The people involved are  Anthony Marsh, Charles Abel Smith, Ian Nolan,  Kenneth MacRitchie, Stephen Crane, and Patricia Barata-Rodrigues.

The team is looking at several imminent opportunities, and it is great to have a team of this calibre paving the way for the GIB.

Full details of their background and credentials are available here

Some might ask whether it is possible to follow (i) and (ii) without subsidy because, with perfect markets a new institution, which was indistinguishable from existing institutions, could not make investments profitably which existing institutions have not already taken.  But we all know that capital markets are very far from perfect, particularly in terms of long-term investment and risk.  And the GIB, like the EBRD, is different from existing institutions in a number of key ways.  These include, in particular, the policy risk reduction associated with the GIB (or EBRD): governments would be less likely to chop and change with policies if a public long-term investment bank were involved.  Second, the GIB (or the EBRD) will develop banking and sectoral skills in new and important areas.  Third, it will have special convening powers and strong networks to put together different coalitions and sources of finance.  Fourth, it will have a capital structure which allows it to take a long-term view.  None of these should sensibly be regarded as a subsidy, they are strengths designed into, and associated with, this particular creative and new institution. 

The GIB will need a strategy which guides it on sectoral priorities.  But at the same time it should not be rigid and it must be ready to identify and take opportunities like a good investment bank should.  In so doing, it can implement a crucial instrument of a new and innovative bank, i.e. the power of the example .  Helping to show what works and what doesn’t work will be absolutely crucial in promoting the vital transition to a low-carbon economy.

Another initiative will see us working with the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts to establish a Centre of Expertise for running innovation inducement prizes, and a new Innovation Prize Fund, in which we will invest £250,000 a year.

This is the latest in a series of support for science and innovation announced this year. On Monday we launched the Strategy for UK Life Sciences, bringing reports from the Office for Life Sciences and the NHS Chief Executive Review of innovation in the NHS.
This is another multi-million pound package of investment aimed at keeping the UK life sciences industry ahead of the game. We want to create the right environment for scientists, the NHS and businesses to work together and translate research into cutting edge treatments. This will help make the UK one of the best places for companies to invest in innovation, which will in turn boost our economy, create new jobs and lead to better treatments for patients.

One of the measures is a new £180 million catalyst fund to help the next generation of brilliant British medical breakthroughs become the next generation of great British companies. This will target the funding gap that exists – the so called ‘valley of death’ I wrote about in The Times on Monday – between the moment that a bright new idea is developed in the laboratory and the point when a new drug or technology can be invested in by the market.

These pieces of work are the latest what has been a fantastic year for science and innovation. Only last month the Chancellor announced £200 million new capital investment in science in the Autumn Statement. This included £21 million towards the development and launch of a new radar satellite constellation and £80 million for new facilities at the Institute of Animal Healthat Pirbright in Surrey. I visited Pirbright last week to learn more about the important research they do on animal diseases and see first hand the difference this investment will make to the site.

Both of these packages of funding take capital investment in science this year to nearly almost £610 million. This is in addition to the ring-fenced £4.6 billion science budget.
Even in tough times, this Government is absolutely committed to funding the best science. This could be through supporting groundbreaking research projects like the Birth Cohort Facility, or through providing cutting-edge facilities and vital infrastructure, like the £158 million we are investing in e-infrastructure. Not only will it keep the UK at the very forefront of research and innovation, but it will also provide long-term, sustainable economic growth and create high-tech, highly-skilled jobs both now and well into the future.

My last blogs have given you all a briefing on the initial preparation stages of bringing to fruition the vision for the Green Investment Bank – I will try to respond directly to the series of interesting comments soon – but in recent weeks the momentum has increased significantly.

At its last meeting the Advisory Group reviewed an early draft of an important paper on the GIB’s Structure and Operating Model, which formed the core of the UK Government’s application to Brussels for State Aid clearance of the GIB and its activities.  A full set of State Aid documentation has now been sent to the European Commission, and the BIS team will assume responsibility for progressing the application with the Brussels authorities.

One of the big decisions is where the GIB will be based.  The Advisory Group stands ready to give the Secretary of State any advice he thinks would be of assistance in informing his decision.  We understand that Vince Cable will shortly be making a further announcement to clarify how he intends to approach this important issue.

