DOCSLIB.ORG

Institute of Commonwealth Studies

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Institute of Commonwealth Studies University of London INSTITUTE OF COMMONWEALTH STUDIES Witness Seminar - The heartbeat of a modern Commonwealth? The Commonwealth Secretariat 1965-2013 Monday, June 24, 2013 Marlborough House Pall Mall, London VOICE FILE NAME: COHP Witness Seminar Key: AB: Amitav Banerji AE: Antony Ellman EL: Edwin Laurent GB: Gurudas Bailur JK: Joel Kibazo KY: Kayode Samuel MB: Madhuri Bose MG: Max Gaylard MM: Muhammad Muda MS: Michael Sinclair PMA: Peter Marshall PMU: Philip Murphy PR: Patsy Robertson PS: Purna Sen PW: Peter Williams RB: Richard Bourne RJ: Rupert Jones-Perry RU: Richard Uku SC: Stephen Chan SG: Simon Gimson SMA: Stephen Matlin SMO: Stuart Mole SO: Sue Onslow VK: Vijay Krishnarayan VS: Veronica Sutherland s.l. = sounds like 1 PMU: I’d like to welcome you, very warmly, to this Witness Seminar, ‘The heartbeat of the modern Commonwealth, the Commonwealth Secretariat 1965 – 2013’. My name is Philip Murphy, and I’m the Director of the Institute of Commonwealth Studies. The seminar forms part of a much larger, on-going project to produce an oral history of the modern Commonwealth; by ‘modern Commonwealth’, we mean since the creation of the Secretariat in 1965. A significant part of this project is obviously to capture the impressions of senior politicians and diplomats from across the Commonwealth, focusing in particular on whether they felt that the Commonwealth made a significant contribution to international diplomacy. This of course is partly about perception, but perceptions, as we all know, matter. At the same time, as we began to think about the project and as we began to pursue it, it became clear to us that we also needed to talk to a range of people who had been associated on a day-to-day basis with the work of the Secretariat itself. The idea of this Witness Seminar began to form in our minds, very much in terms of a collective interview which would be recorded, transcribed and included on our project website as one of our major interviews. This is what we are doing today. The fact that we came to this idea slightly late in the day has practical implications. We didn’t budget for this in our original proposal so our witnesses today have had to come here under their own steam, so-to-speak. We are particularly grateful to them and to you all for doing that. We were delighted by the very enthusiastic reception that we got when we proposed this Witness Seminar. There will be a fuller set of thanks later on, but let me just begin by thanking a few people in particular. Of course, thanks to the Secretary- General and his staff here for making available this wonderful room which we hope will help to jog memories today. Thanks to Cheryl Dorall and her colleagues in the Commonwealth Association for their help and support in putting this programme together. I’d like to thank Stuart Mole who helped develop this programme and really gave it cohesion when we started thinking about it. And then my colleagues at the Institute who have put in an awful amount of time and effort: Mason and Rob Kenyon will be helping out today and you will probably have met them already. My colleague, Sue Onslow is the principle researcher on the Commonwealth Oral History Project and has already made a terrific start. We’re less than a year into the interviewing programme, but the material that has already been gathered has been extremely impressive and Sue has worked very hard in putting this programme together today. I’d also like to thank in particular our colleague Vanessa Rockel whom most of you will have been in contact with, and who has been extraordinarily hard-working and efficient in getting us to the point we are this morning. Thanks to them all but thanks also, very warmly, to you all. We really appreciate you coming here and being with us. So, without further ado, I’d just like to hand over to Sue who will make some housekeeping points. SO: Thank you very much indeed, Philip and welcome to you all. I’m Dr Sue Onslow. As Philip has outlined, I’m the principal researcher on this Oral History Project and it gives me great pleasure indeed to see so many former Commonwealth Secretariat officials and representatives here. As part of my project, as Philip has pointed out, it became glaringly apparent that I needed to capture the internal dynamics of the Secretariat, and its relationship to the world outside as a critical part of this oral history of the Commonwealth. I’d like to reiterate our thanks to the Secretary General and his office, Simon Gimson, and Leti Gannon for her help in the organisational details; and particularly to Vanessa and to Stuart in the framing of this meeting. I would also like to thank the chairs of each of these sessions who have kindly agreed to direct 2 these informal discussions between former colleagues and partners. The sessions are outlined on the programme which you have in front of you. The chair will introduce the witnesses who will then make their informal presentations; there will be an opportunity for response and then discussion will be open to the wider audience. If you would like to pose a question, in true Commonwealth-style, please could you up-end your nameplate - not like Pierre Trudeau who once of course put his CANADA nameplate upside down because he wished to protest! I do hope I don’t see any of that today. So, if you would like to speak or pose a question, please could put your nameplate perpendicular. If you could introduce yourself when you speak, not forgetting to press the red button on your microphone stand in front of you, we will be very grateful. Also, if you could please remember to turn off your mobile telephones. They have an appalling habit of interfering with recording equipment. On other housekeeping arrangements – we will be breaking for coffee. As you will see in the programme, there are also five-minute interchanges between sessions. This is to allow a certain shuffling of the seating plan because we have tried to put the chairs and the speakers in the middle of the table, but also to seat those who will then be changing seats, close by. So, if you could just excuse this five-minute game of musical chairs in between the sessions. Without further ado, I would like to hand over to Mr Joel Kibazo to chair the session on the Office of the Secretary General. 