DOCSLIB.ORG

UK Regulation After Brexit

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
UK Regulation After Brexit UK Regulation after Brexit 1 Foreword How has UK regulation changed since the transition period came to an end on 31 December 2020? Has the UK diverged from EU policy or does continuity prevail? What functions and responsibilities transferred from the EU to UK regulators after 1 January 2021, and are the UK authorities ready? What are the long term prospects for UK alignment or divergence? This report takes a first step to mapping the new regulatory settlement in the wake of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. A joint initiative by ‘Negotiating the Future’ – a project undertaken as part of ESRC’s ‘UK in a Changing Europe’ programme – together with the Centre for Competition Policy, and Brexit & Environment, it brings together leading specialists in policy and regulation to examine the impact on UK regulation of decisions taken by the UK government and the Trade and Cooperation Agreement. The assessment is inevitably provisional. Developments are fast-moving, and although we have endeavoured to ensure that information is as up-to-date as possible at the time of publication, we cannot be certain that we have always succeeded. As coordinators of the project, we want to thank Dr Cleo Davies, Senior Research Associate, and Dr Pippa Lacey, Administrative Assistant, on Negotiating the Future, for their work in putting this publication together – Cleo for her indefatigable research efforts and skills in sub-editing, and Pippa for her input at all stages of its production. We continue to admire Mr Richard Linnett and his team, for their professionalism, proficiency and patience. Our greatest thanks is, of course, to our contributors, who have met the challenges of short deadlines and the demands of an interventionist editorial team with professionalism and good humour. Professor Hussein Kassim, Senior Fellow ‘The UK in a Changing Europe’ and Principal Investigator ‘Negotiating the Future Relationship’, University of East Anglia. Professor Sean Ennis, Director of the Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia. Professor Andrew Jordan, co-chair, Brexit & Environment, University of East Anglia. Feb 2021 ukandeu.ac.uk http://competitionpolicy.ac.uk www.brexitenvironment.co.uk 2 Contents Foreword by Hussein Kassim, Sean Ennis and Andrew Jordan .......................................................... 2 List of contributors ............................................................................................................................. 4 Introduction by Hussein Kassim .......................................................................................................... 6 The architecture of regulation and regulatory agencies by Michael Harker and Kathryn Wright ... 8 The level playing field: regulation of trade in goods and services by Meredith A. Crowley ............. 11 Trade in goods by David Bailey ........................................................................................................... 13 Authorised economic operators (AEO) and trade by Wanyu Chung and Antonio Navas ................ 15 Medicines and medical devices by Mark Dayan, Nicholas Fahy, Tamara Hervey, and Matthew Wood .............................................. 17 Competition policy and state aid control by Andreas Stephan ......................................................... 20 Public procurement regulation by Albert Sánchez-Graells ................................................................ 23 Digital and data regulation by Amelia Fletcher .................................................................................. 25 Data protection by Karen McCullagh .................................................................................................. 27 Changes to intellectual property law by Sabine Jacques .................................................................. 30 Consumer protection by Amelia Fletcher ........................................................................................... 32 Financial services by Scott James ........................................................................................................ 34 Energy by Pierre Bocquillon ................................................................................................................. 36 Road haulage by Sarah Hall and Martin Heneghan .......................................................................... 41 Maritime transport by Sarah Hall and Martin Heneghan.................................................................. 43 Aviation by Hussein Kassim ................................................................................................................. 45 Farming policy by Michael Cardwell ................................................................................................... 48 Agriculture: environmental, food and animal health standards by Mary Dobbs and Ludivine Petetin .................................................................................................. 51 Fisheries policy by Christopher Huggins ............................................................................................. 54 Food safety by Tola Amodu and Andrew Fearne ................................................................................ 56 Environment regulation by Charlotte Burns and Andrew Jordan .................................................... 58 Climate policy by Brendan Moore and Andrew Jordan ..................................................................... 60 Workers’ rights by Catherine Barnard ................................................................................................ 62 Immigration policy by Catherine Barnard .......................................................................................... 