UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Gordon Brown – 2002 Speech at the European Finance Ministers Meeting

    Gordon Brown – 2002 Speech at the European Finance Ministers Meeting

    The speech made by Gordon Brown, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, in Brussels on 5 November 2002.

    We live in a highly globalised world and global movement of capital – essential for the effective operation of the world economy – brings vastly increased opportunities for countries, business and individuals. But with these gains come new challenges – tackling terrorist financing and preventing money laundering, as well as avoiding a situation where people are given the opportunity to evade paying their taxes.

    Countries right across the world face problems caused by a minority of their residents who seek to evade the taxes they owe by hiding their money in other jurisdictions — making it harder for Governments to fund the schools, hospitals and public services that their citizens expect, and unfairly penalising the honest taxpayer.

    When individuals hide their income from their tax authorities, and make false tax returns, most countries recognise this as a serious offence — one that they are determined to combat individually and collectively.

    There are those who argue that there are two equally effective and desirable ways to ensure people pay the right amount of tax on cross border income from savings – and that a withholding tax is as effective as co-operation and exchange of information between countries’ tax authorities.

    I believe they are wrong.

    At the Helsinki European Council in December 1999 the European Union agreed that all citizens in a Member State of the European Union should pay the tax due on all their savings income. And at the Feira European Council in June 2000, the European Union agreed that the best way to achieve that was exchange of information on as wide a basis as possible.

    The previously proposed harmonisation of savings taxes by a withholding tax – a centrally imposed, one-size-fits-all solution – was exposed as an inadequate response to tax fraud.

    And we should recall why.

    A withholding tax on cross border income flows will almost invariably result in the wrong amount of tax being paid, and in the wrong country.

    It will always be the wrong amount unless the tax is levied at the same rate as the individual’s marginal tax rate in their home country.

    And it will be paid to the wrong country because authorities will collect tax in the country it is deposited in rather than the country where the citizen is resident. You would need a cumbersome revenue sharing arrangement to get the money back to where it belonged.

    Besides which, people who cheat on tax are generally interested not only in evading tax on interest income but in hiding their wealth. Withholding taxes do nothing to address this issue. And they typically have huge avoidance problems.

    So without the most pressing reasons, the introduction of new taxes across Europe is in nobody’s interest. It runs counter to the sort of healthy, fair tax competition which benefits countries, business and individual taxpayers.

    By contrast, exchange of information delivers the right amount of tax to the right country as the tax authorities in the individual taxpayer’s home country receive the information they need to determine the tax due on the overall income of their residents.

    It involves countries exchanging information in respect of non-residents, so that the home country can collect the tax properly due under its laws. Exchange of information does not impact on how a country chooses to tax and deal with its own residents so protects the sovereignty of individual nation states.

    Exchange of information enables governments to apply correctly the tax rules voted for by their people, without constraining their capacity to indulge in fair tax competition.

    And exchange of information addresses the issue of capital, as well as income, offshore.

    So the European Union had compelling reasons for the choice it made.

    At Feira, the blunt instrument of tax harmonisation lost and economic reform based on exchange of information won.

    But transparency and exchange of information are not only important for tax purposes but are also vital to our efforts to combat money laundering and the financing of terrorism. Since the tragic events of September 11th it has been crucial for countries to work closely together to ensure that criminals and terrorists have no place to hide their funds.

    As terrorists and money launderers become more sophisticated, Governments have to respond, making financial systems more transparent and utilising high quality, comprehensive information exchange. Because terrorists and money launderers do not distinguish between tax and non tax issues, we cannot afford to have a loophole that means that information is not exchanged in respect of tax matters.

    It is also important that developed countries set an example to the rest of the world. Lack of transparency in developed countries gives cover for smaller, and less developed countries, to engage in illicit transactions – be they related to drug trafficking, or terrorist financing, or illegal arms trading. Developed countries cannot stand up effectively to these countries if they are able to point a finger back.

    At Feira we had good reasons for saying that, in a globalised economy, a solution to tax evasion will do best when it extends wider than Europe alone. And so analogous co-operation between tax authorities is being extended at least to key third countries, and to offshore territories with the closest cultural, political and financial links to the EU where EU residents’ savings might already be invested or to which they might be transferred.