3 Session 1 – The Office of the Secretary General JK: Thank you. Thank you very much, Sue. Good morning to all of you. My name is Joel Kibazo and I was Director here of the Communications and Public Affairs Department, also known as the Information Department of the Secretariat. As Sue said, each of us will try and introduce ourselves. Let’s not forget that recordings are being made so it will be very helpful if you introduce yourself as you speak. Just to start straight away, the question for us is how effective, really, has the Office of the Secretary General been since the creation of the Secretariat in 1965? We know that it operates and it was charged with operating very much on an informal basis or getting things done through the informal basis. Sometimes, of course, formal channels had to be used, but has that worked? At the heart of it, in many ways is what’s at the heart of the way that the Secretariat has tried to work for many years. All of us are colleagues and I think I know most people that are around the table. So, this is really an informal conversation, trying to draw some of those aspects out, so not really to be shy. The conversation is on the record. It’s not Chatham House Rules, so you know. Please be aware of that but at the very least, let’s try and see if we could get to the heart of the issue in terms of how things have worked, both from Stuart and from Simon who are the two people who are going to be speaking in this particular session, after which Professor Stephen Chan will come in as a respondent and respond to some of the key things that will be made. From then on we can engage in a discussion. As you have been advised by Sue, please use the nameplates in the way most of us who have been in this room will know how their nameplates are used. I don’t know whether we should start with Stuart, or Simon now Stuart is here. I thought I heard one of the most amazing train stories. I’ve heard of “leaves on the line” but “cows on the line” is something that I haven’t heard before! But there we are. So, without further ado, Stuart, now that you’re amongst us, please be the one to start and we are grateful that you are here, in spite of all those cows. So 5-10 minutes and then we’ll get to Simon. Thank you. SMO: If I could just begin with a short anecdote. In 1983 I was working in the UK Parliament and when it was clear that the SDP/ Liberal Alliance wasn’t going to sweep to power, I was looking for other employment. I got my boss, David Steel, to write a host of letters to interesting people including Sonny Ramphal and my knowledge of the Commonwealth at that stage was really confined to my admiration for Sonny Ramphal.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Oecd High Level Forum on Policy Coherence: Availability of Medicines for Neglected and Emerging Infectious Diseases Issues for D
    OECD HIGH LEVEL FORUM ON POLICY COHERENCE: AVAILABILITY OF MEDICINES FOR NEGLECTED AND EMERGING INFECTIOUS DISEASES ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION INTRODUCTION This paper provides background information and raises issues for consideration by participants in the OECD High Level Forum (HLF) on Policy Coherence: Availability of Medicines for Neglected and Emerging Infectious Diseases.1 What is the problem? Infectious diseases are one of the primary causes of mortality in the world and in developing countries they are a major barrier to economic development, social progress and human health. An estimated 10.8 million people died from infectious diseases in 2001 and 10.6 million of those occurred in the developing world, while only 1.4 percent (150,000) occurred in high-income countries. The top four killers in Sub-Saharan Africa are infectious diseases, and the fifth is prenatal deaths. Those most vulnerable are children, pregnant women, young mothers and people in what should be their most productive years. However, the health innovation system is failing to deliver new medicines, vaccines and diagnostics for neglected infectious diseases. These diseases include tuberculosis and malaria, but also tropical diseases such as Human African trypanosomiasis, leishmaniasis, schistosomiasis, Chagas disease, lymphatic filariasis and onchocerciasis. To date, most medicines used to deal with such diseases in developing countries were first developed for other markets or purposes. Problems arise related to cost, safety, stability, formulation and resistance. Mechanisms for addressing the lack of viable markets, expanding the global capacity for drug discovery, and increasing the productivity of R&D have to be found. What can we do? The Forum will focus on how to create co-operation, collaboration and coherent policies required to improve the incentives and efficiency of the innovation system to scale-up research and discovery.