64 Asylum and refugees by Steve Peers ................................................................................................... 66 Security and cooperation on crime by Steve Peers ............................................................................ 68 Conclusion by Cleo Davies and Hussein Kassim ................................................................................. 70 Annex 1 ............................................................................................................................................... 78 Annex 2 ................................................................................................................................................ 83 3 List of contributors Dr Tola Amodu Lecturer in Law, School of Law, University of East Anglia Professor Catherine Barnard Professor of European Union and Labour Law, Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge, and Senior Fellow, The UK in a Changing Europe Professor David Bailey Professor of Business Economics, Birmingham Business School, University of Birmingham, Senior Fellow, The UK in a Changing Europe Dr Pierre Bocquillon Lecturer in EU Politics and Policy, School of Politics, Philosophy, Language and Communication Studies, University of East Anglia Professor Charlotte Burns Professor of Politics, Department of Politics and International Relations, Director of White Rose Doctoral Training Partnership, University of Sheffield Professor Michael Cardwell Professor of Agricultural Law, School of Law, University of Leeds Dr Wanyu Chung Lecturer in Economics, Department of Economics, University of Birmingham Dr Meredith Crowley Reader in International Economics, University of Cambridge, Senior Fellow, The UK in a Changing Europe Dr Cleo Davies Senior Research Associate, University of East Anglia Mr Mark Dayan Policy Analyst and Head of Public Affairs, Nuffield Trust Dr Mary Dobbs Lecturer in Environmental Law, Department of Law and Criminology, Maynooth University Professor Sean Ennis Professor of Competition Policy, Norwich Business School, University of East Anglia Dr Nicholas Fahy Nuffield Department of Primary Health Care Sciences, University of Oxford Professor Andrew Fearne Professor of Value Chain Management, Norwich Business School, University of East Anglia Professor Amelia Fletcher Professor of Competition Policy, Norwich Business School, University of East Anglia Professor Sarah Hall Professor of Economic Geography, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Nottingham and Senior Fellow, The UK in a Changing Europe Professor Michael Harker Professor of Law, School of Law, University of East Anglia Dr Martin Heneghan Research Fellow, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Nottingham Professor Tamara Hervey Jean Monnet Professor of European Union Law, University of Sheffield Dr Christopher Huggins Associate Professor in Politics, School of Social Sciences and Humanities, University of Suffolk Dr Sabine Jacques Associate Professor in IP, IT and Media Law, School of Law, the University of East Anglia Dr Scott James Reader in Political Economy, King’s College London Professor Andrew Jordan Professor of Environmental Policy, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, and co-chair of Brexit&Environment 4 Professor Hussein Kassim Professor of Politics, School of Politics, Philosophy, Language and Communication Studies, University of East Anglia, and Senior Fellow, The UK in a Changing Europe Dr Karen McCullagh Lecturer in IT, IP and Media Law, the University of East Anglia Dr Brendan Moore Senior Research Associate, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia Dr Antonio Navas Lecturer in Economics, Department of Economics, University of Sheffield Professor Steve Peers Professor of EU Law, Human Rights Law and World Trade
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Subsidies and Funding from Some of the Largest UK Industries, She Also Signalled a Break with the Idea of the Economic State
    James Webber All Change? UK State Aid after Brexit What Law? Whose Courts? Copy Proof POLITEIA A FORUM FOR SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC THINKING POLITEIA A Forum for Social and Economic Thinking Politeia commissions and publishes discussions by specialists about social and economic ideas and policies. It aims to encourage public discussion on the relationship between the state and the people. Its aim is not to influence people to support any given political party, candidates for election, or position in a referendum, but to inform public discussion of policy. The forum is independently funded, and the publications do not express a corporate opinion, but the views of their individual authors. www.politeia.co.uk All Change? UK State Aid after Brexit What Law? Whose Courts? James Webber POLITEIA 2020 First published in 2020 by Politeia 14a Eccleston Street London SW1W 9LT Tel: 0207 799 5034 Email: [email protected] Website: www.politeia.co.uk © Politeia 2020 ISBN 978-1-9993662-9-2 Cover design by John Marenbon Politeia gratefully acknowledges support for this publication from The Foundation for Social and Economic Thinking (FSET) Printed in the United Kingdom by: Millnet Limited 6-7 Princes Court 11 Wapping Lane London E1W 2DA Foreword State Aid, the EU and the UK Economy Different Systems, Different Rules Sheila Lawlor, Director of Politeia The battle and its background.1 Very shortly the next battle with the EU will begin over an unlikely battleground: what rules should govern UK State aid and what are their implications for a trade deal with the bloc? For the UK, a country that, more than most others, has championed free trade, unfettered and competitive markets and an economy under the rule of law, the subject seems uncontentious.
