DOCSLIB.ORG

Independent Commission on Banking: Final Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Independent Commission on Banking: Final Report House of Commons Treasury Committee Independent Commission on Banking: Final Report Written Evidence Only those submissions written specifically for the Committee for the inquiry into the ICB’s Final Report and accepted as written evidence are included. List of written evidence Page 1 Campaign for Community Banking Services 3 2 Finance and Leasing Association 8 3 Unite the Union 10 4 Lloyds Banking Group 14 5 Building Societies Association 21 6 Financial Services Consumer Panel 26 7 ICAEW 33 8 CBI 39 9 Nationwide Building Society 44 10 Consumer Focus 48 11 British Bankers’ Association 56 12 Association of Corporate Treasurers 66 13 Royal Bank of Scotland 72 14 Barclays 74 3 Written evidence submitted by the Campaign for Community Banking Services (CCBS) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The ICB declined (8.44) to make any recommendations in the area of branch network access, specifically on neutral shared branches and improvements to IBAAs (inter-bank agency agreements) , recommended by the Treasury Committee to the Commission for consideration as potential solutions to an important barrier to entry and competition in the retail banking market. This submission examines ICB’s flawed and incomplete analysis of IBAAs, neutral shared branches and post office access upon which its ‘no action’ decision was made and suggests there is now an urgent need for government to consider not only the competition problem with regard to branch networks, but also the issue of escalating branch closures in the social contexts of community sustainability, financial inclusion and carbon reduction. We also comment upon ICB’s weak stance on creation of a strong challenger to the established banks, putting too much emphasis on a combination of the ‘Verde’ assortment and the NAB subsidiaries which would result in at least 50% of its branches being in Scotland and the North of England and five cultures to unify whilst being expected to take on the incumbent banks. INTRODUCTION 1. CCBS is a coalition of 20 national charities, consumer and small business organisations which share concerns about the decline in local access to, and choice in, banking services particularly the closure of local bank branches and the impact of this on community sustainability, financial exclusion and carbon emissions. We assist local communities in campaigning against closures and promote viable alternatives including neutral shared branches and inter-bank agency agreements. This submission is made against a background of a 44% reduction in bank branches since 1990 resulting in 1000 communities being left without banking access and a further 1000 with only one bank and therefore no competitive choice for branch dependent individuals and small businesses. The attached bar chart reveals an escalating return to significant closure programmes by the big banks which is continuing in 2011 with an emphasis on the categories identified above. 2. This submission deals exclusively with the Competition aspects of the ICB Final Report and in particular addresses the considerable shortcomings of paragraph 8.44 in which the Commission attempted to justify its decision not to make any recommendations in the area of improvements to inter-bank agency agreements (IBAAs) and neutral shared branches, the absence of which represent important barriers to entry and inter-bank competition. Recognising this, the Treasury Committee had recommended (Competition & Choice in Retail Banking, April 2011) that the ICB consider these solutions within its competition remit. 3. However it should be said that realistic assessment of alternatives to branch access needs to go beyond the benefits to competition, and to the SME sector, and recognise the direct and indirect advantages for vulnerable individuals, community sustainability and carbon reduction, all government priorities. The Treasury Committee has experience of a similar failing as it recommended, in 1996, that the Financial Exclusion Taskforce explore shared branching which it failed to do because of its narrow focus on just the financial inclusion benefits. 4 TREASURY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION 1. In its report Competition & Choice in Retail Banking published 2 April 2011, the Committee, having received evidence from several sources, dealt with the need for branch networks as a ‘barrier to access’ in paragraphs 137-139 and specifically recommended, Recommendation 19: “That the ICB considers solutions such as an improved Inter Bank Agency Agreement and neutral shared branches as part of its remit to promote competition in banking”. 2. On 4 April 2011 CCBS wrote to Sir John Vickers with considerable detail in support of the Treasury Committee’s recommendation and offered more. This offer was not taken up. 3. As the Committee’s recommendation was directed specifically at the ICB, the Government’s response of 12 July 2011 did not comment. GOVERNMENT’S POSITION 1. Since the Election CCBS has corresponded, unsuccessfully, with BIS, C & LG and DEFRA all of whom passed the matter to Treasury without comment. 