surveyors’ Society, and more recently, as ADEPT.

    In particular, you have played a vital role in managing and maintaining our infrastructure, and strengthening the links between transport and other drivers of sustainable growth and development.

    Today, you are helping to shape the agenda on many key areas of government policy – including planning, waste management, housing, and climate change, as well as transport.

    And it is precisely because these issues are all closely connected that makes your work so valuable, and your contribution so appreciated.

    Thank you for listening and I look forward to taking some questions.

  • William Hague – 2012 Speech on Latin America

    williamhague

    Below is the text of the speech made by William Hague, the then Foreign Secretary, in Rio de Janeiro on 19 January 2012.

    It is a great personal pleasure for me to be here in Brazil. I have wanted to make this visit for a long time, I attach great importance to it and I am pleased to say that it has gone extremely well.

    I have come with a message of warm friendship: our relations with Brazil are important to me, and important to my country. We wish to invest in our ties with you, and to look for new ways of working together as equal partners.

    This is part of our effort to transform our relations with Latin America and with other emerging powers. Today, when nations such as yours have a growing voice in world affairs and three quarters of global growth in 2012 is expected to come from non-OECD countries, there can be no doubt that this is the right direction for Britain to take.

    The history of our involvement with your region began with an auspicious start but was followed by many missed opportunities. We were among the very first countries to recognise the potential of Latin America in the 1800s, when Foreign Secretary George Canning helped negotiate Brazil’s independence. We enjoyed close trading links in the 19th century and played a big part in your early economic development – not to mention the fact that the first game of football in Brazil was arranged by a British man named Charles Miller in 1894. But in the late twentieth century Britain looked away: four of our Latin American Embassies were shut, diplomats were withdrawn and our links faltered just as your continent began its extraordinary rise.

    We have now opened a new chapter in this history. The days of our diplomatic retreat from your region are over. We have begun Britain’s most ambitious effort to strengthen ties with Latin America in 200 years, since the days of Canning.

    We are cementing this commitment in bricks and mortar, re-opening our Embassy in El Salvador, a new consulate here in Brazil in Recife, and expanding our diplomatic staff across Latin America. British Ministers have made 37 visits to the continent in the first 18 months – nearly half of them to Brazil, and we have set targets to double our trade with Brazil, Mexico and Colombia by 2015. We have moved our diplomatic engagement with Brazil to a wholly different level within British government, because we recognise your country’s growing impact on the economic and political landscape of the world. We have just signed a ‘Science without borders’ agreement which will bring 10,000 Brazilian students to British universities over the next four years. And the British Council has trebled its budget for your country, investing in cultural exchanges, English language training and education. In every way, Britain is back in Brazil and we are proud to be here.

    Today, no one can make the mistake of underestimating Brazil.

    I have the strongest admiration for your peaceful victory over dictatorship and the thriving, diverse democracy you have built since then;

    – for your achievements in raising 40 million of your citizens out of extreme poverty, giving them access to education and opportunity and empowering women;

    – for the economic growth which has made you one of the largest economies in the world;

    – for your ambition, expressed by your President, to be one of the most developed and least unequal nations in the world;

    – and for your commitment to environmental conservation, to clean and renewable energy, to development and to the fight against climate change, hunger and poverty.

    I was there in New York for the historic moment when your President became the first female leader to open the UN General Assembly.

    Your staging of the World Cup in 2014 and the Olympics in 2016 will put Brazil in the spotlight of a huge amount of world attention in the coming decade.

    All these things convince your friends around the world that the very best days for Brazil are still to come.

    We share your confidence in Brazil’s future, and are excited about the opportunities for stronger ties between our people and our economies.

    We are already the 4th largest investor here. Our exports to Brazil were up 23% in 2010 and a further 9% in 2011. UK companies such as British Gas, British Petroleum, Rolls Royce and Shell are investing heavily, including here in Rio.

    As you continue to develop your knowledge and skills base and invest in science, innovation, education, health and infrastructure, our strengths in all these areas make Britain a natural partner for you.

    Our back-to-back hosting of the Olympics provides huge opportunities for our companies to collaborate.

    Our membership of the European Union, combined with our competitive tax system and openness to inward investment make us an ideal springboard into European markets.

    And we are the leading voice in the European Union against protectionism and in favour of Free Trade Agreements, including the vitally important Free Trade Agreement between the EU and Mercosur which we attach great importance to, and the completion of the Doha Trade Round.

    For all these reasons I am optimistic that the best days in our relationship are ahead of us too. I am delighted to announce that Prince Harry will visit Rio in March to attend an event on Sugarloaf mountain that will celebrate all that is great about the relationship between Britain and Brazil.

    We also want to develop a better understanding between us in foreign policy.

    Your country’s role in international affairs is set to grow significantly this century. This flows naturally from your growing economic weight and the shifting international landscape.

    The world has changed profoundly since the end of the Cold War. International relations are no longer dominated by a handful of powerful states that can dictate terms for the rest, and never will be again. That era is over.

    We are in a new phase in the concert of nations, in which states that have not traditionally dominated or sought dominance have an equal role to play in world affairs.

    Ours is a networked world, in which economic and political power and influence are much more widely dispersed and tilting in the direction of the countries of the South and East. It is not a world that is settling into blocs or a north-south divide – but which has opened up the possibility of far more flexible groupings built on a latticework of connections between nations, societies, businesses and individuals.