    [Show full text]
  • Jo Swinson: the New Liberal Democrat Leader
    Jo Swinson: the new Liberal Democrat Leader 22 July 2019 Who is Jo Swinson? Jo Swinson was born in 1980, growing up and going to school in East Dunbartonshire, which she now represents in Parliament. Her mother was a primary school teacher while her father worked in economic development. She cites her earliest political experience as signing petitions against animal testing in the Body Shop. A Liberal Democrat supporter since she was at school, Jo joined the Liberal Democrats aged 17, while studying Management at the LSE. During her time at university, she worked as a Research Assistant for the Employers’ Forum on Disability. After graduating, Swinson moved to Hull, working as Viking FM’s Marketing & PR Manager. Aged 21, she stood against John Prescott at the 2001 general election in Hull East. Relocating back to Scotland, she worked as Marketing Manager for SpaceandPeople Plc and then as Communications Officer for the UK Public Health Association prior to her election as an MP. In 2011, she married Duncan Hames, who was the Liberal Democrat MP for Chippenham from 2010 to 2015, and is now an anti-corruption campaigner. The couple have two sons. What is Jo Swinson’s political background? Swinson was successfully elected to Parliament in 2005, winning East Dunbartonshire from Labour. In the Commons, she became a Lib Dem whip and spokesperson for culture, media and sport, before being promoted to Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland in 2006. Swinson gained additional responsibility in 2007 becoming Shadow Women and Equality Minister. She returned to the backbenches later that year, before becoming Shadow Minister for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in 2008, retaining this role until the 2010 election.
    [Show full text]
  • British Politics and Policy at LSE: Why Major Party Reforms Had to Be Sidelined During Jeremy Corbyn’S Leadership Page 1 of 2
    British Politics and Policy at LSE: Why major party reforms had to be sidelined during Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership Page 1 of 2 Why major party reforms had to be sidelined during Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership Bradley Ward argues that while Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership was initially drawn towards a more grassroots vision of rank-and-file democracy, this came into tension with the demands facing the leadership in the context of intense intra-party factionalism. In a Brexit-dominated political landscape, the constraints facing internal party democracy meant that major party reforms were increasingly sidelined. Despite the promise to continue with the legacy of his predecessor, Keir Starmer’s first twelve months in office have been characterised by glaring attempts to distance his ‘new leadership’ from the last vestiges of Corbynism. This is evidenced by Rebecca Long-Bailey’s sacking from the Shadow Cabinet; the decision to withhold the whip from Jeremy Corbyn and ban local parties from discussing the case; the dismantling of the Community Organising Unit; the policy of ‘abstentionism’ on bills seen as anathema to progressive values; and an unwillingness to embrace some of the more daring policies of the previous leader. For many critics on the left, these moves have divided the party at a time when everyone should be working together to tackle the big issues of the day. Those who defend Starmer, however, see these moves as important first steps towards showing the rest of ‘the country they have their Labour Party back again’ after the rollercoaster of the previous five years. The difference between Corbyn and Starmer becomes even more pronounced if we look at internal party politics.