2. Treasury acknowledged in its replies: “The government believes that it is important to ensure that people can access the banking services they need easily and conveniently” and “understands the importance to local communities of having access to appropriate financial services” but made it clear that the matter was for the ICB to consider. Regrettably the ICB failed to do so properly. ICB REPORTS 1. At its own request the ICB was provided initially with the comprehensive evidence on these matters which CCBS had provided to the OFT’s review of Barriers to Entry in Retail Banking but, in its report of 4 November 2010, the OFT commented (page 150): “From the evidence received, this (shared banking facilities) was not a route either existing incumbents or potential entrants expressed interest in as they were reluctant to share space with rivals and dilute their own customer experience” This displays an astonishing absence of challenge on the part of the OFT as the shared branching model, on which they have been repeatedly briefed, is a neutral space operated by outsourcers. The major banks have been briefed on this over many years and new entrants need to understand what could be available to them and how it could meet their needs. CCBS has briefed most new entrants since. The OFT, and the ICB, were made aware of our criticism on 5 November 2010. 2. In its Interim Report the ICB, not having had time to consider the Treasury Committee’s recommendations, acknowledged the need of new entrants to have access to cash (and cheque) handling services and that the Post Office network was not the complete answer. Accordingly it sought responses in its consultation to the question: “How could small banks’ ability to offer a national network of cash handling services be improved?” 5 3. CCBS and others responded, calling for improvements to IBAAs and a shared branching trial, and ICB, in its published summary of responses acknowledged: “There was concern raised about bank branch closures. Respondents suggested that the Post Office might be able to play a fuller role in providing banking services, while others wanted to see more shared banking services. 4. In its Final Report the ICB displayed an astonishing absence of understanding of the well documented shortcomings of IBAAs, the intrinsic neutrality of shared branching and the infrastructure and funding problems of post offices in concluding, at 8.44: “The Commission does not see a clear case for making recommendations in this area”. 5. The operation, cost and level of awareness of IBAAs has been the subject of criticism since the Cruikshank report of 2000 and the Competition Commission’s efforts to achieve provision on “fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms” in 2002 were successfully thwarted by the big banks which have consistently failed to honour their commitments to improve a service which can facilitate competition between them and with new entrants. ICB, however, concluded: “The Inter bank agency agreements that already exist offer an adequate mechanism for these services to be provided by large banks to small banks where required”. 6. The definition of neutral shared branching used by CCBS in its submissions to the OFT, the Treasury Committee and ICB is as follows: Basic counter and related services, to agreed operating standards, delivered by third party provider(s) on behalf of participating banks through a variety of delivery channels –retail/social enterprise franchises, mobile vehicles, community banks and banking centres – as appropriate to each community and locality. The model, which uses existing common technology, can replace existing branches and make it cost- effective to establish an ‘open to all’ banking presence in new communities, free from the perceived competitive disadvantages of IBAAs and post offices. Why then did ICB not challenge the mistaken concern of smaller banks that their customers would be targeted by advertising in this neutral environment, especially as the chief executive of one of them, Aldermore, had written in the Daily Mail 25- 4-2011 “Small banks should be allowed, for a sensible price, to use the infrastructure of the big banks. This would allow small businesses to deposit money into their chosen bank anywhere throughout the country. This would act as a real spur to competition.” 7. The ICB puts its faith in “additional planned investment by the Post Office” to put right substantial infrastructure deficiencies of space, security and staffing that, alongside the inherent sales conflict, currently prevent post office outlets providing banking agency services to 90% of the country’s 5 million small businesses. The small business sector is the heaviest user of bank branch counters. Since the shortcomings in post office provision identified by ICB in its Interim Report, there has been no indication that massive government funding is available to improve the post office network to a point where it could handle business banking given that it struggles now to provide consistent quality of service when it is available to less than 10% of the sector.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • ECON Thesaurus on Brexit