    [Show full text]
  • A Case Study of Aid Effectiveness in Kenya Volatility and Fragmentation of Foreign Aid, with a Focus on Health
    WOLFENSOHN CENTER FOR DEVELOPMENT WORKING PAPER 8 | JANUARY 2009 A CASE STUDY OF AID EFFECTIVENESS IN KENYA VOLATILITY AND FRAGMENTATION OF FOREIGN AID, WITH A FOCUS ON HEALTH Francis M. Mwega The Brookings Global Economy and Development working paper series also includes the following titles: • Wolfensohn Center for Development Working Papers • Middle East Youth Initiative Working Papers • Global Health Initiative Working Papers Learn more at www.brookings.edu/global Francis M. Mwega is Associate Professor at the School of Economics at the University of Nairobi. Editor’s Note: This paper was commissioned by the Wolfensohn Center for Development at the Brookings Institution. This paper is one in a series of country case studies that examines issues of aid effectiveness and coordination at the country level. It does not necessarily refl ect the offi cial views of the Brookings Institution, its board or the advisory council members. For more information, please contact the Wolfensohn Center at [email protected]. CONTENTS Introduction . .1 Pattern and evolution of foreign aid to Kenya . 4 Total aid and its decompositions . 4 Country Programmable Aid (CPA) . 6 Emerging players in aid . 7 Chinese development assistance to Kenya . 7 Private sector aid . 10 Volatlitiy of Aid . 12 Extent of volatility of total aid and its components in Kenya . 12 The effects of aid cyclicality . 12 Government responses to aid volatility and decline over time . 14 Costs of volatility . .17 Fragmentation of Aid . 20 Aid fragmentation in Kenya . 21 Aid Coordination in Kenya . 24 Foreign Aid to Kenya’s Health Sector . 29 Pattern and evolution of aid to the health sector; its volatility and fragmentation .
    [Show full text]
  • St James Conservation Area Audit
    ST JAMES’S 17 CONSERVATION AREA AUDIT AREA CONSERVATION Document Title: St James Conservation Area Audit Status: Adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance Document ID No.: 2471 This report is based on a draft prepared by B D P. Following a consultation programme undertaken by the council it was adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance by the Cabinet Member for City Development on 27 November 2002. Published December 2002 © Westminster City Council Department of Planning & Transportation, Development Planning Services, City Hall, 64 Victoria Street, London SW1E 6QP www.westminster.gov.uk PREFACE Since the designation of the first conservation areas in 1967 the City Council has undertaken a comprehensive programme of conservation area designation, extensions and policy development. There are now 53 conservation areas in Westminster, covering 76% of the City. These conservation areas are the subject of detailed policies in the Unitary Development Plan and in Supplementary Planning Guidance. In addition to the basic activity of designation and the formulation of general policy, the City Council is required to undertake conservation area appraisals and to devise local policies in order to protect the unique character of each area. Although this process was first undertaken with the various designation reports, more recent national guidance (as found in Planning Policy Guidance Note 15 and the English Heritage Conservation Area Practice and Conservation Area Appraisal documents) requires detailed appraisals of each conservation area in the form of formally approved and published documents. This enhanced process involves the review of original designation procedures and boundaries; analysis of historical development; identification of all listed buildings and those unlisted buildings making a positive contribution to an area; and the identification and description of key townscape features, including street patterns, trees, open spaces and building types.