    [Show full text]
  • Feasibility Study for the Resettlement of the British Indian Ocean Territory
    Feasibility Study for the Resettlement of the British Indian Ocean Territory Draft Report 13th November 2014 CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 4 1.1 The British Indian Ocean Territory 4 1.2 Aims and overview of this study 5 1.3 Structure of this draft report 6 2 STUDY APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY 7 2.1 Guiding principles 7 2.2 Analytical framework 8 2.3 Key phases of activity 11 3 KEY ACTIVITIES AND RESETTLEMENT OPTIONS 13 3.1 Field visit to the British Indian Ocean Territory 13 3.2 Consultations and survey results 15 3.3 Overview of resettlement options 18 4 LEGAL AND POLITICAL ANALYSIS 20 4.1 Introduction and overview 20 4.2 Constitutional and governance framework 22 4.3 Treaty arrangements between the US and the UK 31 4.4 Environmental protection laws and conventions 32 4.5 Conclusions and implications for resettlement 35 5 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 38 5.1 Introduction and overview 38 5.2 Assessment of key environmental issues 38 5.3 Evaluation of potential resettlement locations 48 5.4 Summary environmental comparison of resettlement options 55 6 INFRASTRUCTURE ANALYSIS 58 6.1 Introduction and overview 58 6.2 Assessment of key infrastructure issues 59 6.3 Summary of implications for resettlement 66 7 ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 68 7.1 Introduction and overview 68 7.2 Data sources 68 7.3 Indicative cost estimates 68 8 COMPARISON OF RESETTLEMENT OPTIONS 74 8.1 Choice of resettlement location 74 8.2 Environmental considerations 76 8.3 Comparative costs of resettlement options 79 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS BIOT British Indian Ocean
    [Show full text]
  • The Unitary Patent and the Unified Patent Court
    The Unitary Patent and the Unified Patent Court Dr. Leonard Werner-Jones Background The Past: • No centralization at all • Prosecution country-by-country • Litigation country-by-country National National Patents actions 2 The Unitary Patent and the Unified Patent Court Background The Present (since the 1970’s): • Partial centralization • Prosecution centralized at the EPO • Litigation country-by-country in national courts European National Patent actions 3 The Unitary Patent and the Unified Patent Court Background The Future: • Complete centralization • Prosecution at the EPO • Litigation at the UPC EP-UEs Centralised action 4 The Unitary Patent and the Unified Patent Court Filing and Prosecution Filing and prosecution • No change • The EPO will still be responsible for search, examination and grant of patents • All key aspects of EPO practice remain unchanged • The fun and games start at grant… 5 The Unitary Patent and the Unified Patent Court EPO Grant – Decision Time When an EP is granted, applicant will have choice: 1) Validate to get an EP patent with unitary effect (EP-UE / UP (Unitary Patent)) 2) Validate the patent country-by-country as we do now (Classic EP) • Decision has to be made within 1 month of grant by the EPO 6 The Unitary Patent and the Unified Patent Court Territorial Scope Country EPC UP UPC Ratification Country EPC UP UPC Ratification † † AL * Albania • LT Lithuania • • AT Austria • • • 06.08.13 LU Luxembourg • • • 22.05.15 BE Belgium • • • 06.06.14 MK* Macedonia • BG Bulgaria • • • 03.06.16 MT Malta • • • 09.12.14
    [Show full text]
  • Enhanced Cooperation, EMU Reforms and Their Implications for Differentiation in the European Union ­­
    Tomasz Kubin Enhanced Cooperation, EMU Reforms and Their Implications for Differentiation in the European Union ­­ Tomasz Kubin Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Political Sciences and Journalism, University of Silesia in Katowice ul. Bankowa 11, Katowice 40-007, Poland E-mail: [email protected] Abstract: Initially, before the entry into force of the Maastricht Treaty, differences in integration between members of the European Communities (EC; later the European Union) were relatively few and usually temporary in nature. The Schengen Agreement, the Maastricht Treaty and the Treaty of Amsterdam, and the possibility of establishing enhanced cooperation meant that the problem was becoming more and more important in the functioning of the EU—both in theory and in practice. The objective of the paper is to show that for several years, along with the stagnation in the deepening of integration between all the EU Member States, differentiation of integration in the EU is progressing very rapidly. The progressing differentiation in the EU is a consequence of mainly two processes: the development of enhanced cooperation and reforms in the eurozone, which are strengthened by the widening of the EU. The article covers the issue of the categorization of differentiation of European Union integration, which constitutes the theoretical framework for further considerations. Specified processes which contribute to increasing the differentiation of the EU are discussed, showing the development of enhanced cooperation in the EU and presenting the reforms of the eurozone. The article concludes with the identification and the consequences of differentiated integration, both those that have already occurred and those that may occur in the future.