    This is change that Britain does not fear, but that we welcome and embrace. It has transformed the lives of millions who have been lifted out of poverty and into the middle class by growth and development, and it supports a more stable and equitable world.

    And it is quite properly widening the circle of international decision-making. The problems of our time require collaborative responses. No single country holds the answer to how we create a sustainable global economy, address conflict or husband our planet’s resources for all. Today many of the innovative answers to these challenges are being developed in the emerging economies, just as many nations to look at Brazil as a model for successful political and economic development.

    In this new global environment our British government is looking further afield for opportunities for our citizens and new ways of working in foreign policy – not replacing our role in Europe and indispensable alliance with the United States, but running alongside them and indeed reinforcing them. Our aim is that the United Kingdom should be at the centre of the networks of the 21st century, including here in Latin America.

    We also strongly believe that the institutions of global governance must become more representative, which is why we support reform of the United Nations Security Council including a permanent seat for Brazil.

    We know that Brazil has long played a distinguished role in this region; that you prize your long history of peaceful relations with your neighbours and take your international responsibilities very seriously.

    In my country, we remember that just as we came to your aid during your wars of independence, so you came to our aid during the first and second World Wars, the only South American country to do so.

    As a founding member of the United Nations, your country is older as an entity than the majority of its members, including a significant number in Europe.

    You have played a leading role at the UN since its inception, as well as in other bodies such as the Organisation of American States.

    We warmly welcomed the decisive steps Brazil took in the 1990s to support the nuclear non-proliferation regime, and your participation in the Latin American nuclear weapon free zone.

    We support and admire your leadership in building peace in Haiti; and your skills and knowledge in eradicating poverty, addressing food security and protecting the environment, all of which have global application.

    We welcome the fact that you are expanding your diplomatic network around the world – including the opening of your newest European Embassy in Sarajevo.

    We therefore see it as very much in both our countries’ interests that we develop a strong and equal working relationship in foreign policy; one that reflects today’s world and our many shared values as fellow democracies.

    For the changes I have described also mean that maintaining international peace and security is becoming a broader responsibility. It rests on the shoulders of more nations than it has in the past.

    This means that we need to develop a better understanding of how to act together when that stable environment is threatened, and how we translate our democratic values into action.

    Brazil believes strongly in human rights. So do we. We both play a prominent role in the UN Human Rights Council, and recently worked together to help establish a UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Iran.

    But of course no two countries think exactly the same way, and we respect your right to take a different view as you did over aspects of the international action in Libya.

    As we see it, in Libya limited military force was used to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas under threat of attack and to implement a no-fly zone, only after Colonel Qadhafi had refused to end the violence and when called for by all the countries of the region through the Arab League. It was action that was necessary, legal and right. It was carried on the legal basis of a UN Security Council mandate; it involved working directly with Libya’s neighbours, and it was done without NATO forces on the ground. These conditions – a legal mandate, regional participation and limited objectives – enabled us to be successful. They were consciously based on the lessons learnt not only from Iraq but also from Bosnia, where inaction led to the worst violence in Europe since the Second World War.

    Military action is always a last resort and can never be without risk. Each country is different and each case must be judged on its merits. But when human life is threatened and peaceful avenues fail, we argue that we must be prepared to intervene in the way best suited to the circumstances and to be able to do so quickly and decisively.

    So while we do not always draw the same conclusions about the best way to act when human rights at threatened at decisive moments, we have a strong common interest in building a better understanding for the future. Your President recently put forward the concept of ‘responsibility while protecting’ alongside the UN concept of the Responsibility to Protect. We welcome this contributing to the international debate and as I said to Foreign Minister Patriota yesterday, we look forward to discussing it and to finding common ground between our different perspectives.

    We may well face many more difficult and complex situations in the coming years. So we should try to build a stronger consensus about how we uphold our human rights responsibilities and maintain international security, especially as fellow democracies.

    2012 will be a critical year for the Arab Spring. We have a strong common interest in using every diplomatic means at our disposal to encourage positive change in the region while respecting the wishes and choices of its citizens.

    In Syria, we are confronted with an appalling threat to human life and regional stability. Protests by people seeking to claim their human rights and choose democracy and freedom have been met with tanks, snipers, torture and over 5,000 deaths. The deterioration of the system risks not only further casualties but a civil war in the most combustible conflict zone in the world.

    It is regrettable that the UN Security Council has been unable to speak out and we urge it to do so now. We welcome the leadership shown by the Arab League and it is vital that efforts are redoubled to support their mission and to achieve a political transition in Syria.

    2012 could also be a year of crisis over Iran’s nuclear programme. Like Brazil, our objective is to prevent nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, which could start an arms race in the region and call into question the very survival of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. Britain is seeking a negotiated solution with Iran and is not advocating confrontation. The best chance of averting either a nuclear armed Iran or the potentially devastating consequences of military action is to intensify the legitimate, peaceful pressure on Iran to return to negotiations.

    The main purpose of my visit was to open more intensive discussions about how we address these and other global problems. I am optimistic about this, particularly after my discussions in Brasilia yesterday, although such cooperation must be built on trust and shared experiences and will not come into existence overnight. But we share common values and interests that provide a strong foundation for us to build on over time.

    Like you we believe in a rules-based international system and more representative international organisations that strengthen multilateralism in the world.

    Like you, we think the international community must get better at peace building and tackling the root causes of conflict, which is why we are hosting a major conference on Somalia next month.

