UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • George Osborne – 2006 Speech to the Credit Today Conference

    George Osborne – 2006 Speech to the Credit Today Conference

    The speech made by George Osborne, the then Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 12 May 2006.

    “I am delighted to be here at the Credit Today conference, and to follow such an impressive array of speakers who have covered such broad subjects.

    I have been impressed by the focus of the credit industry on controlling risks and striking the balance between competition and responsible lending.

    That is what I want to talk about today.

    The story of the credit industry has a rich history, and is closely intertwined with the development of the modern economy that we live in.

    The first recorded loan transactions known to man date from Mesopotamian agreements etched in stone, paying interest in silver.

    And the Romans entered into contracts based on contingent liabilities.

    In early modern times, first in Holland and later in London in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, credit began to finance an expansion of world trade that heralded the beginning of the industrial revolution.

    To pay for the ships and crew that undertook global trade, the entrepreneurs of the day needed to borrow. Until this first expansion of credit, only kings had the gold to pay for ships. But as debt finance grew, so did the merchants who brought spices from the east, and cotton from the west, and returned with cloth.

    By the end of the seventeenth century, the Government too saw the advantage of credit, and in 1694 King William III set up the Bank of England to borrow from his people. That innovation is often credited with underpinning victory in King William’s war against France three years later.

    Since then the industry has expanded, and London has grown into the largest international financial centre in the world. Over a million people now work in the UK financial services sector, and in London, nearly one in ten is employed in finance. Financial products of all kinds, including credit, are one of our key exports.

    In recent years we have seen another expansion of credit, both private and public. Since the mid 1990s, the level of personal debt has risen in double digits each year, while inflation has remained low. And the level of private sector borrowing, on and off the balance sheet, has rocketed.

    Borrowing by households has risen to almost £1.2 trillion. That’s £40,000 for every family in Britain. A fifth of that debt is unsecured, borrowed on credit cards, personal loans, and overdrafts.

    This great expansion in credit brings both challenges and opportunities.

    Free access to credit allows people and families to plan their budgets. Gone are the days when we had to wait in turn for access to a mortgage, when the building society would tell us when we were considered responsible enough to buy our first home. With freer access to credit, young people can apply for mortgages when they choose.

    Unsecured credit helps us to manage our finances, to smooth over tricky times, and to plan when we spend. Access to credit allows us to move money over our lifetime, to spend when we need it, and earn it back later. So when we discuss the challenges that are posed by debt, we must not lose sight of the huge benefits that access to credit can bring.

    As in many markets, liberalised credit markets have boosted our freedom and boosted our economy.

    But as well as these great advantages, the expansion of credit has brought challenges. The Conservatives have been very aware of these challenges in recent years.

    There are two challenges I particularly want to talk about today. First, for some, especially vulnerable, families, too much debt can cause misery and great financial hardship. And second, high levels of debt, both public and private, make the economy more vulnerable to certain types of shock, and may put macroeconomic stability at risk.

    For families, and for the wider economy, more debt means more vulnerability.

    Most of us use our credit cards every week, and many pay off our balances at the end of each month, and we can manage our mortgage payments. But that isn’t the case for everyone.

    Just this week, the governor of the Bank of England described the rise in debt and bankruptcies as a ‘social problem that is materialising’. He is right. We are in danger of becoming credit card Britain.

    Last year, three million people had problems paying off debt. Another twelve million have kept up payments only after a struggle. 1.1 million people contacted the Citizen’s Advice Bureaux with debt-related enquiries – up 47% over the past five years. So debt is a significant problem for a small but important minority. For many of those struggling with debt problems are also the most vulnerable – often living from benefits or in badly paid jobs.

    The Financial Services Authority has spoken of a ‘financial crisis’ for 18 to 40 year olds. Average debt for 18 to 24 year olds has doubled to £15,000 since 1999. And Alliance and Leicester has found that those in their 20s pay as much on average in interest as those in their 30s and 40s, despite usually not yet having a mortgage.

    This is not a problem that is going away. As we as a nation get richer, problems with debt are getting worse. Bankruptcies have doubled in the past year. That may partly be due to a change in the law in England and Wales. But even in Scotland and Northern Ireland, where the regime has not been changed, bankruptcies have risen. Last year alone, 120,000 people were declared bankrupt – three times more than in 1997.

    Even despite the benefits of more freely available credit, we cannot ignore those whose lives are made a misery by debt.

    Like the case of a lady who built up £58,000 of unsecured debt despite telling her creditors that her only source of income was from benefits. Or the pensioner who attempted suicide after she acquired 25 personal loans and credit cards totalling £135,000 of debt over a decade. A man from Yorkshire whose only income was disability benefits accrued £40,000 in unsecured debt from several lenders. When he first applied for a card he had expressed doubts to the lender about his creditworthiness, but the lender advised him to ‘be creative’.

    We need to consider imaginative solutions to these interconnected and difficult problems.

    For policymakers who believe in markets, this leaves a difficult challenge.

    I instinctively believe in the power of business to generate wealth and opportunity, as well as the tax revenues that fund our public services and infrastructure.

    Like you I want a strong and healthy credit industry. And like you I want that industry to be responsible.

    That is what David Cameron said earlier this week when he talked about corporate responsibility.

    Every time a business behaves irresponsibly, it makes it that much harder to persuade people that business is a force for good. If the political response to corporate responsibility becomes the preserve of the left, then the response is over-regulation and yet more burdens.

    That applies in the domestic debt market too. Irresponsible lending to those unable to cope is bad for people, and it’s bad for business too. In the short term, it’s bad for the bottom line as irresponsible lending is less likely to be paid back. And in the long term, it harms the good name of business and encourages those who don’t believe in or understand business at all to interfere and impose new regulation.

    So what can we do?

    Last year the Griffith report, commissioned by the Conservatives and produced by Brian Griffith of Goldman Sachs, reported on possible solutions to the challenges we face. I am glad to say that some of those recommendations have been taken up. I might suggest four areas that we must consider in more detail.

    We must, for instance, continue the FSA’s work in financial literacy, so that all families understand the consequences of taking on debt. Well informed customers are better placed to borrow responsibly – and better financial literacy will lead in turn to even less need for regulation. Some people, for instance, believe that a higher APR is a good reason to choose a credit card. According to a survey by Norwich Union, over three quarters of people find finance complicated and around half said that complexity has put them off addressing their financial needs.

    As well as boosting financial literacy to improve the responsibility of customers, we must ensure that credit advertising and credit scoring are responsible. It is a knee-jerk reaction of an interfering Government that responds to this challenge with yet more regulation. But it is in the credit industry’s own interest to advertise responsibly.

    And we can support measures for helping families out of debt. I want to pay special tribute to the work of the Citizen’s Advice Bureaux and others in helping so many people who find themselves in difficult financial situations. Their services should be properly funded, because if they are not then it is the state that will have to pick up the bill.

    These are all step we should take. But many of the most difficult cases, like these, occur when people accumulate debt from many different lenders.

    While any one loan may be affordable, taken together, loans from many different lenders can tip a family over the edge. So responsible credit scoring should take into account not just defaults, but the financial stress of any applicant.

    But that sort of responsibility is difficult without adequate procedures for data sharing. The existing data protection legislation causes difficulties, even among lenders who want to share.

    So we should consider extending data sharing among lenders, particularly of unsecured debt, so that lenders know their clients’ full financial picture before agreeing more loans. I recognise the work that the industry and the Treasury Select Committee have done in pushing forward this agenda.

    It seems to me that data sharing doesn’t just help lenders to assess the reliability of a client. But, properly introduced, it would help to protect vulnerable clients from resorting to many different lenders, often to pay interest on other debt.