    The US is one example and there is a long history of close co-operation between America and its tax treaty partners in providing and receiving information and in joint efforts to tackle tax evasion. The US has taken the lead in entering into exchange of information agreements with offshore centres whilst respecting their fiscal sovereignty. And in the aftermath of September 11, cooperation with the US has been – and will continue to be – particularly vital in our efforts to combat money laundering and the financing of terrorism.

    The best chance of agreeing an approach that reaches across both America and Europe is exchange of information not a withholding tax. And I also welcome the clear signs of greater transparency, openness and a willingness to co-operate in the fight against tax evasion in the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey – which will undoubtedly help them to develop, diversify and remain competitive in line with international standards.

    Switzerland is one of the world’s key financial centres and it ought to remain so. Their professional expertise is exceptional, their economy and political situation sound and stable, and their history of prudence invaluable.

    But the Swiss system is unique amongst the world’s leading financial centres in that it allows clients of its banks to be shielded from their own tax authorities.

    Clearly there are sensitive and closely linked political and legal issues involved, but their cooperation in helping to combat tax evasion is crucial.

    The arrangements the Swiss make for dealing with Swiss taxes to be paid by Swiss residents are clearly a matter for them.
    But the arrangements they make for dealing with non Swiss taxes due by non Swiss residents affect us all.

    We are not suggesting how the Swiss tax Swiss residents – indeed our whole approach is to uphold the sovereignty of Member States with reference to tax – but we have a deep interest in securing the tax due to Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands, Britain and other countries by German, French, Italian, Dutch, British and other taxpayers who have accounts in Swiss banks and financial institutions.

    These are taxes due not to Switzerland but to France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Britain and other countries.

    They are our citizens and our taxes and we have not only an interest in ensuring that tax evasion is prevented but ensuring this is achieved by the best and most effective means possible.

    So the presence, on the EU’s immediate borders, of a system that fails to recognise the deliberate submission of a false tax return as fraud is an open invitation for abuse and causes us concern.

    All we are asking is for Switzerland to exchange information on the savings accounts of EU residents, not their own citizens. And in a world in which the general drive is for cross-border co-operation and transparency, I have no doubt that if Switzerland respected the international consensus in favour of exchange of information it would be better placed than ever to maintain its role as one of the world’s leading financial centres.

    I also believe that, as a major world financial centre, Switzerland has a responsibility to lead by example.

    The Swiss have taken many positive steps to combat terrorism and money laundering. I welcome that. But tax evasion is not a predicate offence in Switzerland so criminals have the opportunity to avoid legal action if they can persuade the authorities that their activities are to do with tax evasion. And the Swiss have abstained from the OECD’s initiative on harmful tax competition, which promotes exchange of information and transparency for tax purposes.

    We recognise that the transition to automatic exchange of information can’t always happen overnight. The EU has agreed that some Member States may need up to seven years to make the transition – and it would not be unreasonable for the Swiss to negotiate for similar arrangements or to make their commitment subject to endorsement by the Swiss people.

    But the ultimate objective internationally must be automatic exchange of information.

    There is growing recognition around the world in favour of exchange of information. It has been endorsed not just by the European Union but by the OECD in its work on harmful tax competition, banking secrecy and double taxation. And two prominent Swiss academics have themselves criticised the Swiss Government’s approach to banking secrecy.

    If we are to have a consistent principle rather than an ad hoc approach for tackling international terrorist financing, money laundering and tax evasion effectively, we need exchange of information across the world.

    Developed countries need to act together and set a strong example. And I call upon all countries to help us achieve this goal.

  • Gordon Brown – 2002 Speech at the Inner City 100 Awards

    Gordon Brown – 2002 Speech at the Inner City 100 Awards

    The speech made by Gordon Brown, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, in London on 5 November 2002.