    [Show full text]
  • Ec Budget 2007
    House of Lords London European Union Committee SW1A 0PW www.parliament.uk/hleue The primary purpose of the House of Lords European Union Select Committee is to scrutinise EU law in draft before the Government take a position on it in the EU Council of Ministers. This scrutiny is frequently carried out through correspondence with Ministers. Such correspondence, including Ministerial replies and other materials, is published where appropriate. This edition includes correspondence from 1 June to 30 November 2011. JUSTICE AND INSTITUTIONS (SUB-COMMITTEE E) CONTENTS ANTI-COUNTERFEITING TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN UNION AND ITS MEMBER STATES, AUSTRALIA, CANADA, JAPAN, THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA, THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES, THE KINGDOM OF MOROCCO, NEW ZEALAND, THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE, THE SWISS CONFEDERATION AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (12190/11, 12193/11) ................................................................................................................................................. 3 APPLICATION OF THE EU CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS (8453/11) ................................... 4 ARTICLE 10(4) OF THE PROTOCOL ON TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS - PROTOCOL 36 TO THE TREATY OF LISBON ....................................................................................................................................... 4 BRINGING LEGAL CLARITY TO PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR INTERNATIONAL COUPLES (8253/11, 8160/11, 8163/11, 8145/11) .....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliografia ACKERMANN T. E.O., Editorial Comments: the EU's Accession to ECHR
    Bibliografia ACKERMANN T. e.o., Editorial comments: The EU's Accession to ECHR - a "NO" from ECJ!, Common Market Law Review, 2015, p. 1-15 ADAM S., Le mécanisme préjudiciel, limite fonctionnelle à la compétence externe de l’Union. Note sur l’avis 1/09 de la Cour de justice, in Cahiers de droit européen, 2011, p. 277-303 ADAMSKI D., National power games and structural failures in the European macroeconomic governance, Common Market Law Review, 2012, p. 1319-1364 ADINOLFI A., La tutela giurisdizionale nazionale delle situazioni soggettive individuali conferite dal diritto comunitario, Il Diritto dell'Unione europea, 2001, p. 41-61 ADINOLFI A., L'accertamento in via pregiudiziale della validità degli atti comunitari, Giuffrè, Milano, 1997 AGO R., Le organizzazioni internazionali e le loro funzioni nel campo dell'attività interna degli Stati, in Studi in onore di G. M. Francesco, Milano 1956, p. 1 ss ALBERTI J., New developments in the EU system of judicial protection: the creation of the Unified Patent Court and its future relations with the CJEU, Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 2017, p. 6-24 ALEMANNO A., GARDE A., The Emergence of an EU Lifestyle Policy: the Case of Alcohol, Tobacco and Unhealthy Diets, Common Market Law Review, 2013, p. 1745–1786 ALEMANNO A., Out of Sight, out of Mind - Towards a New EU Tobacco Products Directive, Columbia Journal of European Law, 2011, p. 197-241 ALFARO C., LORENTI P. , Argentina: The Enforcement Process of the ICSID Awards: Procedural Issues and Domestic Public Policy, Latin American Law and Business Reward, 2005, p.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Brexit, the 2019 General Election and the Realignment of British
    Brexit, the 2019 General Election and the Realignment of British Politics David Cutts, Matthew Goodwin, Oliver Heath and Paula Surridge Abstract. The outcome of the 2019 general election—a resounding Conservative majority and an unprecedented defeat for Labour – delivered a decisive electoral verdict for the first time in recent years following a period where British politics has been characterised by instability and indecision. In this article, we draw on aggregate-level data to conduct an initial exploration of the vote. What was the impact of Brexit on the 2019 general election result? How far has Brexit reshaped electoral politics? Was 2019 a ‘realignment election’? And, if so, what are the implications? With a focus on England and Wales we show that although the Conservatives made gains deep into Labour’s working-class heartlands, these gains have been a long time coming, reflected in Labour’s weakening relationship with working-class Britain. As such, 2019 is not a critical election but a continuation of longer-term trends of dealignment and realignment in British politics. Keywords: general election, Brexit, voting, turnout, Britain 1 Introduction The 2019 general election marked another watershed moment in a tumultuous period in British politics. It was the third general election to be held in four years and the ninth major electoral contest in a decade. The election took place against the backdrop of Brexit, the failure of MPs to pass a Brexit deal and then Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s inability to secure sufficient support for the timetable of his proposed Withdrawal Agreement Bill.1 The 2019 election was thus widely seen as the latest episode in Britain’s political drama over Brexit.