    In the past there was no need to share data. Credit was effectively rationed, through queuing. And the number of lenders was small. In 1971, there was just one credit card – the Barclaycard. Now, there are over 1,300 types of credit card, and over 70 million cards in issuance – that’s more than one for every man, woman and child in the country.

    So policy must adapt to changing circumstances.

    I acknowledge that there are concerns about data sharing. We would not want data sharing to become an unnecessary regulatory burden. But data sharing can improve the competitiveness of the credit market. Only with more accurate information about risk can lenders price risk more accurately.

    And data sharing benefits highly credit-worthy customers too, as lenders know who the low-risk customers are too.

    So I applaud the strides have already been made by some banks to share data with customers’ consent through credit rating agencies.

    We must strike the right balance, appropriate for the challenges that we now face.

    We can see that excess debt increases vulnerabilities at the personal level. And it causes vulnerabilities at the national level too.

    Over the past nine years, the ratio of debt to annual national income has doubled.

    Four fifths of the outstanding debt has been secured against housing, and has in part financed the rapid increase in house prices.

    As the debt and house values have risen in tandem, so the average homeowner’s balance sheet has not been damaged. But the mismatch between a fixed-price debt and a variable priced asset heightens exposure to a fall in house prices. With larger debts relative to income, the impact on consumption and therefore on the wider economy of a fall in house prices would be bigger.

    The remaining fifth of households’ debt, lent on credit card, personal loans, and overdrafts, usually funds consumption. Growth in the economy is at risk if it is mainly fuelled by consumption – both by individuals and by the Government – that is funded by debt.

    An economy built on borrowed money is eventually living on borrowed time.

    And on top of all the mortgages, credit cards, and bank loans, there is one man who has borrowed more than us all. The Chancellor has borrowed a further £100 billion on our behalf. He plans to borrow another £150 billion over the next three years. And that is before you add in the billions borrowed and hidden off the balance sheet.

    These twin deficits – in the public and private sectors – combined with a current account deficit of almost 4% of GDP, means that overall, Britain is borrowing from overseas to spend, and our imports are out of balance with our exports. In other words, we have a trade deficit, which over the first three months of this year was the largest on record.

    These imbalances in our economy may not reverse soon.

    Economists play a game of trying to predict when the structural imbalances will unwind with as much enthusiasm as politicians playing the game of when Tony Blair will depart. At least in our game there’s an end in sight.

    What the economists do agree on is that imbalances caused by profligate Government borrowing and high private borrowing makes our economy more vulnerable to instability, like a sharp exchange rate movement, or a fall in asset prices.

    So just as private lending should be responsible, Government must be responsible too. We must strengthen the fiscal rules, and instead of fixing the rules to fit our spending, we must fix our spending to fit the rules. We must be transparent about Government borrowing – we must share data too. In January we proposed a ‘triple lock’ on stability to do just that.

    The modern Conservative approach to debt is part of our broad economic strategy.

    To re-build the competitiveness of our economy, by entrenching stability, and encouraging growth.

    By taking long term decisions;

    by facing up to the challenges of the new global economy;

    and by trusting people, and sharing responsibility.

    We want to build an economic strategy that can make Britain the most competitive place in the world to do business, where Government doesn’t just get in the way, with rising living standards for all.

    We are at the start of a journey, as we build the ideas, and vision, and policies that will help Britain meet the challenges of the twenty first century.

    And I would like to ask for your help in travelling on that journey too. We want to work with you, listen to you, both directly and through our policy groups on economic competitiveness and social justice, and I look forward to participating in this debate and learning from it in the months and years to come.

  • Lisa Nandy – 2022 Letter to Greg Clark after Rishi Sunak Admitted to Diverting Money from Deprived Areas

    Lisa Nandy – 2022 Letter to Greg Clark after Rishi Sunak Admitted to Diverting Money from Deprived Areas

    The letter sent by Lisa Nandy, Shadow Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, to Greg Clark, the Secretary of State, on 6 August 2022 following the comments made by Rishi Sunak.

  • David Lloyd George – 1928 Speech at the National Liberal Federation

    David Lloyd George – 1928 Speech at the National Liberal Federation

    The speech made by David Lloyd George, the former Prime Minister, on 12 October 1928.

    I have to apologise for interrupting your agenda and for taking up a part of your morning conference, and I should not do so if I had not what is known in Parliamentary language as a definite matter of urgent public importance to put before you.

    We are on the eve of what may turn out to be one of the greatest and most momentous general elections in the history of the country, and there are questions which arise before the election and in reference to the conduct of the party after the election with regard to which it is well we should take counsel.

    We have had the group system in the Parliamentary affairs of this country for some time. It is difficult to predict what may happen in the future, but it looks as if it were to become an integral part of the democratic machinery of this land, at any rate, for a long time to come. Extremists to the Right and extremists to the Left will probably always have their separate organisations, and there will always be a body of sane opinion in the middle that will also seek definite expression. The problem in front of us is what will happen to us in the next Parliament if none of those groups is able to secure a definite majority that will enable them to form an Administration and to carry through their task during the lifetime of that Parliament.

    There has been a good deal of discussion on the subject. The Prime Minister, addressing a meeting in Yarmouth, issued a challenge to the Liberal Party as to what we should do if we were in a minority. Would it not be better that he should have answered that question himself? Is he not just as likely to be in a minority as any other party? If he is, will he support a Liberal Government or a Labour Government? I know which he would prefer, but he dare not say so. But we are just as entitled to ask the question of him as he is to address it to us.

    And the Socialists have been very busy discussing the same question, and rightfully so. It is a matter of growing urgency, and may become a very urgent problem in June of next year. It is right we should all be in a position to give our answer when the time comes. On the last occasion, owing to the action of Mr. Baldwin, that crisis was precipitated upon the parties without our being ready, and we had to come to our decisions in a hurry. Now we have plenty of time to think about it. Let us do so.

    Some of the Socialists are discussing it in a manner which is temperate, courteous, and fair. There are others who are exceedingly offensive. They rudely refuse invitations that were never extended to them. It will be time enough for them to answer, to refuse offensively, when they get a card from the Liberal Party with R.S.V.P. written on it. It has not been issued yet, but that does not prevent us from being alive to the importance of discussing it among ourselves, or clearing our own minds so that when the crisis arises leaders will have the mind of the party upon the subject, and will be able to come to a clear, definite decision.

    A Question that must be Faced

    During the last few weeks more particularly the leaders of the party have been meeting to discuss the matter between themselves, and what I say about it will not be the expression of my own opinion, but the collective opinion of the leaders of the party. I know it would be very easy to shirk giving the answer. There is the famous answer given by Abraham Lincoln when he was asked what he would do in a certain contingency. He did not particularly want to answer, so he said: ‘I never cross the Fox river until I come to it.’ Well, I do not think that will do now. Candidates are being asked what we mean to do in certain contingencies. Liberal electors want to know, and the general electorate of this country, especially the wavering electorate which is terrified of Socialism, want to know what Liberals will do before they make up their minds. We propose to answer them, and I am going to ask your patience even if I refer more than I am in the habit of doing to notes, because this is an important occasion, and I want not only to weigh my words, carefully, but to give as careful expression to them as possible.

    Let us review the possibilities of the next general election. I am much too old a hand to commit myself to a forecast, especially under present conditions. If it were a straight fight I would predict to you that the Tory Party would not get 200 members in the next Parliament. But it will not be a straight fight.

    There are three predictions I will make. The first is that there will be an overwhelming majority of votes recorded in condemnation of the present Government. They are in a minority of a million now. There will be many more millions against them the next time. It will be an avalanche. The next prediction I make is that there will be an enormous accession of strength to the Liberal poll; and the third is that whatever party will be in a majority it will not be the Socialists.