    [Show full text]
  • The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness
    CHAPTER 17 The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness Roberto Bissio* I. Introduction: the Paris which politicians and the press translate to the public Declaration is not a global as “aid”. partnership for development The United Nations Millennium Declaration adopted by Heads of State and Government in 2000 The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness was reaffirmed that “[they are] committed to making the adopted in 2005 and reaffirmed in Accra1 in 2008 right to development a reality for everyone and to at ministerial-level forums convened by the Organi- freeing the entire human race from want”.3 The com- sation for Economic Co-operation and Development mitments made at the Millennium Summit were later (OECD). The principles and indicators included in the summarized in the eight Millennium Development Paris Declaration frame what OECD calls a “land- Goals,4 all of them extracted or literally quoted from mark reform” in development cooperation2 endorsed the Millennium Declaration. Goal 8, Develop a global by leading development practitioners. The Paris Dec- partnership for development, spells out what devel- laration did not emerge from the United Nations or oped countries should do to enable developing coun- any of its bodies, but given the high level of support tries to achieve the other seven in a set of six targets: that the Declaration has received from the major bilat- eral donors and the active engagement of key multilat- • Target 8.A: develop further an open trading eral organizations such as the World Bank and OECD and financial system that is rule based, predict- itself in its implementation, it is important to analyse able and non-discriminatory, and that includes it from the point of view of the right to development.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2004/5 Corrected
    THE ROYAL COLLECTION TRUST Annual Report 201 0–2011 AIMS OF THE ROYAL COLLECTION TRUST In fulfilling the Trust’s objectives, the Trustees’ aims are to ensure that: • the Royal Collection (being the works of art held by The Queen in right of the crown and held in trust for her successors and for the nation) is subject to proper custodial control and that the works of art remain available to future generations; • the Royal Collection is maintained and conserved to the highest possible standards and that visitors can view the Collection in the best possible condition; • as much of the Royal Collection as possible can be seen by members of the public; • the Royal Collection is presented and interpreted so as to enhance public appreciation and understanding; • access to the Royal Collection is broadened and increased (subject to capacity constraints) to ensure that as many people as possible are able to view the Collection; • appropriate acquisitions are made when resources become available, to enhance the Collection and displays of exhibits for the public. When reviewing future activities, the Trustees ensure that these aims continue to be met and are in line with the Charity Commission’s General Guidance on public benefit. This report looks at the achievements of the previous 12 months and considers the success of each key activity and how it has helped enhance the benefit to the nation. FRONT COVER : Carl Haag (182 0–1915), Morning in the Highlands: the Royal Family ascending Lochnagar , 1853 (detail). A Christmas present from Prince Albert to Queen Victoria, the painting was included in the exhibition Victoria & Albert: Art & Love , at The Queen’s Gallery, Buckingham Palace, from March to December 2010.
    [Show full text]
  • FURHTURE, TAPESTRY and EMBROIDERY of YESTERDAY AID TODAY MARLBOROUGH HOUSE Wednesday April 25™
    ROYAL SCHOOL OF NEEDLEWORK Patron : H.M. QUEEN ELIZABETH THE QUEEN MOTHER LOAN EXHIBITION FURHTURE, TAPESTRY AND EMBROIDERY OF YESTERDAY AID TODAY MARLBOROUGH HOUSE Wednesday April 25™ TO Wednesday May 30™ PRICE 6 ° Ma r II)o ± ough ho use by Sir Owen Morshead. Whitehall Palace having been destroyed by fire in 1698, it was in St. James' Palace that Queen Anne set up her residence in 1702; and the Court of St. James' is still the term in official use to-day. Within a year she had created her Lord Privy Seal (John Sheffield) Duke of Buckingham, and he proceeded to erect for himself the big house looking down the length of the Mall which, rebuilt since, is known to us as Buckingham Palace. Shortly afterwards she allowed her Mistress of the Robes and close confidante, Sarah Duchess of Marlborough, to build the house in which the present exhibition is being held. From his campaign in the Low Countries the Duke had written to his wife: "You,know I never lik'd to build it at all. 'Tis not a proper Place for a great House. And I am sure," he added knowingly, "when you have built a little one you will not like it." The one which Sir Christopher Wren designed for her in 1709 is the present house minus the two top floors and certain additional rooms in the side wings. Built on so confined a site it has had to expand upwards, to the detriment of its appearance. The mettlesome Duchess was vexed by the inadequacy of its entrance from the street, and she resented too its domination by the houses in Pall Mall.