BIS has formed a new unit, UK Green Investments (UKGI), to undertake these early transactions pending GIB’s formation once State Aid approval has been received, sometime next year we hope.  In order to provide a proper governance framework for these early investments, BIS has formed an ad hoc Investment Committee which will operate under the umbrella of the Industrial Development Act (whose provisions will provide the statutory authority for the early investments).  The Committee includes representatives from the public and private sectors together with representation from the Industrial Development Advisory Board.

But, to do deals, you need experienced transactors.  So it is a pleasure to announce the formation of a transitional investment team in UKGI.  It is headed by Ian Nolan as Development Director and he is supported by Stephen Crane, Anthony Marsh, Charles Abel Smith and Patricia Barata Rodrigues, with Kenneth MacRitchie as General Counsel.  The team has excellent credentials: Ian was formerly 3i’s Chief Investment Officer, and the other members of the team are seasoned project finance professionals, in banking or the law, whose track records will be known and respected widely in the City.  I will be posting their credentials separately on the blog in a few days’ time.  Right at the outset, you may remember, I underlined the importance I attached to the GIB achieving a reputation for excellence in execution of its deals, something a team of this calibre positions it very well to achieve through UKGI, so its pedigree can be assured even before the Bank is formally created.

The National Infrastructure Plan published alongside the Autumn Statement gave clues on the areas of initial focus for the UKGI team, announcing the intention for UKGI to invest up to £100 million in commercial and industrial energy efficiency projects, and to seek managers for up to £100 million to invest in waste projects in the next financial year. It also noted that UKGI will look co-invest in offshore wind projects as needed. Interesting developments, I hope you will agree, and there will be more news soon.

Water is our most vital resource and global water security is a really important agenda. Alongside food and energy security, water security is central to economic growth, health and social well-being in all countries.

On Monday a new report was published that looks at these issues. It’s very timely as the United Nations also published a report on the same day looking at the potential threats arising to food production from land degradation and water shortages.  

In the UK, we take for granted that water supply meets demand, with households and businesses expecting access to this precious commodity at all times. In other parts of the world, many poor people are less fortunate, without such easy access to water and services like sanitation.

This is a real priority issue. It is important to realise that in our interconnected world individual countries like the UK cannot think about water in isolation. Every country draws on the water resources of those countries they trade with, in the form of water contained in food and used to manufacture products. Each country has its water footprint that can extend well beyond its borders.

Collaboration within the UK and internationally is vital to safeguarding future global water security. The UK is a world leader in water research, particularly in the global water cycle and its interaction with climate change. Over the past year, my office, along with the Living With Environmental Change programme and the UK Collaborative on Development Sciences have been looking at how we can use and develop the UK’s skills and knowledge of water to help meet the ever increasing demands on the global water sector.

This work has been steered by the UK Water Research and Innovation Partnership (UKWRIP) established earlier this year, and which I chair. Membership is composed of private, public and third sector organisations. The Partnership has been working with many representatives from government, academia, business, and charities engaged in the water sector to develop the UK Water Research and Innovation Framework (UKWRIF). It has been a truly collaborative effort to set out a strategic approach to the highly diverse and interrelated challenges, by highlighting key priorities, and mechanisms to ensure better coherence and co-ordination of different public funding schemes for water research and innovation.

The Framework was launched on Monday at a very timely and relevant Parliamentary Reception and Exhibition event, highlighting the work of UK companies in developing new technologies for the water sector both domestically and internationally. It was being hosted by the All Party Parliamentary Water Group, a cross-party group of MPs and peers. It was with real regret that I wasn’t able to be there, as I was chairing a meeting of the UK-Japan Joint Commission on Co-operation in Science and Technology. This will explore areas for potential collaboration, including environmental issues.

I am really pleased that we have been able to develop this Framework and hope that the collaboration across the many organisations established through the Partnership will continue to ensure that it is taken into action. This will contribute to the vision that by 2030 the UK will be a key contributor in providing integrated solutions in water security and sustainability.

This will allow individuals, communities and businesses to benefit from productive, equitable water systems and ecosystem services. As a result, health improves, communities develop, the green economy grows, and the environment is protected and enhanced.