    Our Grotesque Electoral System

    But even if there is a sweeping reduction in the Tory poll and a doubling and trebling of the Liberal vote, that is no guarantee as to the composition of the next Parliament, and that is the new element of doubt which has been introduced. We have an anomalous, unjust, and grotesque electoral system which is a fraud and a mockery of democracy. Just look at it. In the present Parliament there is one Tory member for every nineteen thousand votes recorded at the last election. There is a Socialist member for every thirty-six thousand votes. There is a Liberal member for every seventy thousand votes. Under those conditions no one can judge what will happen with a system of that kind. In the South of England, as everybody knows, there are eleven counties, and for four hundred thousand votes recorded for the Liberals there is only one Liberal member. And if it had worked in the same sort of way in the rest of the country there is no reason why the remaining two and a half million votes should not have only four members. We were lucky enough to get forty. Really we might have got five.

    Under this system in the next general election nobody can tell which way it will work, whether for Liberals, whether for the Socialists, whether for the Conservatives. In 1923 there was one Liberal member for Manchester for every fourteen thousand Liberal votes and one Tory member for one hundred thousand votes. You never know how this special Providence will work.

    Next time the Liberals may have only a third of the members they would be entitled to in proportion to their votes, but they might have twice as many as they are entitled to. You cannot predict under those circumstances. This is not government, it is a gamble and, next time, who can tell? When that little ball stops rolling it may drop in the Liberal number. At the by-elections the Liberal strength is growing and the Conservative is waning, and the Labour strength is something in between the two. One of the most encouraging features of the last two years is that we have won five by-elections in triangular contests. The tide is rising. We were stranded on this sandbank in 1924, but the tide of sanity is rising, and next time it will enable the Liberal craft to float over the sandbanks and the reefs of the electoral system.

    They say, ‘There is a difference between a by-election and a general election.’ Don’t I know it! There will be a difference this time, and I want to tell you why. When you come to a general election the electorate will be face to face with deciding who is to govern them for the next five years; whether they are going to renew the mandate, the trust, the authority of the people who have let the country down so badly, who have done nothing to pull it through our great trade emergency, and who have thoroughly muddled the cause of peace and disarmament in the world. They will hesitate, and they will look round, and they will say, ‘What is the alternative?’ They will look at the Socialists, and one look will be enough. They will pass by on the other side. And if the Socialists were the only alternative, I honestly believe the electors of this country would say, “Well, all we can do is to put the other fellow in again and trust to Providence; a Providence that has extricated this old country very often from the muddles made by its Ministers and its statesmen, and which may help us through in spite of these muddlers”.

    The Alternative Government

    But there is another alternative, and we have got to present it – the alternative in policy, the alternative in programme, the alternative in a definite scheme of practical work to extricate the nation out of its difficulties. And I should like you to allow me one word on that. We do not dwell on our assets. We are a modest party. But I want to say this, that Liberalism can command a larger number of men of high distinction who can point to unchallenge­able success in responsible spheres of activity for their country than any other party in the State.

    I will just run over a few of the names. Lord Reading, one of the most successful leaders that this country ever had at a very critical moment. To his financial advice we owe more than I can tell you. As Viceroy in a critical moment he pulled us through very grave difficulties. There are men like Lord Beauchamp and Lord Buxton, who showed wisdom in positions demanding judgement, tact, and dexterity as Governors of some of our greatest Dominions. There is Sir Herbert Samuel, who achieved such success as the first Governor of probably the most renowned country in the world. And if you will allow me to say so, there is nothing I am prouder of than the fact that as Prime Minister I had the honour of recommending him to that post to the Crown. There is Sir John Simon, the greatest lawyer in the British Empire, who has been chosen by the present Government, who have on a second occasion shown their confidence in the Liberal leaders. In the first place, they did it for Sir Herbert Samuel and now for Sir John Simon by appointing him at the head of the Commission to decide, I should say, one of the most delicate and difficult problems of the Empire today. I had the pleasure of consulting him about this statement before he left for India, and he is in full accord. And then we have men who have held very high offices in the State, like Lord Grey, Mr. Runciman, and our Chairman (Sir Chas. Hobhouse), Mr. Macpherson, Dr. Macnamara, who was responsible for the whole present system of unemployed insurance, which, in my judgment, has saved a vast amount of suffering, and, I think, saved this country probably from revolution. And if there were testimonials required for another Liberal leader I could get a sheaf of them signed by some of the most distinguished members of the Tory Government today as to the services rendered by him to the Empire.

    There is no other party which can call together such an assembly of men for the direction of the affairs of the nation, who can show such a record of successful achievement in exalted and highly responsible positions. I challenge any of them to point to any Ministers either in the present Government or its predecessor who can show such a record. I can point to many who can claim honestly a record of failure which in its magnitude compares with the record of success of some of the gentlemen I have mentioned. So that superior people who write off the chances of Liberalism in a light-hearted way forget that these facts will be present to the minds of the electors of this country when they come to choose next time.

    That is why, as we approach the general election, in spite of one or two setbacks due to the group system, there is a growth of Liberal strength, especially the last year or two. I have never seen a horse race in my life, but I am going to do so next week for the first time. But I will tell you what I am told. There are men who can check me if I am wrong. Sometimes there is a great surprise; the horse that the knowing ones think will win is a way behind, and another horse not supposed to be in the running comes cantering in – owing to atmospheric conditions. There are certain conditions where stamina tells and the flashy ones are no good. You can see the horse at first a long way behind, nobody taking any note of him. You can see him coming along, coming along, and at last passing them one after the other, and getting past the winning-post first, to the dismay of all the experts. That is the Liberal horse. And the electioneering bookies are going to be let down pretty badly. In the last two years he has already passed the Labour horse; our figures are above it. Even in Cheltenham we left him a long way behind. Whatever happens in Tavistock, we shall have left the Labour horse behind. We will soon leave the other one behind.

    Possible Results of the Election

    So I am not one of those who say that the Liberal Party has only to consider what it will do if it is only a little handful holding the balance between the other two parties. The other parties will have to consider what they propose to do with their balancing power. And there is another factor to which I would like to call your attention, which is encouraging. The larger the number of aggregate votes which a party gets the better its proportion of members. The Tory Party had more votes than anybody, the result was that it secured one member for every nineteen thousand. The Socialists come next with one member for thirty-six thousand. We come third in our aggregate poll, and we have only got one member for every seventy thousand votes, which means that if you increase the aggregate of your votes you increase the chances of getting a larger proportion of members.

    Let us have the possibilities. There are roughly only two possibilities: either one party will have a majority over all the others or no party will have a majority, and those are the only two alternatives. There is a third possibility, or I should say certainty, and that is that one of the parties without having a majority will have a larger following than either of the other two.

    Let us say that the Liberal Party get the largest number of votes. Then we will have a Liberal Government, and we shall have Liberal measures. We shall have a Liberal spirit in administration at home and abroad. We shall have national and international peace dealt with on Liberal lines. We shall have a policy of peace and disarmament, of economy in expenditure, of development of our national resources leading to the permanent enrichment of the land, and at the end of five years the nation will bless the chance that gave them a Liberal Government.

    If Liberals have the largest party they will also form the administration and submit their policy and their programme of work to the judgment of Parliament and the country. And if they are turned out by a combination of Tories and Socialists they will know what to do. Believe me, if there is a combination of Socialists and Tories in the next Parliament it will not be the first time you have had it, either in Parliament or out of Parliament. You will not hear very much said about that, but it would be the realisation of a dream of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, who once upon a time said he had a natural affinity for the Tories because they were gentlemen. And if there is a Liberal Government in power those gentlemen of England, Tories and Socialists together, will march arm in arm through the lobby to turn it out. I should like to see that.