    [Show full text]
  • Generating Evidence of Aid Effectiveness in Global Health: the Case of the Global Fund
    Generating evidence of aid effectiveness in global health: the case of the Global Fund Katharine Heus MSc Global Health and Public Policy Abstract Global health has been identified as a ‘tracer-sector’ for advancement in regards to aid- effectiveness. This paper interrogates how evidence of aid effectiveness has been generated within one of the central, most resource-rich global health actors: The Global Fund to fight Tuberculosis, Aids and Malaria. Key terms are defined, processes for generating evidence of aid-effectiveness within both the public and global health arenas examined, and conclusions around the predominance of vertical interventions in the global health arena proposed. Ultimately, it is argued that the need for strategic and financial legitimacy has driven the Global Fund to generate very specific kinds of evidence of AE and that the Global Fund only generates the kind of evidence it can take. Generating Evidence of Aid Effectiveness in Global Health: The case of the Global Fund Katharine Heus Introduction In his seminal work on aid and development in Lesotho, Ferguson suggested that for the most part, the actors engaged in this highly diversified, multi-billion dollar ‘development’ undertaking “only sought the kind of advice they could take” (1994, p. 284). This comment reveals a quandary at the center of many contemporary debates around aid and development, largely – how can evidence of “aid effectiveness” (hereafter AE) be generated? In order to answer this question, it is necessary to interrogate not only how, but also why and for what purposes evidence is generated. The pivotal word in this phrase is ‘generated,’ for it reveals that evidence is, in and of itself, fundamentally constructed (Mosse, 2004; Justice, 1987).
    [Show full text]
  • Towards a Strengthened Framework for Aid Effectiveness
    BACKGROUND STUDY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION FORUM Towards a strengthened framework for aid effectiveness April 2008 Contents 1. Introduction............................................................................................................................ 1 2. Strengths and weaknesses of the Paris Declaration aid effectiveness model ....................... 2 3. Issues in a strengthened international framework for aid effectiveness............................... 4 4. Improving clarity and monitorability of indicators in the Paris Declaration ........................ 13 5. Transparency and inclusiveness of monitoring and mutual accountability ......................... 16 6. Recognising the implications of a more diverse set of actors .............................................. 17 7. From a technical to a political agenda.................................................................................. 21 8. Possible priorities for the DCF ‐ short and medium‐term .................................................... 22 9. Recommendations................................................................................................................ 24 1. Introduction 1. As part of the substantive preparations for the first biennial high‐level Development Cooperation Forum (DCF) in July 2008, the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations (UNDESA) is undertaking a review of recent trends and progress in international development cooperation. This review will inform the analytical report of the Secretary‐General,
    [Show full text]
  • Making Development Aid More Effective the 2010 Brookings Blum Roundtable Policy Briefs Ccontentsontents
    SEPTEMBER 2010 Global Economy and Development at BROOKINGS MAKING DEVELOPMENT AID MORE EFFECTIVE THE 2010 BROOKINGS BLUM ROUNDTABLE POLICY BRIEFS CCONTENTSONTENTS Can Aid Catalyze Development? ...................................................................................................................3 Homi Kharas Brookings U.S. Government Support for Development Outcomes: Toward Systemic Reform ........................................10 Noam Unger Brookings The Private Sector and Aid Effectiveness: Toward New Models of Engagement .............................................20 Jane Nelson Harvard University and Brookings International NGOs and Foundations: Essential Partners in Creating an Effective Architecture for Aid ..........28 Samuel A. Worthington, InterAction and Tony Pipa, Independent consultant Responding to a Changing Climate: Challenges in Financing Climate-Resilient Development Assistance ....37 Kemal Derviş and Sarah Puritz Milsom Brookings Civilian-Military Cooperation in Achieving Aid Effectiveness: Lessons from Recent Stabilization Contexts ...48 Margaret L. Taylor Council on Foreign Relations Rethinking the Roles of Multilaterals in the Global Aid Architecture ............................................................55 Homi Kharas Brookings INTRODUCTION The upcoming United Nations High-Level Plenary From high-profile stabilization contexts like Meeting on the Millennium Development Goals will Afghanistan to global public health campaigns, and spotlight global efforts to reduce poverty, celebrat- from a renewed
    [Show full text]
  • Donors Vastly Underestimate Differences in Charities' Effectiveness
    Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 15, No. 4, July 2020, pp. 509–516 Donors vastly underestimate differences in charities’ effectiveness Lucius Caviola∗† Stefan Schubert‡† Elliot Teperman David Moss§ Spencer Greenberg Nadira S. Faber¶ ‡ Abstract Some charities are much more cost-effective than other charities, which means that they can save many more lives with the same amount of money. Yet most donations do not go to the most effective charities. Why is that? We hypothesized that part of the reason is that people underestimate how much more effective the most effective charities are compared with the average charity. Thus, they do not know how much more good they could do if they donated to the most effective charities. We studied this hypothesis using samples of the general population, students, experts, and effective altruists in five studies. We found that lay people estimated that among charities helping the global poor, the most effective charities are 1.5 times more effective than the average charity (Studies 1 and 2). Effective altruists, in contrast, estimated the difference to be factor 50 (Study 3) and experts estimated the factor to be 100 (Study 4). We found that participants donated more to the most effective charity, and less to an average charity, when informed about the large difference in cost-effectiveness (Study 5). In conclusion, misconceptions about the difference in effectiveness between charities is thus likely one reason, among many, why people donate ineffectively. Keywords: cost-effectiveness, charitable giving, effective altruism, prosocial behavior, helping 1 Introduction interested behavior: e.g., people more frequently choose the most effective option when investing (for their own benefit) People donate large sums to charity every year.