    Can I say first of all what a pleasure it is to be present at these awards for Inner City 100 – these “Oscars for Business”; to thank not only the New Economics Foundation, for their work in developing and running IC100, but the lead sponsors, Royal Bank of Scotland and NatWest; to be able to congratulate all of you who are finalists for the contribution you make both to your community and to the British economy; and to say that Inner City 100 is not just a competition between new high growth firms in our inner cities but a celebration of the dynamism of new enterprise in our inner cities.

    Having started last year with only a few entries, Inner City 100 has, with 400 nominations from across the country this year, become the premier showcase for the initiative, innovation and renewal that is a feature of so many of our inner cities today.

    And in thanking all of you for what you have achieved – and will achieve – I want, in the minute or two I have, to show how your achievements, your ingenuity and your creativity are building a new Britain of enterprise and initiative.

    For just as the work ethic is being restored in Britain I believe we are now engaged in an even greater and more ambitious project – encouraging not just in the most successful or wealthiest areas of our country, but in all areas of our country, the spirit of enterprise.

    For too long, in too many areas, for too much of our recent past, enterprise has been seen as something for someone else, for a small elite. People thought the opportunity to start a business or become self-employed was, somehow, not for them.

    And so the business league tables I am publishing today show that the rate of British business creation, while higher than in France and Germany, is still only two thirds of that in the United States. And in the best performing areas of the UK, there are ten times the number of firm start-ups than in the worst performing.

    The chance to start a business should not depend on your background, contacts or just luck. In every area of Britain I want the enterprising to go as far as their talents and potential can take them. The British economy will do best when enterprise is – and is seen to be – open to all.

    We should start to see inner cities and old industrial areas not as no-go areas for business or simply “problem” areas but as areas of opportunity: new markets where businesses can thrive because of the competitive advantages they often offer – with strategic locations, untapped resources, a high density of local purchasing power and the potential of their workforce.

    And to achieve all this we must modernise our attitudes to enterprise, embrace a wealth creation agenda and build a new British and European consensus around the importance of enterprise and business success to prosperity and social cohesion.

    I want British young people to see businessmen and women as role models in their communities. I want teachers willing to extol the virtues of enterprise and a career in commerce. And because I believe the way forward is to open up enterprise to all who have the talent, I want, even in our poorest communities, men and women to see an expansion of enterprise as the best solution to unemployment and deprivation and there to be no no-go areas for the enterprise economy in Britain.

    Most of all I want to entrench a consensus where from the poorest to the richest community, from left to right of the political spectrum, across all countries in Europe, there is a deep and enduring understanding that enterprise is open to all as a force for wealth creation and equality of opportunity, and that enterprise and fairness are not mutually irreconcilable opposites but depend upon each other.

    And building on the new Enterprise and Competition Bills, on our capital gains, small business and corporation tax cuts, and our measures to encourage enterprise in schools and colleges, the Pre-Budget Report will contain new measures that open up competition, cut red tape, abolish tax barriers to business creation and, from the classroom to the boardroom, deepen and widen the enterprise culture in our economy.

    And working in partnership with local authorities and Regional Development Agencies, we will designate 2000 new Enterprise Areas – not the old Enterprise Zones of the 1980s where property subsidies diverted activity from one area to another, but 2000 new Enterprise Areas where we encourage home grown economic activity by cutting the cost of starting up, investing, hiring, training, managing the payroll.

    In these Enterprise Areas – the 2000 most deprived wards in the country – I can state that:

    first, having already cut stamp duty in these areas, we plan to abolish it entirely with full stamp duty exemption for all business property purchases;

    second, we will give planning authorities powers to create Business Planning Zones that will cut red tape for growing businesses by removing the need to apply for planning permission;

    third, we will offer businesses special investment help through the Community Investment Tax Credit – which offers for every £100 of private investment an extra £25 of public investment – and risk capital from the Community Venture Capital Fund;

    fourth, we will increase funding for the Phoenix Fund by £50 million – providing support to thousands of small businesses with special encouragement for women entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs from ethnic minorities

    fifth, the Small Business Service will provide additional help to firms in these areas – a package of advice and support worth at least £2000 for each new businessman or woman;

    And sixth, we will make improvements to the Business Incubation Fund to stimulate the availability of flexible managed workspace for start-up companies.