    Now, these considerations can apply to any party that has a majority or is the largest party. If the Tories have a majority they will form a Tory Government, and we will have to put up with it and survive it as best we can, and if they have the largest party and will form a Government the same thing applies to the Socialists. So that therefore there is no difficulty about these things. The one difficulty is the case of deadlock.

    What if there is a Deadlock?

    What the nation wants to know is what will be the attitude of Liberalism in that event – if you had a complete deadlock in Parliament. The Socialists have already given their answer. They have made it clear that under no conditions will they associate or co-operate or enter into any compact or understanding with Liberals unless they swallow Socialism, horns, hoofs, and all. We say at once we are not there, we never shall be there, unless we cease to be Liberals. Socialists are not equally emphatic about what they will do with the Tories.

    A Socialist leader the other day said that if the Socialists entered into any compact with the Liberals, that is the straight way to Fascism. That is wrong historically. How did Fascism arise? It has its lesson for us in certain eventualities. There was a failure of the groups in the Italian Parliament, and notably of the Progressive groups, to form a Government at all. There were gaps and intervals of weeks, and that led straight to a dictatorship. Liberals have the supreme trust of safeguarding democracy, and they must see that does not happen.

    There can be no doubt as to the attitude of the Liberal Party under those circumstances. The Liberal Party may be relied upon in that case to determine its course in reference to one consideration and one only, and that is what will be best in the interests of the country. It will realise that the King’s Government must be carried on and that there must be no paralysis of the Government of this country. In the highest, and not in the blatant, sense the Liberal is a patriotic party. It does not wrap itself in the Union Jack or stick its plum puddings with little flags. Nevertheless, it is essentially a patriotic party, and when another party claims a monopoly of patriotism we regard it as a piece of impertinence. We have a special reason as Liberals for pride in Britain and her Empire. What is best, what is noblest, what is most enduring in that Empire is something that was brought into it by the efforts of three hundred years of Liberalism in its free institutions, in its free trade, in the condition of the people and the relation of one part of the Empire to another and to the Mother Country, in the very fact that our great Dominions are in the Empire at all. The pillars of British strength have been hewn out of the Liberal quarry by Liberal hands. It is a Liberal Empire, and Liberals therefore have a special responsibility to see the structure is not impaired by any friction or any partisanship on their part.

    And, whatever Parliamentary conditions may be, as far as lies in the power of the Liberal Party they will see that the King’s Government is carried on. If they cannot form a Government of their own, and if, unfortunately, the alternative should be either a Tory or a Socialist Government, although I am not so much concerned with which of these parties is in power – it is only a choice of two evils in the end – our main concern will be what they will do or fail to do. We are neither Socialists nor Tories, but Liberals, and as such are equally opposed to both, and have no particular preference for either. There are historical cases of men showing great anxiety as to the method of their execution, but if the prosperity and well-­being of this country is to fall into the hands of either of these two Governments – well, Liberals will have very little to choose between strangling prosperity with a rope of tariffs or drawing and quartering it with Socialism. And therefore our task will be to do our best to minimise the amount and circumscribe the area of the mischief which they will render and to do all in our power to extract the maximum of good out of an unpropitious situation.

    But I am not without hope that if there be a deadlock the common sense of this nation, which is, after all, the greatest democratic community in the world and the one country in the world that thoroughly understands democratic institutions, that its common sense will prevail over all party considerations, and that we shall always realise the gravity of the emergency through which the country is passing. We cannot, of course, whatever befall us, enter into any understanding, formal or informal, with another party under any circumstances to advance measures or policies in which we disbelieve and which we in our hearts know to be detrimental to the interests of our country.

    For instance, whatever Government is in power we shall resist every effort to overthrow the great fiscal system upon which the trade and commerce of this country have been built. In spite of its depression, it has the greatest international trade in the world. Other nations at Geneva admit regretfully that our policy is the right one, but they cannot get their feet out of the tariff stocks.

    We shall resist every attempt to set up what is known as a Socialist State and to substitute the nationalisation of all the means of production, distribution, and exchange for private enterprise. This we shall resist.

    The Conditions of Co-operation

    But I am not blind to the fact, and I even rejoice in it, that even if a Liberal Government as such were not obtainable next Parliament owing to the operation of our electoral system, there is a vast and fertile territory common to men of progressive minds in all parties which they could, at any rate during this interval, agree to cultivate together without abandoning any of the principles and ideals which they cherish. But under these circumstances the conditions of co-operation and understanding must be honourable to all and humiliating to none. Those who were in the 1924 Parliament know what I mean. But let me say for once and for all, as far as I am concerned – and this is the view of the Liberal leaders I have consulted – we shall decidedly and emphatically decline to admit the possibility of the experiment of 1924 which proved so disastrous. It was only justifiable as an experiment, and history may or may not say it was necessary as such. It was no fault of ours that it failed. But it cannot be repeated.

    In my judgment the Socialist leaders, by their ineptitude then, threw away the last chances they will get in this generation of forming and carrying through a Socialist Administration. They have no reasonable hope of securing a Socialist majority in our time, and I cannot see Liberals, after the unfortunate experience of the past, again taking the risk of committing the life and fortunes of their party so completely to the keeping of any other party, be it Tory or Socialist.

    A prominent Labour leader, in one of his articles the other day, made it clear what he thinks will happen. He assumes that if we are in a minority we will help the Socialists into power, but once they are there this great Government will introduce measures of such beneficence that we dare not resist them, and we shall be unwillingly chained to the Socialist chariot to the end of Parliament and then will be comfortably put away. In vain is the net spread in the sight of a bird caught in the same net before and escaping with his life, but leaving a good many of his feathers behind. That is my answer to that gentleman.

    An Independent Party

    The question of our best course to pursue in a particular juncture, or in a particular Parliamentary situation, or on a particular Parliamentary occasion must be left necessarily to consultation amongst the chosen leaders of the party at the time. You cannot dictate or decide this in advance. We must judge them at the time. It would be folly to try now to determine. We can only make our general position clear. We shall fight the general election as an independent party. We shall act together in the next Parliament as an independent party. Our main concern will be to consider the best method of advancing certain ideas and promoting certain practical measures which we regard as being essential to the well-being of the nation, the advancement of the cause of peace, the pressing of a general measure of disarmament as the only security for peace, the grappling with the national emergency with a view to the improvement of trade and employment. This will include comprehensive measures for reconditioning the country, the development of our national resources in and under the soil, the cleansing of the land of slums, the solution of the problems of transport, and measures of temperance reform. We shall claim the full and free right to censure incompetent Ministers either by speeches or by votes in the lobby, whatever the consequences may be, and whether it be Tory or Socialist or anybody else.

    And we shall certainly insist with all our strength upon the next Parliament dealing with the outrageous electoral system, which robs millions of good citizens in this country of their fair share of government. We must have a system to enable the will of the people to be fairly expressed in the House. We claim nothing but justice. Quite frankly, neither of the other two parties understands political justice. The Tories and the Socialists alike laugh when we present our case for redress – the fact that we cannot get one-fourth of representation for our voters that the Tories get, who have one man for every nineteen thousand voters, while we must have seventy thousand Liberals to return one Parliamentary representative. They know it is unfair, but they profit by it. Fair play! It is quite unknown to either where their interests are involved. They are both essentially class parties. That is their strength, that is their weakness; both fighting for class advantages and privileges. Socialists are not fighting for the working classes. They are fighting for that proportion of the working classes that vote Socialist.