Two years ago the Intellectual Property Office (IPO), the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and British Brands Group (BBG) hosted a first Branding in a modern economy conference. The idea was to get a group of industry experts together to talk about the importance of brands and the role that they can play in stimulating growth in the economy. A lot has happened in the last two years and tomorrow we will be meeting again to look at the progress made.

Brands are worth a great deal to the economy so it’s vital that companies know the importance of protecting their intellectual property, particularly their trade marks and designs. For example Tesco is one of the top 20 companies in the world and has a brand value of around £21 billion.

Other figures are equally impressive, with research showing that approximately one million people are employed in brand creation and management in the UK. However, following our first conference in 2009, it was felt that the economic role of brands had not yet been fully realised. Since then we have made some real progress in improving the business environment for brands to thrive and grow, including:

•  Improvements in the Patent County Court (PCC), including a small claims process, so that companies have easier access to defend their brands;
• Introducing IP Attachés in key international markets to safeguard brands abroad; and
• Completing new research to understand the true value of trade marks and designs.

Tomorrow’s conference is being held at the Unilever centre in London and we will have some great brand names there to discuss the future. This is an important week for highlighting the Government’s plans for growth and tomorrow will also see the Chancellor of the Exchequer announce his autumn statement. Intellectual property issues are of great importance to the UK economy, so our conference will show the commitment the Government has made to helping companies develop their brands and grow.

Last Thursday I had the honour of speaking at the Economic and Social Research Council’s (ESRC) flagship event celebrating the social sciences, held at the British Academy. This forms part of the ESRC’s Festival of Social Science, now in its ninth year. The festival is a real celebration of the breadth of social science research, with well over 100 events around the country including major cities like London, Belfast, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Manchester.

Social science is a global science, with enormous impact on how we live our lives worldwide. And the UK is a world player – ESRC’s international benchmarking exercises have judged the UK to be second only to the US in anthropology, economics, political sciences, psychology and sociology.

Social science shapes public policy and services, informs welfare reform and enhances civil liberties. This was effectively demonstrated at last Thursday’s event with the launch of ESRC’s ‘Celebrating the social sciences’ publication supported by an informative short film. It shows how beneficial our expertise in this area is to policy-makers and the public alike. Some examples include:

The ESRC-funded Centre for Microeconomic Analysis of Public Policy at the Institute for Fiscal Studies explained the shock to the public finances caused by the recession, informing Government officials, politicians on all sides and the media.

• A review carried out by the ESRC National Centre for Research Methods/Lancaster-Warwick-Stirling node led to a new policy report and a major revision of the scientific evidence underpinning DNA database policy.
• Data from the Millennium Cohort Study were used extensively by the Independent Review on Poverty and Life Chances, commissioned by the Government in 2010. The University of Bristol’s review report emphasised that the first five years of a child’s development life has the strongest impact on their life chances, strengthening the Government focus on ‘Foundation Years’ services.

The £33.5 million investment announced earlier this year in a new Birth Cohort Facility project will take this important work even further. It will support the biggest longitudinal study ever undertaken in the UK – involving 90,000 children – as well as providing computing capacity to ensure we can analyse data from all the previous cohort studies. This will give us a broader and clearer picture than ever before of social mobility over the past 65 years.

The studies are a shining example of the UK’s support for the social sciences, and our expertise in interpreting research data. However looking ahead, the social science community also faces a series of challenges:

• The ‘fruits’ of social science: We need to get better at showing the relevance of our quality research – the ESRC’s evidence briefings are an excellent example of this, such as the one on supermarket productivity and planning.
• Data-mining: We must look for ways to use more data from existing research – the Birth Cohort Facility will provide a great opportunity for this.
• Transparency: I very much welcome ESRC’s continued commitment to work with Research Councils and others to meet the issues around open access facing the wider research community.
• Evidence-based policy: I want to see us build on social science’s already excellent record of informing and shaping Government policy.

We should recognise and celebrate the social sciences and the enormous contribution the UK makes to a global body of knowledge. The social sciences vastly improve our understanding of the world around us – our society, our economy, our quality of life and public health – and most importantly they help us improve the outcomes of people from all backgrounds and areas of society. Everything I heard at the Festival of Social Science suggested to me that even in the difficult financial climate we face today, the social sciences are thriving here in the UK.