    STUDY Requested by the ECON Committee ECON Thesaurus on Brexit Fourth edition Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies Authors: Stephanie Honnefelder, Doris Kolassa, Sophia Gernert, Roberto Silvestri Directorate General for Internal Policies of the Union July 2017 EN DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT A: ECONOMIC AND SCIENTIFIC POLICY ECON Thesaurus on Brexit Fourth edition Abstract This thesaurus is a collection of ECON related articles, papers and studies on the possible withdrawal of the UK from the EU. Recent literature from various sources is categorised, chronologically listed – while keeping the content of previous editions - and briefly summarised. To facilitate the use of this tool and to allow an easy access, certain documents may appear in more than one category. The thesaurus is non-exhaustive and may be updated. This document was provided by Policy Department A at the request of the ECON Committee. IP/A/ECON/2017-15 July 2017 PE 607.326 EN This document was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. AUTHORS Stephanie HONNEFELDER Doris KOLASSA Sophia GERNERT, trainee Roberto SILVESTRI, trainee RESPONSIBLE ADMINISTRATOR Stephanie HONNEFELDER Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy European Parliament B-1047 Brussels E-mail: [email protected] LINGUISTIC VERSIONS Original: EN ABOUT THE EDITOR Policy departments provide in-house and external expertise to support EP committees and other parliamentary bodies
    [Show full text]
  • Cyber Security and Manufacturing Foreword
    In partnership with: A BRIEFING FOR MANUFACTURERS BY MAKE UK MakeUK.org CYBER SECURITY AND MANUFACTURING FOREWORD A comprehensive approach to cyber security is not something that manufacturers can afford to ignore. Last year, for the first time, Make UK assessed the cyber security resilience of our sector across the UK. Our findings revealed a community increasingly alive to this risk, but with a hugely varying degree of preparedness in response. Since then the threat has continued to grow, but the response from manufacturers remains inconsistent. In the intervening time Make UK has not only renewed our findings, but we have designed and launched a suite of services specifically designed for manufacturers to assess their cyber security risk and do something about it. This is critical to our business. The 4th Industrial Revolution represents unprecedented opportunity through digitisation. But that very openness brings with it increased risk. The threat from cyber-attack is a major barrier to business and growth; threatening loss of data, theft of capital and intellectual property, disruption to business, and impact on trading reputation. As the UK’s voice of manufacturing, Make UK is playing its role in supporting our members in the face of this challenge. In partnership with Vauban Group, our new services are designed to help businesses quantify their cyber security risk and take affirmative action to mitigate against it. They will also help members demonstrate their cyber security safeguards to customers and suppliers, an ever more necessary requirement for businesses to operate in our sector. Cyber security is not a threat that manufacturers can avoid by remaining analogue.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Insight Influence Impact
    2020 INSIGHT, INFLUENCE AND IMPACT MakeUK.org 2020 INSIGHT, INFLUENCE AND IMPACT M1 Summary SUMMARY At Make UK we know the value the UK manufacturing sector has in creating jobs, boosting productivity, powering economic growth and delivering shared opportunity in every region of the UK. The UK manufacturing sector has yet again demonstrated its This year we set out our ambition to support manufacturers importance to our economy in 2020. Throughout the Covid-19 in building a digital, global and green future. By backing pandemic the sector has risen to the immediate challenges manufacturing and making your voice heard, we have and responded - staying operational and protecting as many shown that it is manufacturers who are leading the charge jobs as possible, all while continuing to lead from the front on in adopting digitalisation, it is manufacturers who are the big issues impacting us all like digitalisation and climate developing the green technologies and innovations to protect change. our planet, and it is manufacturers who are recruiting and training the next generation of talent to lead our businesses. And this has rightly been recognised by Government, MPs Whilst the pandemic may have temporarily slowed the and the public alike. progress we have made on these generational issues, our sector is moving in the right direction and importantly pressing ahead. “ At this unprecedented time for the UK I want to pay tribute to you for the work you are doing to But we cannot shy away from the fact we are now faced with a triple threat in 2021: responding to the continued threat keep the UK economy going.