    [Show full text]
  • Defence and Security After Brexit Understanding the Possible Implications of the UK’S Decision to Leave the EU Compendium Report
    Defence and security after Brexit Understanding the possible implications of the UK’s decision to leave the EU Compendium report James Black, Alex Hall, Kate Cox, Marta Kepe, Erik Silfversten For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR1786 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif., and Cambridge, UK © Copyright 2017 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Cover: HMS Vanguard (MoD/Crown copyright 2014); Royal Air Force Eurofighter Typhoon FGR4, A Chinook Helicopter of 18 Squadron, HMS Defender (MoD/Crown copyright 2016); Cyber Security at MoD (Crown copyright); Brexit (donfiore/fotolia); Heavily armed Police in London (davidf/iStock) RAND Europe is a not-for-profit organisation whose mission is to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org www.rand.org/randeurope Defence and security after Brexit Preface This RAND study examines the potential defence and security implications of the United Kingdom’s (UK) decision to leave the European Union (‘Brexit’).
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of the Report Published Under the Industrial Property Research Promotion Project FY2013 Entrusted by the Japan Patent Office
    9 The Positive Impact of Intellectual Property Harmonization on Diversity of National Regulations of International Private Law(*) Invited Researcher: Petr KOSIK(**) Intellectual property is a legal area, which is regulated by a number international treaties. One of most important international treaties is TRIPS. According to this treaty each member shall award the nationals of other member states treatment which is no less favorable than the treatment offered to its own nationals. Currently, patent infringements with certain international aspects are rapidly increasing. Cases, dubbed “patent wars” are becoming more and more common all around the world. The law governing these disputes is usually either elected by the parties or determined in compliance with the EU Regulations known as Rome I and Rome II. The aim of this research is to compare patent cases with international aspects in Japan, EPO countries and the European Union (with the focus what is possible direct to preparing Unitary Patent Court). The research will focus on the analysis of law enforcement with an international aspect. The choice of law rules which may have an important impact on the result of IP cases with international aspects will be analyzed. Also the most frequently cited Japanese IP cases will be analyzed. One part of the research will focus on the issue of exhaustion of rights with international element in Japan and compare this issue with cases and theory in the European Union. This research should point out that the harmonization of intellectual property law will have a positive impact on the diversity of national private international law regulations to Hague Conference Project for a Global Convention on Jurisdiction, Recognition and Enforcement in Civil and Commercial Matters – An update including specific proposals for new legislation.
    [Show full text]
  • Building Our Industrial Strategy: Green Paper
    Green Paper January 2017 Contents Foreword .................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 5 How to respond to this Green Paper ................................................................................ 8 Summary ..................................................................................................................................10 Investing in science, research and innovation ............................................................25 Developing skills ...................................................................................................................37 Upgrading infrastructure ....................................................................................................51 Supporting businesses to start and grow ....................................................................61 Improving procurement ......................................................................................................71 Encouraging trade and inward investment ..................................................................79 Delivering affordable energy and clean growth ..........................................................89 Cultivating world-leading sectors ...................................................................................97 Driving growth across the whole country
    [Show full text]