The seven billionth person joins us at a time of unprecedented global challenge. Population growth in the last decade has been exceptionally rapid and has coincided with a global realisation that “business as usual” in terms of global food production, water resource management and energy generation represents an unwinding road to disaster. We need to act now to ensure a bright future for citizen number seven billion and his/her contemporaries, but to do so we need to think carefully about the world into which they will welcome children and grandchildren. Recent Foresight studies give us glimpses into that world and provide us with plausible future scenarios against which our sustainable development policies can be tested.

The question I have been asked a lot this past week is how the size of our population will continue to change over the coming century. Looking forward, the UN’s World Population Prospects report for 2010 foresees that a global population of around 9 billion by 2050 is the most likely scenario, but we must remember population projections are uncertain and will need to be kept under review. We do know that what happens to the global population after 2050 is less clear. If one assumes higher fertility rates for instance, then the 2100 population could reach 15bn. Assuming lower fertility rates, it could drop back to 6bn by the same date. However, while I think the consensus view is that the rate of population growth is likely to decline in the second half to this century, our current challenge is to manage issues associated with this growth now and in the next few decades.

A critical concern is that between 2011and 2050 the largest population increase is expected in Asia, particularly in China, India and Southeast Asia, accounting for more than 60% of the world’s population by 2050. Currently, Africa is the second most populous continent after Asia, and by 2050, the African population is predicted to double from around 1 billion to around 2 billion. Africa and Asia are already facing a number of key challenges to eradicate poverty and hunger. These include a rapidly urbanising population, and, due to their geographic location, an increased vulnerability to the severe and negative effects of climate change.

One response to a growing population of course is to try and reduce the rate of growth. We know that economic prosperity, women’s rights and female education can all effect birth rates, although it is important to stress that these are important goals in their own right, not just in this context. However, even if those issues were all addressed in the next ten years, there would be a time lag on the impact on birth rates, and thus it is essential to understand how we can provide for and accommodate this growing population without causing lasting damage to the planet.

As reported in the Foresight project on The Future of Food and Farming, with the global population set to rise and food prices likely to increase, it is crucial that a wide range of complementary actions from policy makers, farmers and businesses are taken now. Urgent change is required throughout the food system to bring sustainability centre stage and end hunger. Action is needed to close the yield gap, reduce waste, manage demand and improve governance of the global food system, particularly to reduce subsidies and trade barriers that disadvantage poor countries.

It will also be important to understand where these growing populations will be located and what kind of policy challenges this might provide. Foresight’s latest project on Migration and Global Environmental Change has shown that the numbers of people living in coastal urban floodplains in Africa and Asia is predicted to increase by up to 192 million more people in different scenarios out to 2060; in part due to migration and in part due to population growth. The challenges for urban planners are significant; making sure that urban growth happens in a sustainable way while reducing the risk of environmental hazards and water shortages will be essential. Yet there are potentially even more people who are likely to be ‘trapped’ in environmentally vulnerable locations unable to move, even in the face of environmental risks or dangers.  The policy challenges for this group are equally, if not more, considerable.

Energy challenges are likely to present further issues (over 20% of the global population currently have no access to electricity) and we need to harness the pro-development benefits of energy availability whilst reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases. Low carbon technologies are not without their challenges, but they are capable not only of delivering climate change mitigation benefits but also economic, environmental and social benefits. Energy poverty needs to be addressed, but in a sustainable manner acknowledging that the challenges of food, water and energy security are inter-linked.

Addressing these challenges will require concerted efforts from national and international policy-makers, drawing on a wide range of existing and new technologies. The inter-relationships between all these issues – food, climate change, energy, land, migration – can’t be emphasised strongly enough.

Finally, as I said in The Times blog last week, it is useful to speculate as to where that seven billionth boy or girl might be born and what challenges they might face. It’s quite possible that they will be born into relative poverty in Africa. Their food supply might be sub-optimal due to low-yielding crops, water supply will be problematic, there will be inefficient agricultural practices and high levels of food wastage. They are unlikely to have access to electricity and the economic inclusion that energy supply might bring to them. Finally, in an attempt to improve their prospects, they may move into environmentally hazardous urban environments, facing risks such as frequent flooding or water shortages; or indeed be trapped in vulnerable locations with even fewer options for their livelihoods.