    And because we know that to get the deeper and wider entrepreneurial culture we need we must start in our schools and colleges, by 2006 every school pupil will have the opportunity of five days worth of enterprise education, with extra help for schools and colleges in high unemployment areas. And I call on businesses and colleges to look for ways in which they might help build on the popularity of summer schools to offer enterprise experience to secondary school pupils during the school holidays.

    Together, these measures are a concentrated attempt to recreate economic activity as a basis for prosperity in previously run down and high-unemployment areas.

    Our aim – to work together to build a wider, deeper enterprise culture where starting a business or becoming self employed is seen as open to all with the talent, ideas and will to do it — so building a strong, dynamic, economic culture not just in prosperous areas but across Britain.

  • Paul Boateng – 2002 Speech to the Charities Taxation Reform Group

    Paul Boateng – 2002 Speech to the Charities Taxation Reform Group

    The speech made by Paul Boateng, the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in London on 15 January 2002.

    The principle of voluntary action has a long history in the UK. It was the great philanthropists of the 19th Century that drove social reform and whose charity moved the mountains of illiteracy, ill health and poverty. Here in London, as in other towns and cities across the country, there is a tradition of philanthropy, self-help and mutualism ingrained among the people. We can see it in the tens of thousands who volunteer of their time, their money and their expertise.

    The sector still thrives: in 2000 the overall amount donated by the general public stood at £5.76bn – a return to the high levels of the early 1990s. The challenge now is to broaden the base of charitable giving, and encourage even more people to start donating of their time and their money – helping your organisations to play a bigger part in the delivery of public services and the renewal of the public space.

    We are committed to reducing the burden of taxation, ameliorating the administrative cost, and helping you to play a proper part in the renewal of the public spaces we all inhabit. To achieve this objective it is vital that we work closely with your organisation: after all, you are the experts. I know that Mike Eland from Customs and Dave Hartnett from Inland Revenue spoke at your last AGM and I’m delighted to be here today to reaffirm the relationship. Our shared aim must be to build a new partnership between government and the ‘third sector’ – using your strengths to challenge, compliment, and reinforce government policy.

    Strengths of the voluntary sector

    The strengths of the voluntary sector lie in its:

    Local character;
    Flexibility to innovate;
    Personalised approach;
    Capacity to strengthen citizenship; and
    Running through all of these, the ability to reach out to isolated and marginalized groups.

    The local character of the voluntary sector is perhaps its most important quality. It is from understanding of the local community that the strength of the voluntary sector flows. Where the state is sometimes remote and inflexible the voluntary sector is always there, close at hand, in the street, the neighbourhood or the town.

    This local character gives the voluntary sector the strength to be flexible and develop innovative solutions to social problems. Where the government sets down the national standards, the voluntary sector can develop the local capacity, local skills, and local amenities necessary to translate the standards into the experiences of local people.

    This flexibility means that the voluntary sector can develop highly individual responses to different problems; enabling the opportunities offered by the state to be inflected into the language of local communities. The government sees the total number unemployed, responds with the New Deal and helps get half a million back to work. The Rainbow Refugee Network sees wasted potential in the refugee communities here in London, provides advice on welfare benefits, education, and employment, and helps build a bridge between Asian, African and East European asylum seekers and the mainstream of social opportunity.

    The voluntary sector does not replace the state, indeed it is the capacity of the voluntary sector to challenge the government, stimulate policy debates, promote a pluralist society and enhance democracy that makes it so valuable. In building a partnership with the voluntary sector we are acknowledging that it is organisations like Help the Aged, OXFAM, and MENCAP, as well as smaller organisations operating here in London like Enfield Community Transport scheme or the Stonebridge Training and Education Project in my own constituency, that enable people to engage more effectively with the government, fulfil their true potential, and grow into better citizens.

    Measures to help voluntary sector

    We want to forge a new partnership with the voluntary sector. To enable your organisations to continue running innovative schemes on a local, national and international level, we want to help raise the level of charitable giving.