    Like you, we welcome a stronger role in world affairs for Latin American countries, although where we have our own views over issues such as the Falkland Islands we will always be frank about them. We will always uphold UK sovereignty and the rights of the Islanders to self-determination, while valuing the ability to discuss these issues with Brazil in a framework that respects international law and human rights.

    We also share the same deep commitment to tackling poverty, which is why in Britain we are standing firm to our commitment to raise aid to 0.7% of GNI, despite economic difficulties at home. We have promised that we will not build our economic recovery on the back of the world’s poor and we are showing that through our actions.

    We both believe in transparent and accountable government, and are working together with more than 50 other countries through the Open Government Partnership.

    We are developing new relations in defence and security, with British companies like BAE Systems supporting your procurement programme.

    And we work closely together on biodiversity and on climate change. The Rio+20 conference this June will be an important opportunity to set out a way forward on sustainable development and poverty reduction. Our experts are already working together in the field of development, where Brazil can emerge as a global force. Indeed, your knowledge and skills in development and environmental conservation are among your greatest contributions to the world.

    Let us build on this track record to become closer partners in support of international peace and security.

    Energy, perseverance, creativity, self-reliance, inventiveness, daring, and diversity – these are just some of the qualities that your friends in the world associate with the people of Brazil.

    How much easier it will be to address the challenges of insecurity, terrorism and prosperity if countries like Britain and Brazil are active partners in international affairs, and if Brazil brings all these qualities to bear in the world.

    Our values, our economic compatibility and our international roles give us great potential to be closer partners. This is our ambition and we will invest in it over the coming years.

  • Charles Hendry – 2012 Speech at Wilton Park Conference

    charleshendry

    Below is the text of the speech made by Charles Hendry, the then Minister of Energy and Climate Change, on 23 January 2012.

    Introduction

    Thank Wilton Park for opportunity to speak.

    Natural gas is a critical part of the UK energy mix today and will continue to have a crucial role tomorrow, and beyond 2030. I am very conscious that just as we want security of supply, producers also need security of demand.

    Energy security matters greatly in the UK. And gas imports matter greatly to help ensure the UK’s energy security. In 2011 we imported more gas than we pumped from our continental shelf. Our projections show that this decline in domestic production is a reality, and that it will make us increasingly reliant on imports to secure our energy supply.

    I think everyone here today agrees that climate change is a real and growing threat that we need to tackle together, globally, because it affects us all. In the UK we have strict and ambitious targets to meet. Gas will also help us to meet these challenging targets.

    So both on the energy security and climate change accounts, for the short, medium and longer term, gas matters greatly to the UK.

    I want to cover three key topics today:

    – the role gas plays in the UK market today

    – our views on the role gas will play in the UK market in the future and

    – what that means for European gas markets

    Gas in the UK market today

    If we look at the UK’s energy mix today, natural gas is the single most important fuel.

    We are among the largest gas consumers in Europe. Crucially, in 2011 gas accounted for around a third of the UK’s final energy consumption. The use of gas in the UK has grown dramatically over the past three decades, drawing initially on the significant reserves under the North and Irish Seas and now increasingly dependent on imports. UK domestic production peaked in 2001, and we became a net importer in 2004. By then the UK had already become a large consumer of gas for home heating, electricity and industry.

    These high levels of gas consumption are no accident. Gas has important advantages as an energy source:

    It is reliable – we have plentiful gas supplies for many years to come from a diverse range of sources; we have a strong market framework with extensive infrastructure – including a 500 per cent increase in import capacity in last decade, and a 25 per cent increase in storage. Furthermore gas generation is readily flexible to provide both base load and back-up generation.

    It is the cleanest fossil fuel – on average gas generation emits around half the level of CO2 of coal.

    It is relatively cheap.

    Gas in the UK market in the future

    As I mentioned earlier, the UK is fully committed to ambitious decarbonisation targets. The UK government has made clear its commitment to a legally binding target of 15% of all energy from renewable sources by 2020. We have made public our support for new nuclear and for CCS, and we are taking significant steps to increase energy efficiency. Gas also has a role in helping us achieve an 80% emissions reductions by 2050.

    Let me explain how gas will help us achieve our ambitions. I think we need to split this into two time horizons – over the next 10-20 years, and then the longer term out to 2050.

    Changes in the UK energy sector over the next 10-20 years will create new sources of gas demand. We will need gas to retain sufficient electricity generation capacity margin in the face of coal/nuclear closures, to manage intermittency from increased renewables, and continue to meet the majority of our heat needs:

    In the electricity sector, approximately a fifth (19 GW) of existing capacity is expected to come off the system between now and 2020, principally coal and nuclear generation due to environmental regulation and age. New gas generation will play a key role in filling this gap in base-load/mid-merit generation. Over 11GW of CCGT has received planning consent since 2009, with around 3 GW under construction. I think you’ll agree with me that this is not exactly a “dash for gas”, but rather a significant, and sustainable, increase in the role of gas here in the UK.

    As the share of renewables in our electricity mix rises, much of it in the form of intermittent wind, there will be an increasingly important role for gas in providing back-up generation for the times when the wind doesn’t blow.

    And gas will continue to provide the significant majority of our heat. Gas is still expected to meet around two-thirds of heat demand by 2030. There will also be new opportunities for gas in meeting some of the extra generation required to power the growth in electric heating.

    So our conclusion is that although the precise share of gas in the overall energy mix will be determined by the gas industry, unabated gas is likely to retain a significant role through to the 2030s.