    [Show full text]
  • Business Plan 2019/20 Business Plan 2019/20
    Business Plan 2019/20 Business Plan 2019/20 © Financial Conduct Authority 2019 12 Endeavour Square London E20 1JN Telephone: +44 (0)20 7066 1000 Website: www.fca.org.uk All rights reserved Business Plan Contents 1 Chair’s foreword 2 2 Chief Executive’s introduction 4 3 Our role 6 4 Our priority work for the year ahead 8 5 Cross-sector priorities 11 EU Withdrawal and International engagement 12 Firms’ culture and governance 13 Operational resilience 15 Financial crime (fraud & scams) and anti-money laundering (AML) 18 Fair treatment of existing customers 20 Innovation, data and data ethics 22 Demographic change 24 The future of regulation 26 6 Sector priorities 28 Investment management 28 Retail lending 30 Pensions and retirement income 33 Retail investments 36 Retail banking 38 General insurance and protection 40 Wholesale financial markets 43 7 How we operate 47 Annex 1 Update on market-based activity 51 Annex 2 FCA organisational chart 53 1 Financial Conduct Authority | Business Plan 2019/20 Chapter 1 | Chair’s foreword Chair’s foreword Charles Randell Change is here to stay for all of us: for financial markets and firms, consumers of financial services and financial regulators. Change brings both risks and opportunities to the FCA’s objectives of protecting consumers, ensuring market integrity and promoting effective competition. Technology is changing the way that opportunities to make UK regulation smarter, financial firms do business and the way focusing more on the outcomes we want to that consumers engage with their financial achieve. decisions. Technology change brings risks to the operational resilience of our financial And public expectations are changing, reflecting system and to the accountability of firms for fears of greater uncertainty in employment the effects of decisions taken by machines.
    [Show full text]
  • "Sticks Or Carrots? How to Make British Banks More Socially Responsible"
    Sticks or carrots? How to make British Banks more socially responsible Item Type Article Authors Kapsis, Ilias Citation Kapsis I (2019) Sticks or carrots? How to make British Banks more socially responsible. Business Law Review. 40(2): 38-48. Rights (c) 2019 Wolters Kluwer. Reprinted from Business Law Review, vol 40, pp 38-48 with permission of Kluwer Law International. Download date 02/10/2021 09:41:16 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10454/16737 Final Name of author: Dr Ilias Kapsis, Senior Lecturer in Law, Faculty of Management, Law and Social Sciences University of Bradford, Bradford, West Yorkshire, BD7 1DP Author biography: Dr Ilias Kapsis is a Senior Lecturer in the Law School of the University for Bradford, United King- dom. His research interests include Banking & Finance Law, Law of Sustainable Development and Competition Law. "Sticks or carrots? How to make British Banks more socially responsible". Abstract The relationship between banks and society in UK remains fragile more than 10 years after the fi- nancial crisis. The level of public mistrust, though lower than in the aftermath of the crisis, still re- mains at unsatisfactory levels especially as scandals continue to plague the sector. This raises the question of the effectiveness of reforms adopted in UK during the past 10 years to improve the pub- lic oversight of banks and change their culture. The reforms resulted in a significant expansion of the scope of financial regulation through the adoption of large numbers of new rules with binding effect on banks. In addition, new supervisory bodies were created to more closely monitor bank ac- tivities.
    [Show full text]
  • Sizing up the City – London’S Ranking As a Financial Centre CSFI Centre for the Study of Financial Innovation
    Sizing up the City – London’s Ranking as a Financial Centre Sizing up the City – London’s CSFI Centre for the Study of Financial Innovation Sizing up the City – London’s Ranking as a Financial Centre June 2003 June2003 CSFI Centre for the Study of Financial Innovation Sizing up the City – London’s Ranking as a Financial Centre Authors Centre for the Study of Financial Innovation 5 Derby Street London, W1J 7AB Telephone +44 (0)20 7493 0173 Fax +44 (0)20 7493 0190 Email [email protected] June 2003 Sizing up the City: London’s Ranking as a Financial Centre is published by the Corporation of London. This report was written by David Lascelles, with research assistance from Denis Lapotko and Mark Pitcher, from the Centre for the Study of Financial Innovation. Consultant to the project was Benedikt Koehler. This report is intended as a basis for discussion. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the material in this report, the authors, the Centre for the Study of Financial Innovation and the Corporation of London will not be liable for any loss or damages incurred through the use of this report. June 2003 © Corporation of London PO Box 270, Guildhall London EC2P 2EJ The Centre for the Study of Financial Innovation is a non-profit think-tank, established in 1993 to look at future developments in the international financial field - particularly from the point of view of practitioners. Its US affiliate, the New York CSFI, was set up in 2002. The goals of both institutions include identifying new areas of business, flagging areas of danger and provoking a debate about key financial issues.