    For too long the voluntary sector has been held back by archaic rules, bad laws, and poor tax legislation. As experts in charity finance you know that the voluntary sector needs a fair and sympathetic legal and economic framework within which to operate: with your help we have begun to build it. This is a collaborative process – where we have moved forwards, it has been through dialogue and consultation. Over 50% of the ideas proposed by the CTRG on the recent Review of Charity Taxation were accepted and implemented by this government – we do listen and we do act.

    But perhaps we need a more structured approach to our dialogue to further build on the good relationship between charities and the Government. I am therefore asking officials to put in place more formal arrangements for regular meetings – perhaps half yearly – where the sector can come together with Treasury, Customs and Excise and Inland Revenue, and engage in constructive dialogue. Regular meetings would allow us to reflect together on what works, where guidance may be improved and how we can move forward on particular issues of concern to the sector.

    It is worth taking a moment to recall how much has been achieved.

    The Gift Aid changes, introduced in Budget 2000, mean that for every pound a UK taxpayer donates to charity the government is prepared to contribute to that charity an additional 28 pence. People and companies can donate listed shares to charity, without having to pay any capital gains tax, and get extra tax relief for the full value of the shares.

    We have abolished the ceiling on how much money employees can give through the pay packet – payroll giving can now be any sum an employee chooses. Until April 2003, we are offering a special 10 per cent supplement on all payroll donations to charities. So for every pound contributed through payroll giving, the government will contribute up to 50 pence worth of tax relief. I know that the CTRG has suggested extension of this 10% supplement and this is an idea that we will give careful consideration.

    We are already beginning to see the results from the changes we have made: donations through payroll giving rose by more than £18 million in 2000/2001.

    In the PBR we set out further measures to support charities, including:

    An Inland Revenue consultation on whether to allow tax payers to donate directly to charities on the annual tax form – and gain tax relief for doing so. I hope that the CTRG will play an important role in the consultation process;

    The abolition of football pools tax – so every charity or local sports club who run pools based competitions will see this tax liability abolished; and

    The Chancellor has re-stated the fact that charities collecting donations of unwanted foreign coins from taxpayers could benefit from the 28% tax top up through Gift Aid.

    I know that Lee Jones [Deputy Chair of the Charity Finance Directors Group] welcomed the Chancellor’s statement – predicting that it would lead to an increase in income for your organisations. We recognise that charities are becoming the ‘third sector’ and we are committed to take further action, where possible , to simplify the tax structure – driving costs down and donations up.

    Budget 2002 will provide another opportunity to consider the tax burden on charities and on charitable giving. I know that the CTRG has made a number of proposals on irrecoverable VAT; on relaxation of the rules governing trading activities by charities; and on reducing the administrative burden that the tax system imposes. Obviously I can’t tell you what measures Budget 2002 will actually contain – but all of these suggestions will receive careful consideration.

    Performance and Innovation Unit Review

    To help us improve the capacity of voluntary organisations to provide their vital services, and to underline the importance of the partnership between government and charities, we have established two review teams.

    In the Cabinet Office the Performance and Innovation Unit are developing proposals for modernising the legal and regulatory framework for charities and the voluntary sector. The aim is to enable existing organisations to thrive and grow, encourage the development of new types of organisation, and ensure public confidence in the voluntary sector. We want a legal and regulatory framework that stimulates, rather than stifles, social enterprises.

    The review team are engaging in extensive consultation with the sector. So far they have run six major consultation events around the UK. I know that the Charity Finance Directors Group have responded positively to the consultation – calling for strong self-regulation measures, and opportunities for the charities themselves to measure performance and improve transparency. We do listen to what you have to say and it will be reflected in the final report when it is published in spring of this year.

    Cross cutting review

    Alongside the work of the Performance and Innovation Unit the Treasury has launched a cross cutting review of policy. We are re-examining the ways in which the ‘third sector’ is involved in overseeing and delivering services. The aim is to understand more fully how the government can work effectively with the voluntary sector to deliver high quality services, taking account of your key role in strengthening civil society and building capacity in communities. We are:

    Mapping the many ways in which the voluntary sector is already involved in overseeing and delivering services.

    Examining best practice in effective partnership between the voluntary sector and the public sector – suggesting practical ways of improving the relationship and spreading good ideas; and

    Breaking down the barriers to voluntary involvement in delivering better public services: working to ensure that the fiscal and regulatory framework create a level playing field on which charities can operate on the same terms as local government and private sector providers.