    So much for the demand side. We also have a broadly benign view of the supply side. While global gas demand is set to rise rapidly, the global outlook for gas supply is generally good. The IEA has described the global gas resource base as “vast and widely dispersed geographically”, with unconventional gas resources now estimated to be as large as conventional ones: remaining recoverable reserves of conventional gas are equivalent to about 130 yrs of current consumption, and those of unconventional gas could be equivalent to another 125 years.

    The IEA also rightly points out that increased use of gas over the very long term (out to 2050 and beyond) without CCS will not be enough to put us on a carbon emissions path consistent with limiting the rise in average global temperatures to 2C. Although gas is the cleanest fossil fuel, we need to put the right policies in place to ensure a balanced and diverse energy portfolio that is consistent with our energy security and our climate change objectives. I believe this is challenging but achievable, this is what the UK is working towards. I will be very interested to hear from Anne-Sophie Corbeau, from the IEA, later on this afternoon about the latest IEA thinking on the global prospects for gas.

    In the UK exploration for unconventional gas has recently begun. Initial indications of our potential unconventional resource are promising. While it is too early to say how significant a role it might play in our future gas supplies unconventional gas could make a welcome contribution to the diversity of the UK energy supply in the future, alongside our existing conventional gas fields, piped gas from Norway and from the Continent and LNG.

    But we do need to do more. Energy security matters greatly to the UK and we cannot afford to be complacent now, or in the future. We are working internationally to encourage: investment in new gas production, supporting UK companies overseas in that work as well; diverse and efficient liberalised gas markets; restraining global gas demand via energy efficiency; and the opening of new gas supply routes to diversify and enhance the resilience of global gas markets.

    I would like to pause for a moment here, while we are talking about our gas supply. There has been a lot of talk and speculation in these last few weeks about Iran and the Strait of Hormuz.

    The Iranians talk about closing the Strait of Hormuz, but this is a diversionary tactic. They simply don’t want the world to focus on the real issue at play here – the nature of their nuclear programme.

    The British government and the Defence Secretary have been clear. The US government have been clear. Disruption to the flow of oil through the Straits of Hormuz would threaten regional and global economic growth.

    Any attempt by Iran to close the Straits would be illegal, and we would be determined to ensure they are ultimately unsuccessful.

    The UK does get a large proportion of its imported gas from Qatar, via the Straits of Hormuz. But, in 2011 we imported LNG from eight countries and the infrastructure exists to continue to import large volumes, should we need to.

    So far this winter, LNG has supplied 17% of GB gas demand. This level of demand could easily be replaced by alternative sources.

    We are second in the EU only to the Netherlands in domestic gas production, the UK can meet near 60 per cent of its gas demand through its own production. We can also import from Norway the Continent through our pipeline connections.

    We have an increasingly diverse energy mix – we can call upon coal, nuclear, domestic oil and gas and renewables – and this helps to insure us against even the most exceptional international events.

    Now let me turn more briefly to the longer term.

    Our 2050 analysis suggests that, even without CCS, gas usage in the UK could still be 60 per cent of 2007 consumption levels by 2050, if heroic decarbonisation efforts are made in other sectors. That is one of the reasons why we are working so hard to demonstrate CCS at commercial scale and encouraging CCS deployment internationally and why our £1bn CCS programme will be open to gas projects as well as coal.

    We believe that carbon capture and storage means gas has the potential to be not just a transitional fuel, but a destination fuel.

    Gas and the EU

    Let me now turn to European gas markets, as indeed the conference is themed around EU and UK gas security of supply. Doing so gives me an opportunity to put what we are doing in the UK in the context of what is happening more widely in neighbouring European markets.

    The UK is geographically well-placed as an entry point for gas imports for onward distribution into the EU – both piped gas from Norway, and LNG from the global market. And we have put in place the necessary gas import infrastructure in recent years.

    We have had this role over the last few years, and it will if anything be even more important as demand for gas increases, and as EU energy markets also prepare for a low carbon future, with an major role for gas. This role is underpinned by the liquidity provided by GB’s gas market – one of the largest in the world.

    The UK has long been an advocate of increased liberalisation and integration of European gas markets. We think such developments work in the interests of all. We will continue to pursue this, and expect the UK market to become increasingly integrated with the rest of the EU.

    EU gas markets are changing – and for the better. But we are still some way off from a well functioning, liquid and integrated EU gas market. The Third Package of energy market legislation contains most of the tools to achieve this, so it is important that it is fully implemented in all Member States and that the technical codes provided for in the Third Package are agreed as soon as possible.

    These will put in place arrangements to ensure that there is non-discriminatory access to pipelines using market-based methods, providing signals for investment in additional capacity, and hub-to-hub trading.

    It is therefore important that all interested parties – Member States, regulators, market players, and the Commission – work closely together to develop these cross-border rules. This should set us firmly on the path towards an EU gas market which gives us the secure, flexible and competitively priced gas supplies we need.

    The Third Package will also provide most of the necessary incentives for private sector investment in the new internal EU pipelines needed for our gas security. It will be enhanced by the reverse flow and other infrastructure obligations in the EU’s 2010 Gas Security Regulation, which requires Member States to have energy resilience measure in place to cope with major supply disruptions.

    However, a well-functioning single market, with gas moving between Member States in response to market signals without regulatory or physical barriers, is a necessary, but still not sufficient, condition for energy security. Increasing EU dependence on gas imports means we need new pipelines bringing gas into the EU.