    The Liberal Party will Fight to Win

    And I want to say one thing further. After my close observation of what has been going on in the country and in Parliament we must expect no quarter from either of those parties, and we do not ask for it. I can see them conspiring and intriguing, separately and together, to destroy Liberalism in Parliament and out of Parliament. I have seen it in the House of Commons these last four years. We have a small party. We are only entitled to very limited opportunities for raising discussions. I have seen the Tory Party and the Socialist Party meeting behind the Speaker’s chair to deprive our little party of the limited opportunities they have for discussion. And the meaner of the two is the Socialist. I have seen where the Socialist and Tory Whips agreed together to closure a debate on an important financial matter imposing new taxes merely to prevent Liberals from taking part in that discussion. I have given the challenge. If they deny it I will give several illustrations. I throw the challenge out here and now.

    In the country there is no doubt they are working together. Why do I say that? If you notice the seats where the Liberals in a straight fight would have an absolute certainty of winning, and both the other parties know they would win, what happens? Even although the Labour Party knows perfectly well they have no chance of getting anywhere near, they put up a candidate to wreck our chances, and the Tories return the compliment by putting candidates in places where they have no chance. In Middles­brough, in Halifax they had no chance, and the Tory Party preferred letting Labour in. Why are they playing into each other’s hands? I can see it in my own county. There is a Labour candidate in the county seat who has no chance in a straight fight, and so the Tories, who will barely escape without paying a forfeit and who have not the ghost of a chance, are putting a Tory candidate up to help him. And there can be no possible purpose except to put the Labour man in instead of the Liberal for that constituency. In my constituency Labour returns the compliment by putting up a candidate to help the Tory win that seat.

    They are playing into each other’s hands like this all over the country, and the Socialists and the Tories say, ‘Look at those Liberals; they cannot last.’ They are people who like to talk like that. They are conspiring all over the country in and out of Parliament.

    I have seen it in Tavistock, their abuse of Liberals and their respect for Labour leaders. They are combining to attack the Liberals because they think that they will then get Liberalism out of the way, and that it will then be Tory Government, Socialist Government, Socialist Government, Tory Government, and no Liberals to interfere with mismanagement, muddle, wrong policies. The country will have a choice of muddlers with no Liberals to interfere. And they say to each other, ‘Keep it up. This party will disappear.’

    They tried that game, the Tories did, with Nonconformity. No careers for them, no bench of magistrates, nor any offices in the House of Commons, no entrance to the university, and even to this very hour there are thousands of schools maintained exclu­sively out of the rates where no Nonconformist can become even a pupil teacher. What did they say? ‘Keep it up and Nonconformity will vanish.’ Its altars call for the devotion of more millions than ever. We have got the same game with Liberalism. They said: ‘Keep them out of Parliament, keep them out of office. See they do not get in. You play the game here and we will play the game there, and in some places we will play it together. We will squeeze them out.’ No they will not, ever. They do not understand the breed of Liberalism. We shall fight in the next election, we shall fight in the next Parliament. If necessary, Liberals will go on fighting one, two, three Parliaments, yea twenty, if necessary. In the end they will triumph, for their cause is the cause of right and of reason.

  • Andy Burnham – 2022 Comments on HS2 and Manchester

    Andy Burnham – 2022 Comments on HS2 and Manchester

    The comments made by Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, on 4 August 2022.

    We cannot continue to repeat the mistakes of the past – failing to invest in central Manchester’s rail links has led to rail chaos across the North time and again.

    This is a huge moment and the decisions that are made now will affect the prospects for people here in the North for hundreds of years to come. A second-class choice for HS2 at Manchester Piccadilly station will be a hammer blow to any prospects of really Levelling Up our country.

    If we get the wrong solution at Piccadilly, it will limit economic growth, limit opportunities for local people and businesses, and limit the right rail solution for the whole of the North of England. This issue is of first order importance to our city-region, and it is only right that all MPs have the opportunity to debate and vote on the final plans for this once-in-a-century opportunity.

    We are pleased that there has been some progress and welcome the comments from Liz Truss to fully commit to delivering the North’s version of Northern Powerhouse Rail. But if she is being true to her words, this must also include a reset moment on HS2 and the station at Piccadilly which is fundamental to the future of the North.

  • Eddie Hughes – July 2022 Update to Grenfell Residents

    Eddie Hughes – July 2022 Update to Grenfell Residents

    The letter sent by Eddie Hughes, the Minister for Rough Sleeping and Housing, to residents in the area of Grenfell Tower on July 2022.

    Letter (in .pdf format)

  • Simon Kirby – 2010 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Simon Kirby – 2010 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    The maiden speech made by Simon Kirby, the then Conservative MP for Brighton Kemptown, in the House of Commons on 3 June 2010.

    I shall be brief, in the hope that I might catch your eye again in the near future, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

    I am delighted to rise to speak today as the new Member for Brighton, Kemptown, the sixth in the 60 years that the seat has existed. Brighton, Kemptown, as we know, is very close to Europe, and I have to tell the House that in 1514 the French invaded the town of Brighton at the time and razed it to the ground. I am not surprised that even 500 years later, many of my constituents are still suspicious of our relationship with Europe.

    Tradition dictates that I should thank my predecessor, Des Turner of the Labour party. For 13 years, he was the MP for Brighton, Kemptown, and I have to say that he did a good job. He worked hard and was an excellent constituency MP. In this House, his experience as a scientist was put very much to use, and I hope, as a mathematician, that I might follow him in that regard.

    I should also like to pay tribute to his predecessor—not Dennis Hobden, who was the first Labour MP in Sussex, having won by seven votes, nor David James, the man who pursued the Loch Ness monster, but Sir Andrew Bowden, the MP for Brighton, Kemptown, from 1970 to 1997, a friend of mine and an excellent constituency MP.

    Let me tell hon. Members about Brighton, Kemptown. It is without doubt one of the best seaside destinations not only in this country, but in Europe. It attracts 8 million visitors and many conferences. Many of us in this House will have enjoyed the hospitality that Brighton has to offer. The constituency runs from the Palace pier to Peacehaven, and from Moulsecoomb to the marina. It is, in my opinion, the best part of Brighton and Hove city, and the best part of East Sussex. Whitehawk has had human inhabitants for thousands of years. My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) mentioned the Domesday Book; Brighton appears in it, and there is a fantastic Norman church in the village of Ovingdean. I have mentioned the French invaders, so we will move on.

    Brighton has a large lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community, and I am proud and honoured to have the opportunity to represent it and the constituency in Parliament. It has a race course and the leafy suburbs of Woodingdean, Rottingdean, Saltdean, Telscombe Cliffs, and Peacehaven. It has older people and younger people. It has two universities. It has a hospital—designed, incidentally, by Charles Barry, the architect of the building in which we stand. It has a grade II listed lido in Saltdean, and one of the largest marinas in Europe, which I very much hope will remain a marina.

    I am honoured, humbled and privileged to represent Brighton, Kemptown. It is an exciting, diverse and happening place, and I hope to do my very best.

  • Simon Kirby – 2017 Speech at the LSE Global FinTech Investor Forum

    Simon Kirby – 2017 Speech at the LSE Global FinTech Investor Forum

    The speech made by Simon Kirby, the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury, at the London Stock Exchange in London on 16 March 2017.

    Good morning everyone.

    It’s always a pleasure to come to the London Stock Exchange – one of the oldest exchanges in the world, one of the biggest, and one of the best.

    Based in the heart of the City, it’s also a symbol of what we are lucky to have in the country at large. And that’s our outstanding prowess in the world of global finance.

    Because it is a truth universally acknowledged – perhaps not always universally liked, if you ask our global rivals – but a truth universally acknowledged nonetheless, that the UK is one of the best places for financial services firms in the world.

    And today, we opened the markets talking about something that’s going to help us keep it that way – our FinTech.