    [Show full text]
  • Base Document
    SCHEDULE 6: List of retirement home developments sorted by reference to the Fairhold group company that owns the freehold Development Address 1. Theowal Limited Court Royal 1/30 (Excl No 13) TN4 8HT 1/30 Court Royal Eridge Road Tunbridge Wells Kent TN4 8HT 2. Fairhold Properties No.6 Limited Pegasus Court 1/25 LE16 7AP 1/25 Pegasus Court Leicester Road Market Harborough LE16 7AP Franklin Way 101/295 (odd) CR0 4UR Kelvin Gardens Croydon Surrey CR0 4UR 3. Fairhold Properties No.7 Limited Minster Court 1/20 WS13 6AB 1/20 Minster Court Bird Street Lichfield Staffordshire WS13 6AB 4. Fairhold Properties No.8 Limited Pegasus Court 1/43 OX12 9GZ 1/43 Pegasus Court Mill Street Wantage OX12 9GZ 5. Fairhold Mercury Limited Oxford Court 1/63 FY8 4EB 1/63 Oxford Court Oxford Road Lytham St Annes FY8 4EB Croft House 1/33 FY6 7AH 1/33 Croft House Grosvenor Road Poulton le Fylde FY6 7AH LON20771083/8 156186-0001 Development Address Lowry Court 2/38 SK14 6TG 2/38 Lowry Court Rushycroft Mottram-in-Longendale SK14 6TG 59/103 (excl) Chalet Estate NW7 4DL 59/103 Chalet Estate Hammers Lane Mill Hill NW7 4DL 6. Blackhouse Investment Properties Ltd. 128 Chalet Estate NW7 4DL 128 Chalet Estate Hammers Lane Mill Hill NW7 4DL 129 Chalet Estate NW7 4DL 129 Chalet Estate Hammers Lane Mill Hill NW7 4DL 7. Fairhold Homes Limited 1/15 Bucklers Mews SO41 8JL 1/15 Bucklers Mews Anchorage Way Lymington Hampshire SO41 8JL 2/62 Glendale CT20 1SH 2/62 Glendale The Bale Folkestone Kent CT20 1SH 1/45 London Court OX3 7SL 1/45 London Court London Road Headlington Oxfordshire
    [Show full text]
  • Report of the Royal Trustees on the Sovereign Grant Review 2016
    Sovereign Grant Act 2011: Report of the Royal Trustees on the Sovereign Grant Review 2016 November 2016 Sovereign Grant Act 2011: Report of the Royal Trustees on the Sovereign Grant Review 2016 Presented to Parliament pursuant to section 7(4) of the Sovereign Grant Act 2011 November 2016 This document is available in large print, audio and braille on request. Please call +44 (0)20 7270 5000 or email public. [email protected] © Crown copyright 2016 You may re-use this information (excluding logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence v.3.0. To view this licence visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government- licence/version/3/ or email [email protected] Where third party material has been identified, permission from the respective copyright holder must be sought. This publication is available at www.gov.uk/government/ publications Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at [email protected] ISBN 978-1-911375-36-4 PU1988 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum Contents Page Chapter 1 Introduction 3 Chapter 2 Sovereign Grant Act 2011 5 Chapter 3 Sovereign Grant Review 2016 7 Chapter 4 Review of the financial management of the Sovereign Grant 9 2012-2016 Chapter 5 Expected costs for the next 5 year period 2016-2021 11 Chapter 6 Buckingham Palace reservicing 13 Chapter 7 Conclusions of the Sovereign Grant Review 19 Annex A Summary of Sovereign Grant income and expenditure 2012- 21 2016 1 1 Introduction 1.1 Since 1760, when George III agreed to surrender the net income of the Crown Estate to the Exchequer in return for a fixed annual payment, the government has provided financial support to the Sovereign.
    [Show full text]