    While individual pipelines are of course commercial matters, the UK and EU partners particularly welcome projects to bring gas from new sources. That explains our support for the Southern Corridor pipeline to bring gas from the Caspian to Europe. Recent completion of the first Nord Stream pipe, bringing gas into the EU from the Russian system directly to Germany, is an impressive achievement; but it will not increase the EU’s diversity of supply, even if it provides a new route to market.

    In this context, we hope that Nord Stream will increase overall gas supply into the EU rather than, as some fear, merely displace existing supply through Ukraine. Similarly, Russia’s proposed South Stream project would diversify gas routes into the EU but not supply sources. So while Russia, Algeria and Norway will remain major suppliers of piped gas to the EU, fuller European gas security requires projects bringing gas directly to the EU from other third countries – notably the Caspian region, initially Azerbaijan and later Turkmenistan via the proposed Trans-Caspian Pipeline, and, in time, the Middle East. We therefore welcome last year’s intergovernmental agreements between Turkey and Azerbaijan that will facilitate gas transit through Turkey and pave the way for further investment towards the development of a Southern Gas Corridor.

    To close this opening address I would encourage those here today with a role in making this happen – that is to say development of an EU gas market giving us secure, flexible and competitively priced gas supplies- to continue to play an increasingly active role in doing so.

    Conclusion

    I am delighted to be able to open such a high-level conference with an outline of the role of gas in the UK and I am honoured that Wilton Park have given me the opportunity to do so.

    I am also delighted that you have all chosen to come and meet here today to talk about this very important topic. I hope I managed to set the scene for a productive discussion by outlining the British government’s assessment of the importance gas has in the UK’s energy mix, and indeed on the fact that this is not a short-term arrangement or a passing fad: Gas has, and will continue to have, a significant role in the UK energy mix for many years to come.

    And I am delighted to be able to stay here for the whole afternoon and look forward to listening to your input and to taking part in the other presentations and discussions that are programmed for the rest of the day.

    Thank you.

  • Gerald Howarth – 2012 Speech on European Defence and Security

    Mr Gerald Howarth MP, is the former Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the MOD (12 May 2010 to 4 September 2012). Mr Howarth was born in September 1947. He was educated at Haileybury and ISC Junior School, Windsor, and Bloxham School, Banbury (scholar). He read English at the University of Southampton (BA Hons) where he served with the University Air Squadron and was commissioned into the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve in 1968. Mr Howarth is the Conservative MP for Aldershot and is President of the Air Display Association. In 2006 he became a trustee of the 'Vulcan to the Sky' project which is restoring to flying condition a Vulcan bomber. Mr Howarth has been married to Elizabeth since 1973 and they have three children. In his spare time he enjoys flying (he has held a pilot's licence since 1965), photography and fishing, and is a church warden at the Royal Garrison Church in Aldershot. He also does the occasional DIY. Since 2002 he has served as a Shadow Defence Minister with responsibility for defence procurement and the Royal Air Force.

    Below is the text of the speech made by Gerald Howarth, the then Minister for International Security Strategy, at Chatham House in London on 23 January 2012.

    Introduction

    Thank you Caroline [Wyatt from the BBC] for that introduction.

    Defence and security in Europe is at a critical juncture. As relative economic power moves south and east we are beginning to see the geopolitical impact.

    As President Obama indicated in his speech at the Pentagon on 5 January, the Pacific region will consume a great deal more of the attention of the United States.

    European countries will have to take more responsibility for collective security whether the challenges are within Europe’s borders, on the periphery, or at a distance. Furthermore, the fiscal position of many countries in the north Atlantic region is driving a reduction in public spending, including in defence budgets. It means European countries have to do more with less.

    However, it is not all doom and gloom. Whilst there are weaknesses, we should not be blind to our strengths. Our greatest strength is the shared security agenda and shared values embodied in Nato, the cornerstone of our collective security, made up of inviolable sovereign nations.

    Another great strength is the range and depth of high technology residing in European defence companies. Our greatest weakness, however, is that, even in Nato, European countries are falling short of the capability, commitment, and resources which the maintenance of our collective security surely requires.

    Yet I see this as an opportunity. If European countries can rise to the challenge of deploying meaningful capability, we shall have no stronger ally than America.

    To aid us, those institutions and arrangements which are proven and strengthen Europe’s defence and security should receive our full support to make them work even better.

    But those which merely duplicate or distract are a dead weight on Europe, draining our increasingly scarce resources while the US looks on increasingly concerned. These themes will dominate your discussions over the next two days, as well as Nato’s Chicago summit in May, and I’d like to set the scene this morning.

    Strategic shift

    If there was ever any doubt that we live in a volatile world, this was surely laid to rest in the last twelve months. Bin Laden and Gaddafi were removed; we had the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, and financial crisis in Europe; we saw long-surviving regimes across north Africa swept away, challenging long held strategic calculations in western capitals.

    What will this year bring? What will be the consequences of the political unrest in Syria; dynastic succession in north Korea; an assertive and nuclear determined Iran? How will newly developed economies assert themselves? How will mature economies respond?

    Even the United States is being forced to re-think its posture and prioritise like the rest of us. Its defence budget will be cut by at least 500 billion dollars. Its armed forces will be leaner, though (unlike many European countries) fully deployable. And it has chosen to reflect the growing importance of the Asia-Pacific region in its strategic posture.