    Now FinTech is, without doubt, a pretty broad term, covering a pretty wide range of different specialisms. But for me it boils down to the technological advances that will mean real improvements to our financial services – whether that’s in how money is lent, payments are made or decisions are taken.

    And as you’d expect in a country that is home to so many world-class financial experts, we’re proving to be the best in the world in this sector.

    I’ve heard from businesses of all kinds about how they are shaking up financial services with their innovative, new developments.

    And that’s not just about what the big, established players of this industry are doing.

    It’s also about all the exciting new start ups – both across the country, and even internationally – I met several British companies, for example, when I went to visit the Cyberport FinTech space in Hong Kong just a couple of months ago.

    So what is clear to me, is that in FinTech, we’ve got all the ingredients for a real British success story. And the question for all of us is how we can help it unfold further.

    There is of course, much we’ve already done to create the right environment for success.

    Let me give just three examples of things that people keep telling me they envy in the British system.

    Firstly, the FCA’s regulatory sandbox.

    That’s already proven its worth to businesses which need to test out their new models and products with real consumers – and to do so in a safe regulatory space.

    Secondly, the Bank of England’s FinTech Accelerator.

    Which is giving FinTech companies the chance to work with the Bank to find innovative solutions that help it improve how it performs its job as the country’s central bank.

    And thirdly, the FinTech Delivery Panel.

    Which is all about our leading finance and FinTech companies – and often rivals at that – coming together to work out how to make the UK an even better place to do business – and I look forward to the ideas that will come out of this group.

    One last thing deserves a mention – Open Banking.

    We’re not quite there yet – the full release is on track for January next year – but this is really going to make a big difference to change banking as we know it– allowing customers to give FinTech companies safe access to their personal data held by their bank, so they can take advantage of new services.

    It is clear that we’ve got a good environment for FinTech to flourish.

    But I’ve been asking FinTech companies what more can be done.

    And the answers I get tend to fall into three main categories – it’s about talent, international connections and investment.

    So let me take each one of those in turn.

    And let’s start with the people. Because as a business man myself, I’ve seen first-hand that it’s the people that make all the difference to any company’s success.

    And there are two points to make.

    Firstly, on developing our own home grown talent. And I think there’s an awful lot we’re doing to reform our education system and prepare the next generation for the 21st century – look, for example, at the fact that we were one of the first countries in the world to put computer coding on the national curriculum.

    But the other point is about international talent – and I know Brexit has worried some of you on this front – especially as FinTech is one of the most international sectors in what is already a very international industry as a whole.

    Let me reassure you then, that we know how important this is. In fact, I held a meeting with FinTech companies just last month – with my colleague, Robert Goodwill, the Immigration Minister – to discuss this very issue. And I want to say to you, as I said to those firms, that though this government is determined to control our immigration, I cannot conceive of any circumstances in which we would want to stop companies moving highly qualified, highly skilled people into their businesses here in the UK.

    We want all of our industries to keep reaping the benefits of the world’s best talent – both in terms of the international members of staff you already have and value, and those you will want to hire in the future.

    The next big ask you had of us, was that we keep working to make links between the UK and other international markets.

    Because many of you have a really global outlook – we’ve recently been supporting World First, for example, as they take their money transfer business across the globe, with openings in China, India, Korea and Japan. And in turn many international companies are coming to the UK – last month, for example, we welcomed Square to the Treasury – the San Francisco mobile payments company, which is preparing to launch its UK operations. governments can do a lot to help such companies as they go across borders, by bringing down barriers, and paving the way for greater co-operation and more complementary regulatory systems.

    That’s what we’ve been working with our international partners to do – particularly, through our bespoke FinTech Bridges.

    We’ve already got three of these agreements with big FinTech markets – Singapore, the Republic of Korea and China. And we’re working on our next with Hong Kong – to build on the regulatory agreement between the FCA and Hong Kong Monetary Authority we already have in place. All of which is good news for those British start-ups I met in Hong Kong’s Cyberport.

    And I’ve been flying the flag for British FinTech throughout my visits to Asia.

    I promoted it at the Asian Financial Forum in January.

    I went to Singapore’s inaugural FinTech festival with a trade mission of impressive British FinTechs.

    And I’ve been talking FinTech in my visits to Indonesia, Malaysia and Hong Kong.

    We’re also really fortunate to have Eileen Burbidge as our special envoy – to promote our FinTech sector – both at home in the UK, and with international investors.

    That brings me to the last issue you raised with us, which is investment – and again, I know Brexit is a factor in your concerns.

    But it’s not the cause of them. Because even before the Referendum in February last year, an EY report told us that capital investment in UK FinTech is falling behind that in other countries.

    Consider just this one stat – in 2015, the UK attracted £524 million of external investment into FinTech. While New York and California got about £5 billion between them.

    So we’ve been working with you to turn that around. And one of the things we’ve got coming up to do that, is our International FinTech Conference on the 12th April.

    This is going to gather investors from the UK, and around the world, to see for themselves what British FinTech has to offer.

    It’s going to have a glittering cast of senior business leaders, like the London Stock Exchange’s very own Xavier Rolet, and the CEOs of the British Business Bank, TransferWise and Funding Circle.

    As well, of course, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Governor of the Bank of England and our special FinTech envoy, Eileen Burbidge.

    So if there’s anyone here who doesn’t know about the conference who wants to come along, details are online, or you’re always welcome to get in touch with my office at the Treasury.

    Because my door is very much open to British FinTechs.

    I’ve already been meeting companies from across the country, and listening to what you have to tell me.

    And I want to keep hearing from you – to know what you’re worried about, and what you’re excited about too.

    Because this government is here to support you as you build your businesses up, compete internationally, and collaborate internationally too.

    So if you ask me, the world should watch this space – because British FinTech is going to go from strength to strength.

  • Simon Kirby – 2017 Speech at the Asian Financial Forum

    Simon Kirby – 2017 Speech at the Asian Financial Forum

    The speech made by Simon Kirby, the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury, in Hong Kong on 16 January 2017.

    Good morning.

    I’m honoured to be here today.

    Not only because Hong Kong is such a beautiful and vibrant city.

    But because this is a forum that brings together some of the finest expertise in our financial community – from across Asia, and from across the rest of the world too.

    This is all the more important as we meet in the context of economic and financial uncertainty, and profound political change.

    Change and uncertainty require global dialogue, so it is a real privilege to be given the opportunity, on behalf of the British government, to contribute to that dialogue here today.

    The theme of this year’s forum is ‘Driving change, innovation and connectivity’.

    And I want to talk about each in turn.

    Let me start with change.

    Because as you may have noticed, that’s something we in Britain had quite a lot of in 2016!

    Not only did we get a new Prime Minister – and, I’m proud to say, the second female Prime Minister in our history.

    But we also took the historic decision to take a new direction and to leave the European Union.

    I know that for many of you, this will raise some questions about how things will change in the future.

    But let me provide some reassurance.

    The Prime Minister has made it clear that the process of leaving the European Union will begin by the end of March this year, meaning no unnecessary delays.

    Most importantly of all, our economy is growing, our banks are well capitalised, and we are well equipped to deal with any ongoing risks.

    So it is clear Britain is in a strong position to make this adjustment.

    I also want to be clear that the UK government sees this as a huge opportunity for Britain.

    We are not turning our back on the international stage.

    We see our relationships with countries across Asia and the rest of the world as more important now than ever before.

    And, working closely with our international partners, we will continue to advocate passionately for free trade and free markets.

    But it’s not all change in the UK.

    When it comes to Financial Services, the UK remains home to one of the most international and the most experienced financial capitals in the world:

    we’re the largest exporter of financial services in the world

    we’re home to over 250 foreign banks – more than any other financial centre

    we account for close to 40% of global FX trading – more than anywhere else in the world

    and with an unrivalled pool of investors, we’re also Europe’s largest asset management centre – with almost £7 trillion pounds under management

    and all this is supported by world-leading legal and professional services

    So the UK is a leading global financial centre, and the natural partner of choice for Asian companies looking to go global.