    This is an opportunity for you to tell us what works, what doesn’t, and how existing resources can best be used to help your organisations participate in the delivery of high quality public services. It is about making existing resources work better for all of us.

    As charity tax and finance experts you have a wealth of experience, commitment and insight about what works. This is exactly the kind of information we are trying to capture in the review, and so we want you to bring your knowledge to the fore.

    Whether you work locally, regionally or nationally, we want to hear from you. Over the coming days and weeks we will be collecting and collating views from experts all over the country. I am determined that your views will make a real difference to the final report – which will be produced later this year.

    Of course one of the reasons the CTRG exists is to work with government – at all levels – and ensure that the voice of the voluntary sector is heard on tax issues. Earlier this week I met with Nick Kavanagh to discuss other issues of mutual concern. The foundations are in place; we have the basis of a strong working relationship.

    We won’t always agree on all issues. I know that you have concerns about irrecoverable VAT, about EU legislation, and about tax relief on buildings used for charitable purposes. You know that sometimes our views differ, and that whilst we will always lend a sympathetic ear sometimes we will not agree with all your conclusions. The important thing is to keep the channels of communication open – so the voice of the voluntary sector is not a voice crying out in the wilderness but a voice at the heart of government, echoing down the corridors of power, resonating in European negotiations, and reflected in the policies of this government.

    So when the Treasury’s Cross Cutting Review is completed – it will reflect your views; in Budget negotiations – your submission will receive the attention it deserves; and in negotiations on the EU VAT Directive we will carry your concerns with us to Brussels. This is the basis of a new and constructive relationship between an open government and an independent voluntary sector. As we remake our public services we want you to be full partners, that is why we launched the cross cutting review, that is why I am taking a close personal interest, and that is how we will deliver on our shared social objectives.

    Our vision is of a strong, independent voluntary sector, operating within a modern, efficient taxation and regulatory system – working closely with government to deliver the public services people expect and demand. Working together, we can make that vision a reality.

    Thank you.

  • Andrew Smith – 2002 Speech to the OGC IT Annual Conference

    Andrew Smith – 2002 Speech to the OGC IT Annual Conference

    The speech made by Andrew Smith, the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, on 21 February 2002.

    I am delighted to be able to speak to you.

    The information age presents new challenges to government.  IT and other innovations have raised expectations of the public services – creating a consumer culture where everything is available instantly, at the touch of a button.  Too often, in the past, expectation of the public sector has exceeded reality.  So the challenge is to use the technology that has raised people’s expectations to raise the standards of public services – incorporating IT innovation into everything we do.

    As the Prime Minister said in his speech to the CBI for all the talk of a new economy, we have one economy, all of which is affected profoundly by developments in technology. As IT is at the heart of the economy, so it must be at the heart of government: helping us meet rising expectations and deliver services designed around the needs of users.

    To place IT at the heart of government we need an effective partnership with the IT industry.  Our track record has not always been as good as it could be.  The Immigration and Nationality Directorate, Passport Office, and Benefits Agency all suffered under the weight of poorly procured and badly designed IT systems.

    The OGC was established to help us to overcome these problems.  They are working to enhance the operation of the public sector – delivering efficiently procured, effectively operating facilities – built around the needs of the customer.

    This amounts to a cultural revolution in the operation of the public services.  In procurement, that means new partnerships between the public and private sector.  And it means an improved relationship driven by:

    • The Gateway review programme;
    • The SPRITE programme;
    • Senior Responsible Owners;
    • The Senior IT Forum;
    • The work of the OGC in developing Best Practice Toolkits; and
    • The Supplier Management Team – opening up the government market to all enterprises.

    The Gateway review programme is a technique for delivering procurement projects based on proven private sector practices, designed to ensure value for money improvements.

    Through the Gateway experienced senior staff, independent from the projects, consider their development at crucial stages – helping to guarantee systems that are fit for purpose, and delivered on time.  So far 104 projects – or £18bn of Government investment – have benefited from the Gateway programme.