    Of course, US and European vital interests regularly coincide outside the north Atlantic area. This includes the Pacific region where it is in all our interests that the emerging powers become responsible members of the international community and help provide stability to the global system.

    But this should not mean that the historic trans-Atlantic alliance is no longer of vital interest to both the US and the rest of Nato, far from it. Nor does the importance of the Pacific region in the coming decades lessen the requirement to co-operate elsewhere. Syria, Iran, and Afghanistan are not to be found in the Pacific.

    Nato

    All of this should compel us to strengthen north Atlantic bonds, in particular, the European strand, rather than weaken them. For the British government, this means Nato above all else when it comes to defence and security.

    Nato is the best vehicle to advance our shared security agenda, it is established, proven, and based on shared values. It remains the cornerstone of north american security as well as Europe’s: Nato borders the Pacific as well as the Atlantic.

    And it remains the organisation which many other countries look to. When the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1973 on Libya, who did they think would implement it?

    When sustained multi-lateral action was required, Nato had the only realistic co-ordinating structure prepared for joint and combined operations. Most importantly, Nato remains a community of allies with values, willing to back principles with power.

    But Libya showed that the alliance as a whole, and the contribution of some of the allies, fell short of what Nato’s Strategic Concept demands. Let us be very clear. Despite the limited nature of the campaign, the nations of Europe could not have undertaken the operations over Libya without the US.

    It is unsurprising therefore that the United States is asking whether it’s sustainable for the US to subsidise the defence of those who could invest more but choose not to.

    Why can Nato only generate a fraction of the capability nominally available to it? And it has reaffirmed wider concerns that a two or multi-tier alliance is starting to emerge with some allies less willing to participate in operations than others.

    All three of these issues, finance, capability, and political will, demand a proper response from Europe, using all the tools at our disposal.

    Finance

    First, finance. As the Soviets found to their cost, the lesson from history is that you cannot be secure if you’re broke. In Britain, we see debt as a strategic issue. It’s also undeniable that European defence spending has fallen by 24 billion euros in the last 3 years.

    This is set to get worse. We have to prove to a sceptical electorate that the threats to our security are genuine and that we’re making every pound count. In Britain, we’ve already made difficult decisions to bring our fiscal position, including the defence programme, under control. Others will have to follow suit. So in such challenging times, we need to make the case for defence spending.

    Even in these austere times, Nato’s 2% of GDP target for defence spending should be achievable. As the former US Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, said just before he retired,

    If current trends in the decline of European capabilities are not halted and reversed, future US political leaders, those for whom the Cold War was not the formative experience that it was for me, may not consider the return on America’s investment in Nato worth the cost.

    So it is frankly depressing that 25 out of 28 currently fail to meet the 2% target, despite reaffirming their commitment to it only last year.

    As politicians, we are acutely aware of the need to carry public opinion with us. Spending priorities, in many respects, reflect the politicians’ perceived assessment of public opinion.

    Those of us who understand the volatility of the modern world, and the dramatic shifting of the tectonic plates, do have a duty to ensure that those we represent understand the gravity of the situation so that they are in a position to re-prioritise.

    All the investment in our schools and hospitals, or indeed welfare, could be set at naught if we fail to provide adequate defence.

    Capability

    Of course, what we spend individually is only part of the story. As resources are squeezed, we need to spend more smartly and with a much clearer view on the collective capabilities the alliance requires. Making cuts in capability on the assumption that someone else will take the strain is not a viable long-term strategy.

    We simply have to find ways of re-balancing who generates and pays for capability, as well as who demands it. In Libya, the shortage of ISR capability could only be met by the US, and only 12 of 43 air-to-air refuelling aircraft came from other alliance members.

    The shortage of strategic lift capability is a real constraint on the deployability of EU battlegroups. Nato’s smart defence and the EU’s pooling and sharing initiatives go to the heart of this issue.

    The bottom line is that capability has to be additional and deployable without breaking the bank.

    So I welcome Nato’s continuing efforts to remove or disinvest in non-essential capabilities and avoid duplication in national inventories. It should help to reduce waste and prevent an uncoordinated rush to an as yet undefined bottom line. Nato must also highlight the worrying capability gaps across Europe which are being created as a result of budget reductions in almost every country.

    But this work fails to grab political attention because it is seen as being too “in the weeds”. We need to raise it up and give it a real political push. So we need to develop a far more clear-sighted focus on what we really need in terms of our core military capabilities to maintain our collective security. And set that against an even more objective and sophisticated assessment of how good we really are now.

    Political will

    The third issue facing European nations is the political will to commit force.

    In Afghanistan, Nato has demonstrated considerable flexibility by incorporating countries from as far afield as South Korea, Georgia, and Tonga. While in Libya, Nato’s swift and impressive agility in incorporating Arab states and other non-Nato countries such as Sweden was pretty remarkable.

    We should capitalise on this experience by making it even easier for non-Nato nations to contribute to Nato-led operations, to fight as well as facilitate, often without the caveats which some alliance members insist on.

    But with 10 Nato allies choosing to opt out of Libya and only six participating in air strikes, it reminds us that Nato is an alliance of sovereign states. Alliance solidarity, in respect of the Article V commitment, must remain sacrosanct. Outside Article V, I entirely accept the right of individual sovereign nations not to act if they believe their national interests are not served by doing so.