    And we’re determined to keep it that way as we navigate our exit from the European Union.

    Because we don’t rest on our laurels in Britain, which leads me on to our second watchword of this forum – innovation.

    What’s clear is that if you don’t keep moving, you don’t keep your reputation for excellence.

    The City of London can look back on centuries of success – but we know our future success depends on making the most of opportunities to come.

    And these are exciting times in global finance.

    In the UK, we are embracing innovation – and I’m pleased to say we’re doing it in partnership with countries across Asia.

    Take FinTech.

    Domestically, we’re doing many things to support the development of this important sector.

    But we’re also co-operating with other leaders in FinTech.

    We’ve agreed partnerships – we call them ‘FinTech Bridges’ – with Singapore, the Republic of Korea and the People’s Republic of China.

    I’m delighted that we’ve taken the first steps towards agreeing a Bridge with Hong Kong too.

    And in a few months’ time, we’re going to hold the first ever International FinTech Conference to promote the UK’s world-leading FinTech sector to investors from across the world – and I hope to see many of you in this room there.

    We’re also leading the way in developing new capital markets.

    We’re collaborating with countries across the world, in particular here in Asia, to develop the market for green finance to meet our collective commitment to stop climate change in its tracks.

    The UK is also the leading western hub for the Islamic Finance, and we continue to work closely with countries like Malaysia and Indonesia, and with the Gulf Cooperation Council, to drive innovation in this important market.

    And we’re also supporting others – in particular India and China – to internationalise their currencies, helping them to connect and integrate their financial markets with the global financial system.

    And this brings me to the final theme of this conference: connectivity.

    Because, as the examples I have mentioned show, in the UK we believe the best way to tackle the big issues, and the best way to raise prosperity for all, is through partnerships across borders.

    We place huge importance and value on the connections we have here in Asia.

    It’s telling, for example, that the Prime Minister’s first bilateral visit outside Europe was to India.

    And that the British Chancellor’s first foreign trip was to Beijing and Hong Kong.

    The UK has always had a special relationship with this part of the world.

    But it’s about much more than shared history.

    It’s about common values and cultural links.

    It’s about the thousands of people from this part of the world that come to study and work in the UK; and the thousands of British citizens that choose to make their living here.

    And of course, it is about the close connections between the UK and Asian economies.

    Those connections matter because we have so much to offer each other.

    I saw this first-hand when I took part in the recent UK-China Economic and Financial Dialogue – where we not only made substantial progress to boost our cooperation on financial services, but also cemented ties on energy, trade and investment.

    I saw this too on my recent visit to Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia, where I discussed with my counterparts, and with industry, the many ways in which we can collaborate further on Financial Services.

    In Britain, we believe passionately in the power of working in partnership with countries right across the globe.

    And we will continue to work tirelessly to strengthen those partnerships in the future.

    So – we are living in times of change.

    But we should be optimistic – both at home in the UK, and across Asia – that we will also be in times of great opportunity and progress.

    Because, ladies and gentlemen, by embracing change…

    By empowering innovation…

    And by working in partnership…

    We will all become more prosperous as a result.

    Thank you.

  • Simon Kirby – 2016 Speech at the UK Financial Services Brexit Summit

    Simon Kirby – 2016 Speech at the UK Financial Services Brexit Summit

    The speech made by Simon Kirby, the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury, on 11 October 2016.

    Good Morning everyone.

    Thank you for inviting me to speak here today.

    And I want to congratulate City and Financial Global, the Corporation of London and the CityUK, and other organisers and sponsors, for holding such a timely event.

    Because it doesn’t matter what industry you’re working in. There’s one question every single business sector is wrestling with, and that’s what our exit from the European Union will mean in practice.

    And I know there are some concerns among the financial services sector and I’ve listened carefully to Charles’ 5 points [Charles Bowman – City of London].

    People are asking whether the UK will be able to maintain its reputation as a world-leader in financial services once we’ve left the EU? Whether we’ll still be able to keep and attract the very best talent? Whether this industry will be consulted about what is the very best deal for Britain and what it would look like?

    And the reason I wanted to come here today, is to make very clear, that the answer to all three of these important questions, is a resounding yes.

    So let me kick off with that first question – can the UK still be one of the best financial centres, anywhere in the world, even if we’re outside the EU?

    Well let me say this is an absolute priority for the government. This sector is hugely important to the British economy. It is the world’s largest exporter of financial services, insurance and pensions exporting £63.7 billion.

    And across the country, over 2 million people have jobs in this and related industries – and it really is across the country, with the vast majority of these jobs actually outside of London. And it is important to every single part of our great country.

    But what I want to remind you – as we will remind the world – is that being in the EU is simply not the biggest strength we have to offer. Standing in this building makes that point very clear to me.

    What we can offer in the UK, is all the services the industry needs – in one place.

    And we’ve got a lot of strings to our bow.

    We’ve got our hugely respected legal system.

    We have world-leading business and support services.

    We have a multilingual workforce. And we have a great time zone for doing business across the globe.

    We have some of the best universities in the world.

    And we have a financial system that we’ve spent the last 6 years making more and more resilient – as illustrated for example, by the capital requirements for the largest banks which are now 10 times higher than before the crisis.

    And another great skill we have here in this country, is that we don’t stand still.

    We’ve been steadily developing our capacity in this industry across the whole UK.

    So the success of the square mile is now being seen in the regions across the country, which we’re working to promote as financial centres of excellence in their own right inextricably linked to London and important across the whole world.

    And we keep moving towards the future in terms of new innovation.

    Look at the exciting use of technology in this sector!

    We should all be proud of the fact that London was recently declared the very best place in the world to set up and run a FinTech firm – a sector that last year generated almost £7 billion in the UK.

    So we have a lot to offer and a positive story to tell.

    We have a positive story to tell and we have all the talents to keep offering the financial products and expertise that our global customers require.

    And while we are rewriting our relationship with the EU, we will also be working hard to retain our reputation for British excellence in this industry.

    Now I know that for many of you a key part of retaining that reputation, is retaining the talent that we have.

    So let me turn to the second question many of you are asking, which is about our ability to keep and attract the best people to the UK’s financial services industry.

    And there are two parts to that question.

    Firstly, concerning the rights of EU nationals already here within the industry. We fully expect that the legal rights of EU nationals already in the UK will be properly protected. Because they make a huge contribution to our country, as well as our financial services industry. And we’re confident that we’ll be able to reach an agreement protecting the rights of EU nationals here, as well as our citizens in Europe.

    But the second part of the question is about making sure we can attract the right skills and the people to our financial services industry.

    The Prime Minister has made it clear the Britain we will build after Brexit is going to be a global Britain. So it’s the time now to be bold, the time to build a new confident role for ourselves on the world stage. And that means continuing to be a place which can attract the very best workers coming from abroad, while at the same time making sure we keep developing our home-grown talent of the future. It’s a balance between the two.

    And in response to the third question – about how much the views of the financial services industry will be taken into account as we lay the groundwork for a successful Brexit.

    Let me be very clear, ladies and gentlemen. We want to secure the very best possible deal for this country – across our industries, and across the UK. 2.2 million people, £67 billion in tax income. We want the very best deal for financial services. But we cannot do this alone.

    It’s always important that government and industry talk to each other.

    But now it is more important than ever so we can meet the challenges and take advantages of the opportunities, yes opportunities, ahead effectively.

    So we need to hear your perspectives from the financial services sector.