    [Show full text]
  • Budget 2021 Protecting the Jobs and Livelihoods of the British People
    BUDGET 2021 PROTECTING THE JOBS AND LIVELIHOODS OF THE BRITISH PEOPLE Return to an order of the House of Commons dated 3 March 2021 Copy of the Budget Report – March 2021 as laid before the House of Commons by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when opening the Budget. Jesse Norman Her Majesty’s Treasury 3 March 2021 Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 3 March 2021 HC 1226 © Crown copyright 2021 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at www.gov.uk/official-documents Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at [email protected] ISBN 978-1-5286-2394-0 CCS0121882386 03/21 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum Printed in the UK by the APS Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office The Budget report is presented pursuant to section 2 of the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011 and in accordance with the Charter for Budget Responsibility. Contents Page Executive Summary 1 Budget Report Chapter 1 Economy and public finances 9 Chapter 2 Policy decisions 41 Chapter 3 Budget for the whole United Kingdom 65 Annex A Responding to COVID-19 75 Annex B Financing 87 Annex C OBR’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook: selected tables 91 List of abbreviations 99 List of tables 101 List of charts 102 Budget 2021 Budget 2021 Executive summary The Budget follows a year of extraordinary economic challenge as a result of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
    [Show full text]
  • Form AR27 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
    Do Not Staple Form AR27 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 Annual Return for an Employers' Association Name of Employers’ Association: EEF Limited Year ended: 31 December 2019 List No: 255E Head or Main Office: Broadway House Tothill Street London Postcode SW1H 9NQ Website address (if available) www.makeuk.org Has the address changed during the year to which the return relates? Yes No X ('X' in appropriate box) General Secretary: Stephen Phipson CEO Contact name for queries regarding the completion of this return: Richard Greenway Finance Director Telephone Number: 0121 456 0218 E-mail: [email protected] Please follow the guidance notes in the completion of this return Any difficulties or problems in the completion of this return should be directed to the Certification Office as below or by telephone to: 0330 1093602 You should sent the annual return to the following address stating the name of the union in subject: For Employers’ Associations based in England and Wales: [email protected] For Employers’ Associations based in Scotland: [email protected] P1 Contents Employers' Association's details.…………………….………………………………………………………………………………….…….1 Return of members………………………………..………………….………………………………………………………………………………2 Change of officers…………………………………………………………………………...………………………………………………………..2 Officers in post………………………………………………..….………………..……………………………….....………………………………2a Revenue Account/General Fund……….………………………………...………….……………………....……………………………….3 Accounts other than the revenue account/general fund………………..………..……..……….…….………………………4-6
    [Show full text]
  • Business Plan 2012-2015 Business, Innovation and Skills
    Business Plan 2012-2015 Business, Innovation and Skills 31 May 2012 Annexes The 2012 Business Plan, and its reporting through the No.10 website, have been streamlined to focus on the Government‟s structural reforms. These annexes contain information on cross-Government priorities, additional reform actions and actions from the 2011 business plan that are now complete. The Government will not report systematically on the No.10 website against the activities listed in these annexes, although overall progress will be reported through other publications, such as the Annual Report and Accounts, the Budget and a progress report on sustainable development. Contents: Annex A: Cross-Government priorities .................. 2 Annex B: Additional departmental actions ........... 16 Annex C: Completed structural reform actions .... 21 Annex A) Cross-government priorities The Government is committed to driving progress of a number of shared priorities across different departments. BIS is contributing to these priorities through the commitments listed below. Where set out, numbers in brackets refer to the position of actions in the Structural Reform Plan section of the Business Plan. 1. Growth Promote competitiveness in areas of comparative advantage for the UK, to ensure that the country is not so dependent on a narrow range of economic sectors Launch up to 3 pilots offering undergraduates access to mentoring support drawn from the existing network of STEM Ambassadors to give undergraduates insight into STEM occupations and raise the profile of the
    [Show full text]
  • Promoting UK Cyber-Prosperity Through Economics Transcript
    Promoting UK Cyber-Prosperity Through Economics Transcript Date: Monday, 18 January 2016 - 4:00PM Location: Barnard's Inn Hall 18 January 2016 Promoting UK Cyber-Prosperity Through Economics Professor Michael Mainelli Overview In the face of rapidly growing cyber-risk, the tools of public and private economics can play a major role. Two such tools deserve greater attention, insurance and policy performance bonds. Making 'cyber' a 'normal' insurable risk by helping insurers insure themselves to insure others should aid UK cyber-prosperity. This lecture explores cyber insurance and the possible role of a government sponsored (though not government underwritten) Cyber Re. Cyber policy performance guarantees might also have a role to play in assuring business of government commitment, as well as helping to underpin cyber insurance. Both ideas might help democracies handle the security risks of cyberspace. Good afternoon Ladies and Gentlemen. There are many perspectives on cyberspace from technical to social to security to democracy. This afternoon I would like to explore the economics. I intend to emphasise the way in which economics might be deployed to help free market economies towards cyber prosperity. Much of this talk melds two pieces of work. The first piece of work was a report published last year, "Promoting UK Cyber Prosperity: Public Private Cyber Catastrophe Reinsurance". The second piece of work is our ongoing examination of money and government finance within Long Finance. Long Finance is a Gresham College, City of London Corporation, and Z/Yen initiative to move answer the question, "When would we know our financial system is working?" I will attempt to explore three questions in my thirty minutes: ¨ What are the economics of cyber? ¨ What are the risks of cyber? ¨ How can we use economics to promote cyber prosperity? Before tackling the questions, I thought I might just touch on my background.