    But if Nato is going to remain relevant in the 21st century, is consensus at 28 essential when like-minded allies wish to operate together within the framework of Nato to implement the will of the wider international community? Non-Nato nations can invoke the ‘Berlin-plus’ arrangements to use Nato’s SHAPE HQ and assets on EU operations.

    Yet when some Nato allies don’t want to participate in certain operations, those who want to use elements of the Nato command structure (which they pay for and man) are not allowed to do so. Should we consider a ‘Berlin-minus’ arrangement where the few can use alliance assets on behalf of the many?

    Other defence and security arrangements

    I’ve focused on Nato this morning, as I firmly believe in its enduring role as the bedrock of European defence and security. But that doesn’t mean we should ignore the other components of multi-layered defence. We should encourage bi-lateral partnerships and regional groupings to flourish, not least where doing so could add value to the capabilities of the alliance as a whole.

    For example, the newly-formed northern group of nations, which includes the Baltic and Nordic countries, Germany, Poland, and the Netherlands, as well as Britain, is part of this process for us. So is the UK-France Treaty, which commits us to working together, and we would encourage others to do the same.

    And if we are to meet the challenges of a volatile world, we need the full array of economic, developmental, and security levers at our disposal. This means a deployable and interoperable military capability married to a comprehensive approach which is designed to encapsulate the civil and military engagement which I have just mentioned.

    Here the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), can complement Nato through its unique set of stabilisation tools, and in promoting further capability development. This allows it to play a useful role in crisis management.

    But talking up the EU as an alternative route and adding additional new structures does not address diminishing defence budgets. And there is absolutely no point attempting to duplicate structures which already exist or capabilities we already have.

    With two million men under arms in Europe, more manpower is not the issue. What Europe needs is manpower and capability it can deploy. Focusing on process and institution building while struggling to find a medic to support the European training mission for Somalia does not cast EU priorities in a positive light, to put it mildly.

    The European Defence Agency has a role in driving forward the EU pooling and sharing initiatives which I endorsed at the Steering Board on 30 November. I pay tribute to Claude-France Arnould’s efforts in these areas, in particular, the EDA helicopter training programme to which Britain has signed up.

    I know that, under her leadership, the EDA will concentrate on practical programmes such as this. These are good examples of collaboration within a small multi-lateral agreement to deliver capability with real operational benefit. But co-operation with Nato, not competition, should be the watchword on every European’s lips.

    Conclusion

    Ladies and gentlemen, this is indeed an important moment for European defence and security. European countries need to bring more to the table if Nato is going to remain relevant in what many are calling the “Pacific Century”.

    Bob Gates was clear about this when he said,

    In the past, I’ve worried openly about Nato turning into a two-tiered alliance: between members who specialise in ‘soft’ humanitarian, development, peacekeeping, and talking tasks, and those conducting the ‘hard’ combat missions. Between those willing and able to pay the price and bear the burdens of alliance commitments, and those who enjoy the benefits of Nato membership, be they security guarantees or headquarters billets, but don’t want to share the risks and costs. This is no longer a hypothetical worry. We are there today. And it is unacceptable.

    We know more money is not going to be the answer. The challenge is to maximise the capability we can squeeze out of the resources we have.

    We must ensure that Nato’s smart defence and EU pooling and sharing initiatives are mutually reinforcing. As our new Defence Secretary, Philip Hammond, has said,

    We must prioritise ruthlessly; specialise aggressively; and collaborate unsentimentally.

    The United States will be watching us closely. So too will our adversaries. The Chicago Summit provides the perfect opportunity to show them all that, when it comes to defence and security, Europe remains committed, capable, and solvent.

  • David Cameron – 2012 Speech in Leeds on Start-Up Britain

    davidcameron

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, in Leeds on 23 January 2012.

    Thank you. Thank you very much for that introduction. Good afternoon everyone. Sorry to break up the speed networking – that sounds like a lot more fun than listening to a speech from me. I think we should probably introduce speed networking into the European Union and then those Council meetings, instead of being nine hour dinners, we could probably crack on and get them done in 90 minutes.

    Delighted to be here and delighted to be launching this initiative. I said earlier this month that 2012 has got to be the year when we go for it. The year that we light new fires of ambition in our economy. The year when we get behind Britain’s grafters, do-ers, hard workers and entrepreneurs.

    This isn’t something we’d quite like to do; this is something we’ve absolutely got to do because enterprise is critical to this country’s future.

    As so often, Winston Churchill put it best. He said some people regard private enterprise as a predatory tiger that needs to be shot. Others look on it as a cow that should be milked but not enough people see it as a healthy horse pulling a sturdy wagon. In other words there is only one sensible and sustainable way to grow your economy and that is through brave people starting and growing businesses, employing people and creating wealth. Now some might say, ‘Well we agree with that but shouldn’t we just try to consolidate our success stories in big business and let them be the ones to drive recovery?’ And yes of course those businesses are vitally important but more important still is the small business, the new, the young – the businesses that haven’t even been born yet. Because over and over again studies show that small, high-growth firms are the engine of new job creation and they punch way above their weight. So if we want to make our economy stronger, this is where we’ve got to focus our fire power, on encouraging more people to start up and helping small businesses to grow.