    We believe the scheme has the potential to deliver significant benefits in the IT procurement process.

    The SPRITE programme flowed from a major Cabinet Office led review of IT-enabled business change projects.  The aim is to improve the success rate by hardwiring best practice into the procurement process.  The OGC now have responsibility for implementing the review’s recommendations.

    We have reached the point where virtually all government IT projects have appointed a Senior Responsible Owner.  The role of the SRO is pivotal to the successful outcome of IT enabled schemes.  The OGC and the CSSA are striving to enhance their expertise and extend their ability to deliver.

    It is all about building capacity within government to engage with our partners in the private sector.

    Partnership is so important.  It is central to the procurement of IT projects.  Building capacity within government, and a commensurate duty to reform within the private sector, will enable us to achieve significant value for money savings and enhancements in the design and operation of IT systems.

    I see the Senior Forum as an important part of this partnership process, an opportunity for government and the IT industry to come together to identify, and address, joint systemic issues.

    Progress has been made.  Government and industry members have established constructive working relationships: exploring the issues that endanger successful delivery of IT-enabled business change.  We have begun to build open relationships: sharing objectives, constraints, financial targets and performance measurements.

    Partnership, at the heart of the Senior Forum, must be at the heart of our IT agenda.  In the past we have not always got it right.  The capacity in the public sector has not been there.  IT companies in the private sector have not always deployed the staff and the resources to ensure the right result.  All that is beginning to change.

    In the work of the OGC I see the potential for wholesale reform – a revolution in government procurement.  In the IT industry I see a new spirit of co-operation – a willingness to work with us as equal partners.  And in the work of the Senior IT Forum I see the mechanism to make that partnership work – a new relationship between government and the IT industry – based on shared objectives, openness, and trust.  IT is the future of government services, and partnership is the future of IT.  The expectations of the public have been raised – it is time to deliver the results.

    Thank you.

  • First Bus Eastern Countries – 2019 Letter of Support for the Norwich Western Link

    First Bus Eastern Countries – 2019 Letter of Support for the Norwich Western Link

    The letter sent by First Bus in Norfolk to Norfolk County Council on 17 May 2019.

    Dear Sirs,

    RE: Proposed Norwich Western Link

    As the main public transport provider in Norwich, we are acutely aware of the impact that traffic congestion has on our services and the lives of our passengers. With the planned introduction of thousands of new homes, not only in the Greater Norwich area, but specifically to the west of the city, this congestion is only going to get worse.

    A good public transport system is a key part of any thriving city and this is almost impossible to deliver if buses are stuck in traffic queues along with general traffic.

    The Broadland Northway has already delivered viable alternative routes for general traffic to traverse the city, instead of going directly through the centre and we have as a result, seen a reduction in congestion on some corridors.

    There is however, still a significant amount of traffic that uses Dereham Road, the outer ring road and many of the rural roads through Costessey, Drayton and Taverham along with its surrounding areas to travel between the A47 and the A1067 and beyond, to link with the Broadland Northway.

    The proposal to build a western link that would remove the need to either use key arterial routes in the city, or rat run through rural roads, therefore reducing congestion, is one that First East Counties would entirely support.

    Managing Director

    First Eastern Counties Buses.

  • Chloe Smith – 2019 Letter to Norfolk County Council on Norwich Western Link

    Chloe Smith – 2019 Letter to Norfolk County Council on Norwich Western Link

    The letter sent on behalf of Chloe Smith, the Conservative MP for Norwich North, to Norfolk County Council on 24 May 2019.

    I am writing to you to reiterate Chloe’s strong support for the bid being made by Norfolk County Council and others for funding for the Norwich Northern Distributor Road Western Link “the Western Link”.

    Chloe has been a longstanding supporter of both Northern Broadway and the Western Link, having been the subject of one of her very first interventions in Parliament. It has long been her contention the road is necessary for future development, for jobs, for growing our economy – and to reduce the environmental impact of traffic queueing in and around Norwich. Chloe is pleased to have led lobbying for funding in the past and to have been a part of the campaign that successfully welcomed the NDR opening last year and I am pleased to confirm her strong, ongoing support for the Western Link.