    We will listen to you. We will work hard to understand your issues. And we will weigh this up as we consider our position before opening up negotiations with the EU. And the process has already started. You’ve told us, for example, about the importance of market access for this industry.

    We know that if the UK is to have a passporting regime, that we will need a regulatory regime that is comparable and well-harmonised with the countries into which we are passporting.

    And I think we are in a strong place to achieve this with Europe: starting a new relationship at a point when we have shared the same rules for so long and had huge economic integration.

    You’ve also told us you’re worried about market disruption and the risks to financial stability when we leave the EU.

    And so we will push for a solution that means an orderly transition – that neither disrupts how financial services are delivered, nor importantly drives up costs.

    So my message to you today is to keep talking to us, to keep sharing your views, and to keep working with government in this spirit of constructive collaboration.

    To conclude, we know the path ahead won’t always be easy.

    There’s a lot of work ahead for all of us.

    And we know that we must expect some turbulence- some bumps in the road- as we negotiate our exit from the EU – with article 50, the mechanism to withdraw, set to be triggered by the end of March at the latest next year. But we’ve worked hard to strengthen our economy, and we approach this period from a position of strength. So we are confident that we can weather any storm that comes our way.

    And as I started with three questions, let me end with three promises to you here today.

    First, that we are going to keep on doing what it takes to see the UK’s financial services industry remain a world leader.

    Second, that we are going to keep on making this a country which is competitive and open for business.

    And thirdly, that the government will keep fighting to get the best possible deal for British business, and make Brexit a success.

  • Simon Kirby – 2016 Speech on the Pensions Dashboard

    Simon Kirby – 2016 Speech on the Pensions Dashboard

    The speech made by Simon Kirby, the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury, at Aviva Digital Garage in London on 12 September 2016.

    Spirit of innovation

    Thanks Andrew (Brem – Aviva Chief Digital Officer) for that introduction, and even more so for hosting us in such a perfect example of Shoreditch cool!

    I like to think, as a Brighton MP, that I’m used to seeing some pretty trendy establishments, but this ‘Digital Garage’ is a whole new level.

    And as someone who has started various businesses myself, I have to say I’m very envious of all the cutting edge start-ups which are getting to make the most of this space to develop their ideas.

    So an enormous well done to Aviva for backing them.

    Because I’ve long been a huge believer that it’s our creativity, our passion for innovation, that is one of the main factors in this country’s success in business. It’s our new ideas, our new ways of thinking, our new products that really help create new jobs and get our economy growing.

    Success Post-Referendum

    Now I know some of you have concerns about how the vote to leave the EU might affect our businesses.

    And, of course, our access to the single market has been important, for the financial sector in particular.

    But it’s not the only foundation of our prosperity.

    It’s not our only route to success.

    We have a lot to be positive about.

    Our economy is fundamentally strong.

    We have sensible regulation.

    We have talent and skills in abundance.

    And we have creativity and cutting edge technology.

    So in the Treasury, just as across government, we’ve spent the summer looking at the consequences, and of course opportunities, associated with our exit.

    And I’ll be playing my own part in making Brexit a success for the UK’s vital financial services industry – which gives jobs to over 1 million people across the country – not to mention 10% of tax revenues.

    Informed choices through technology and information

    And in the meantime, the regular work of government is continuing at pace.

    And it’s great to be here today to talk about the pensions dashboard – which I think is a hugely important step forward.

    Because financial decisions are complicated at the best of times.

    They probably always will be – these are decisions that really matter to people’s lives.

    But what we can do to help is to make sure that people have the right information, in the right format, at the right time.

    Technology has unlocked so many more possibilities for doing that.

    Just look at how revolutionary things like mobile banking and comparison sites have already been.

    It’s time for pensions to catch up.

    Because for most people, it’s their pension which is their largest financial asset.

    And if we have better information available, we can make much more effective decisions. From choosing how much we save, to what products we use to do so.

    And what the dashboard can do, is unlock a huge amount of information to inform the choices people make.

    How different would people’s engagement with pensions be if you could review your pension balances as part of your online banking?

    Or if you could change how you save into a pension at the click of a button?

    Or if personalised pension forecasts could be run on a mobile app?

    Design of the dashboard

    So that’s why we need a pensions dashboard to unleash this kind of potential.

    And for it to really be effective, I think there are three main principles that must underpin its whole design.

    Firstly, it will need to be open.

    No single dashboard can meet the needs of millions of people who all have very different individual circumstances.

    There is definitely no government website that could do that either.

    There is no monopoly of wisdom.

    The dashboard needs to be an infrastructure of open standards – like a common language and system for finding, collating, and sharing pension information.

    And it should be open to a range of companies who can meet basic standards of security and data protection – including banks and fintechs, not just pension providers.

    They should be able to access its information to deliver the products or advice their customers ask for.

    Secondly, the dashboard needs to be flexible.

    It is unrealistic to expect every provider to be ready to contribute the same data to the dashboard at the same time.

    It is probably impossible to present all the different types of pensions in exactly the same way.

    And who knows how technology or other changes might transform pensions in the future?

    The infrastructure therefore needs to be built in such a way that it can adapt and expand over time

    It cannot be a single, monolithic IT platform set in stone forever.

    Finally, the dashboard needs to be reliable.

    Because if we want to encourage people to save more, then they need to be able to trust in pensions. That starts with people being able to access basic information, across all their pension pots, without having to pay to do so.

    There’s nothing wrong with charging for useful services – be it advice, savings plans, consolidation services or other possibilities that don’t yet exist.

    But we need to get the free provision of the basic information right, and make sure it’s consistent across different types of pensions.

    The State Pension will be a part of that.

    And I’m keen to see the whole industry work together to set the minimum standards for how data is shared.

    We want that process to happen through the excellent voluntary collaboration we’ve seen to date.

    But if there are difficulties getting everyone on board, then we’ll certainly look at legislation or regulation instead.

    So I would encourage everyone to start on this as soon as possible.

    Making it happen

    So how do we get this flexible, and reliable dashboard off the ground?

    Because we’ve said very clearly that we want this up and running and ready for consumers to use by 2019.

    Well, I’m very pleased to be able to announce today that eleven organisations have made a fantastic new commitment to make the dashboard a reality.

    Aviva, Aon, B&CE, HSBC, LV, Nest, Now:Pensions, Royal London, Standard Life, Willis Towers Watson, and Zurich have agreed to work together to build a first working prototype of the dashboard by March 2017.

    And particular thanks must also go to the Association of British Insurers for agreeing to project manage the whole process. Together, these organisations will be leading the way forward in making the dashboard a reality.

    They’ll be looking at how to develop open, common standards.

    How to get the right governance structures.

    And how to overcome some of the tricky technical challenges.

    So I want to congratulate all these companies on taking on the challenge of setting up this first pilot.

    And I have no doubt that they will reap the rewards of their efforts.

    Innovation is a race and rewards those who press ahead.

    So if you are a pension provider who wants to participate in the pilot, you still have time to sign up to the same commitments as these companies and help develop this dashboard.

    Conclusion

    So this is an important milestone, and one which in my new role as the Economic Secretary to the Treasury I’m excited to get behind.

    In the Treasury, we’ll be supporting the pilot all the way.

    Not only by seeking views across organisations about the best ways to go about it.

    But by providing top-level guidance and independent challenge.

    So I’m confident this project will be a success.

    Because we’re already seeing great collaboration across organisations to make it happen.

    And we know how much creativity and innovation this sector has to offer.

    So I’m confident that when it comes to 2019, people in this country will have a much better service when it comes to making the right decisions about their pensions.

    And together we’ll be able to move on from the discussions we’re having today, to get on with designing, building and making the dashboard a reality.

    So I wish everyone involved every success in doing so.

    Thank you.