    Now we’ve made a start. We’re rolling back the bureaucratic, anti-business culture we’ve had for too many years in this country and we’re creating in its place a real climate for enterprise. Corporation tax has been cut and we’re cutting it further. Red tape has been cut and we’re cutting it further. Enterprise zones have been rolled out including here in Leeds to get the best and the brightest to start up. Entrepreneur visas have been brought in to get the brightest in the world to come here with great business ideas. And of course there’s entrepreneur relief so that those who start their own company can keep a bigger slice of their gains. Now since the election more than half a million jobs have been created in the private sector but this is not, and never can be, a case of job done. So today I want to tell you about two new things that we’re doing.

    First, through 2012 we’re running a big national campaign to encourage more people to start up a business. Its core message is simple: there is a business in everyone. So what is the business in you? We need many more people to see themselves as entrepreneurs. To understand that each success story starts with a first step. Anita Roddick – she began The Body Shop from her kitchen. Richard Branson’s mother found a necklace on a train, clearly didn’t give it back to lost property, but sold it for £300 – interesting story – and that was the start-up capital for Virgin. Starbucks kicked off when three academics, probably with four or five opinions between them, wanted a good cup of coffee in their neighbourhood and they invested a few thousand dollars in a cafe.

    Now of course it’s not enough just to exhort people to start up; we’ve got to give them practical help and that’s what this campaign and that’s what StartUp Britain is all about. If you talk to anyone who is starting a business, and they’ll tell you the number one thing they need is obviously money. Now we get that. That’s why we put in place agreements with the banks and targeted government schemes to get more cash flowing to small businesses. The trick is connecting that money to those who need it and that’s what our new online finance finder is going to do. It’s a very simple, very useful tool. Just answer a few questions about your business and the finance finder will tell you where to go to get the money you need.

    Another thing entrepreneurs need is good advice. Starting a business is one of the hardest, most stressful things that anyone can do and it’s invaluable to know someone who’s been there and taken those risks themselves. That’s why we lined up thousands of mentors across the country and this campaign is going to connect them with the people who need their advice. But beyond those practical things, what entrepreneurs really need is the inspiration to keep on going when things get tough, as they inevitably do. So thanks to StartUp Britain, a campaign, as has been said, run by entrepreneurs, for entrepreneurs, they’re going to be able to log on and hear the stories of people who’ve done it all before. Now all this is coming together in one place in one campaign online and it’s going to be a real shot in the arm for enterprise in this country.

    Now the second thing we’re announcing today is a very simple, very practical idea. It’s about using the spare space that we have in the public sector, in the government sector, to help businesses to grow in the private sector. We’ve heard from so many people who say, ‘Well I’ve got a great idea, I’ve got a little bit of start-up capital, I’m desperate to get it off the ground but I can’t find the space’. Or, people who say, ‘I can find the space but we’ve got to sign a three-year lease and we just can’t afford it’. And then of course you’ve got many people working in business during the day – or in government during the day – wanting to start a business but not wanting to misuse their office facilities or office computers and so what we need is additional space for them, sometimes space at the end of the day or even overnight. What we need is the British equivalent of the Silicon Valley garage – spaces that are cheap, flexible and available right now.

    Some of these places are already opening up around the country – in fact I gave a speech in one of them last week. It’s called Hub Westminster. It’s at the top of the building that homes – that houses New Zealand House and you can rent an evening desk space there for just £40 a month. Then if you decide to take the plunge, maybe quit your job, start your own thing, you can start renting a full-time desk space and hire more as your business grows. So this is a brilliant idea and we want to help expand it.

    Now, the British government has got a huge stock of buildings at our disposal. The first priority for the ones we aren’t using is obviously to sell them off, but in the meantime many are going to be sitting idle. So let’s match the capacity we’ve got in government with the need that is out there. Let’s provide office space where we can to those who can use it. So we’ve sent a message right across the public sector to government departments, to agencies, saying, ‘Give us your unwanted space. That office that has lain dormant for years; the shop that’s been boarded up; the rooms no one ever uses – the answer is out there: give that space to entrepreneurs for business creation.’

    Now the Department of Communities and Local Government have said they’ve got two floors of an office block in Leeds, a large vacant building in Birmingham, another one in Plymouth. In London the Department for International Development has also found some space, so we’re throwing open the doors of government and letting the entrepreneurs in. And frankly this won’t just be good for the entrepreneurs and the business people involved; I’m hoping it’s going to be good for government too.

    We’ll have civil servants who will then be sharing the water coolers, the lifts, the corridors with entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs that their policies will affect and I think this will be a good connection between public and private sectors. It could even be that the building we’re in today is available for use. So if you’re in Leeds and you’ve got an idea for a business it could start right here. This is the very epitome of a roll your sleeves up government; not waffling on about the theory of how we can help business or shuffle a bit of money around, but doing something practical that will really help.

    So we’re doing all this with optimism and confidence because Britain is a country with enterprise running through its veins. I found this on New Year’s Day when my daughter got me out of bed and said, ‘I want to make mince pies’. We made some mince pies and she sold them to my protection team for £1 a time. She’s only eight years old; I thought that was a good spark of enterprise! Some of them are still recovering, but nonetheless…

    But this is the country that led the agricultural revolution, that led the industrial revolution, that helped to kick start the technological revolution. We’re the country that invented the jet engine, the DNA, the World-Wide Web, Viagra – almost everything you think of, most of the sports you’ve ever heard of. We’re the country that sells tea to China, vodka to Poland and yes, cheese to France. Enterprise is what we do in Britain so this is the year that more than ever we’ve got to go for it and with StartUp Britain’s help and with all your help, that is exactly what we’ll do.

    Thank you very much for listening.