    As you aware, the NDR has made travel in and around Norwich much easier but ends on a small A-class road leaving Norwich heading towards Fakenham (and A1067) and inevitably leads to problems with congestion. The Western Link will allow a complete circuit of dual carriageways to the north and south of the city, making journeys through the historic, and crowded, city centre unnecessary and will make a significant contribution to the flow of traffic, congestion and air quality in Norwich. It will also support the significant housing growth that is already planned and improve the strategic connectivity of the national road network.

    We look forward to continuing to work with you, the rest of the council and others to make the Western Link a reality.

    With best wishes,

    On behalf of Chloe Smith.

  • George Freeman – 2022 Statement on the Norwich Western Link

    George Freeman – 2022 Statement on the Norwich Western Link

    The statement made by George Freeman, the Conservative MP for Mid Norfolk, on 4 December 2020.

    For too long we have seen development in Norfolk without the necessary infrastructure.

    Long term infrastructure needs to be got right – planned and developed in a way that minimises damage to our Norfolk landscape & supports the 21st century priorities, patterns of work, healthy living and a more sustainable local economy. This is key to our vibrant future economy.

    Covid is an opportunity to Build Back Better. We need to seize it. That means ensuring we reduce traffic and congestion, invest in good cycle, rail, digital & road infrastructure, and make sure big infrastructure like the A47, NDR and Wensum Link are planned and designed sensitive to the needs of local villages and the local landscape.

    These aren’t easy pay-offs. But with good community consultation, transparency and leadership from elected local MPs and Cllrs we should be able to get it right and leave our beloved county better than we found it.

  • CPRE – 2017 Report on Road Projects Increasing Traffic

    CPRE – 2017 Report on Road Projects Increasing Traffic

    The report published by the CPRE in 2017 entitled “The End of the Road? Challenging the Road-Building Consensus”.

    CPRE Report (in .pdf format)

  • CPRE – 2021 Letter to Norfolk County Council on Norwich Western Link

    CPRE – 2021 Letter to Norfolk County Council on Norwich Western Link

    The letter sent by CPRE to Norfolk County Council on 1 June 2021.

    Letter (in .pdf format)

  • Natalie Bennett – 2021 Comments on the Environment and Norwich Western Link [Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle]

    Natalie Bennett – 2021 Comments on the Environment and Norwich Western Link [Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle]

    The comments made by Natalie Bennett, Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle, in the House of Lords on 15 September 2021.

    My Lords, I have to question the description given by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, of HS2 as affecting a

    “small area of ancient woodland”,

    given that the Woodland Trust says that 108 areas of ancient woodland are at risk of “loss or damage”. However, it will probably please your Lordships’ House to know that I will not restart the HS2 debate at this moment.

    I will focus on Amendment 100, to which we in the Green Party would have attached one of our names, had there been space. We are talking about something very ancient and precious, and we can make comparisons with cathedrals and indeed with your Lordships’ House. I was on the site of what is supposed to be the Norwich western link, standing at the base of an oak tree that was a sapling when Queen Elizabeth I was on the throne. An ancient woodland containing trees like that is comparable to your Lordships’ House or a cathedral. Think about the protections we offer to those and all the money we are thinking about putting in to preserving this building; we are in a different place on that.

    We often think of ancient woodland as being out in the countryside somewhere. I want to be a little parochial and point out that Sheffield has 80 ancient woodlands within its boundary. I want to think and talk about the benefits to human health and well-being of having these ancient woodlands—indeed, London has some of them, and, when I lived here, I used to walk in them as well. They have enormous human health benefits that we have to take account of.

    Returning to the subject of walking through ancient woodland in Sheffield or the threatened woodland in Norwich, we are talking about not just trees here but crucial, utterly irreplaceable habitats for bats and insects. These woodlands would have a chance truly to flourish without air pollution and other factors. Lichens and mosses—crucial, complex organisms that are absolutely foundational to rich, healthy ecosystems—depend on those ancient trees to thrive and indeed survive. So I commend both these amendments to your Lordships’ House, and I encourage the noble Baroness to press Amendment 100 in particular to a vote.