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of Growth Capital Report
    THE FUTURE OF GROWTH CAPITAL REPORT WITH SUPPORT FROM INVESTORS, INDUSTRY AND THE BUSINESS ACTION COUNCIL AUGUST 2020 THE FUTURE OF GROWTH CAPITAL REPORT THE FUTURE OF GROWTH CAPITAL REPORT Deloitte Innovate Finance ScaleUp Institute CONTENTS Deloitte is a leading global provider Innovate Finance is the independent The ScaleUp Institute is a private of audit and assurance, consulting, industry body that represents sector-led, not-for-profit organisation financial advisory, risk advisory, and advances the global FinTech focused on collaborating with policy tax, and related services. With community in the UK. Our mission makers, corporates, finance players, more than 150 years of hard work is to accelerate the UK’s leading educators and government at a local and commitment to making a real role in the financial services sector and national level. 03 Foreword difference, our organisation has grown by directly supporting the next 06 Executive Summary in scale and diversity - approximately generation of technology-led Our mission is to help the UK to 10 1. Investor And Growth Finance Landscape 286,000 people in 150 countries and innovators. become the best place in the world 19 2. The Market Failures territories, providing these services to grow a business as well as start one, 22 3. The Gap Explained - yet our shared culture remains the Innovate Finance’s membership ranges and enable our existing high-growth 23 3.1 The Structural Growth Capital Gap Pre-Covid-19 same. Our organisation serves four from seed stage startups and global businesses to scale up even further. 27 3.2 The Cyclical Growth capital gap due to the Covid-19 crisis out of five Fortune Global 500® financial institutions to investors, 30 3.3 New challenges and opportunities going forward companies.
    [Show full text]
  • Growing Pains How to Restore Economic Growth and Rebalance the UK Economy
    Growing Pains How to restore economic growth and rebalance the UK economy Glyn Gaskarth December 2012 © Civitas 2012 55 Tufton Street London SW1P 3QL Civitas is a registered charity (no. 1085494) and a company limited by guarantee, registered in England and Wales (no. 04023541) email: [email protected] Independence: Civitas: Institute for the Study of Civil Society is a registered educational charity (No. 1085494) and a company limited by guarantee (No. 04023541). Civitas is financed from a variety of private sources to avoid over-reliance on any single or small group of donors. All the Institute’s publications seek to further its objective of promoting the advancement of learning. The views expressed are those of the authors, not of the Institute. 3 Contents Acknowledgements 4 Executive Summary 5 Introduction 10 Section One: The growth review explored 11 Section Two: Routes out of stagnation—Westminster wise ideas 43 Section Three: Back to growth—countries that are growing 96 Section Four: What we must do 114 Conclusion 119 Bibliography 120 4 Acknowledgements I would like to thank Tamara Chehayeb Makarem and Susan Gaskarth for their support during the compilation of this paper. Please Note: None of the groups featured in this report have been asked to give their support to any of the proposals contained within and their inclusion does not indicate such support. Some of the think tanks operate a policy of not having official positions on the issues explored here. Though for ease of use we shall refer to the ‘centre for policy studies policy recommendations’ etc the reader should not consider the proposals contained in reports released by each think tank as the official line of the organization that released them and the organizations featured should be contacted directly to establish their official position on each policy issue.
    [Show full text]