It’s a potentially bleak picture, but one that can be improved by better understanding and addressing these resource challenges. In doing so, we can help to ensure the eighth billionth person’s prospects are somewhat brighter.

We all like a good deal. It’s particularly important now when we’re all feeling our wallets squeezed. And especially in the run up to Christmas.

But sometimes it’s hard to know whether we’re getting a bargain or being ripped-off.

Take your mobile phone. There’s a staggering 12.7 million different deals to choose from. So how do you know that you’re getting the right bundle of minutes and texts?

It can be just as bewildering for electricity or gas bills – with more than 300 different offers available. How do I truly know that I am on the best package for my home?

The Government wants to help you find a way through this maze. We set out our plans in April 2011 and today I am pleased to announce that a number of different companies have committed to working with us to achieve the midata vision.

Midata is our project with a range of businesses, consumer groups and regulators to release the data they hold about you, back to you, in a safe, electronic and portable format.

We hope individuals will be able to use this data to gain an insight into their own behaviour, make more informed choices and better decisions, to manage their affairs more efficiently, and to obtain the products and services that best meet their needs.

For example, your phone company has exact data on how you use your phone – much more than you will ever receive in a bill summary.

But if you had all the information that business held on you – you could use that data using price comparison sites or phone apps to get a deal that best fits the way you use your phone.

A survey from Billmonitor showed that the average mobile phone user overspends by £200 a year. That shows the importance of having a deal that works for you: it’s not about how many minutes you can get for £10 – it’s whether you even use £10 worth of minutes.

The businesses that are supporting us range from energy to banking and telecoms companies.

While midata is a challenging project for them, they can see the benefits to business, for example: increasing trust and improving data quality – both of which will help create more cost efficient and relevant services.

High-quality firms that can respond best to customers will drive innovation, competition and growth and in turn will win more business. A better deal for consumers and the economy means a better deal all round.

By increasing transparency and giving more power to you – the consumer – you will be better placed to get the deal you want – and that may put a bit of extra money in your back pocket. As we take the midata project forward to realise this vision, I’d be interested to hear your comments.

Well, I’m afraid I have been neglecting the blog a little, but a lot has been happening and it’s time to catch up.

Firstly, to answer Andrew MacIntyre’s blog comment, which basically asks, what’s the purpose of the Green Investment Bank?　 The GIB’s key role will be to stimulate private sector investment in green projects. It’s clear that there are significant market failures that need to be overcome if the current under-investment in the green economy is to be addressed.　 I agree absolutely that it must not become a ‘slush fund for economically non-viable projects’, as Andrew says.　 The GIB will need to generate an acceptable level of commercial return if it is to achieve its mission over the longer term and successfully build itself into an enduring institution.

To that end we’ve now had two meetings of the Advisory Group, whose membership Vince Cable announced on 13 August. It’s an impressive group, with experience in all the areas we’ll need to help bring the GIB concept to fruition: starting up financial institutions, development banking, project finance, green economics and sustainable financial services. There’s also a lot of practical experience of doing deals.

In our first meetings, we’ve looked at what it will take to build GIB into an enduring institution:

The importance of diversity in the portfolio and of tight risk management; how to achieve this within the internal structure of the bank.

How to focus on an acceptable level of commercial return.

This is all with a view to building a solid record of performing transactions capable of positioning GIB for borrowing in the private sector from 2015, if the Government should approve.

It’s an inherent part of GIB’s mandate that its progress towards a steady state financial institution should be matched by the impact it has on the Government’s plans for greening the economy. So, just as important, we’ve also looked at the bank’s likely strategic priorities, how we might breathe life into the concept of the “double bottom line”, and preliminary thoughts on how to measure the green impact of the bank’s operation. We understand that there will be further details on this towards the end of the year.

We’ve also been offering some advice to BIS as it gears up to make investments from April 2012 while the GIB is going through state aid clearance.　 Work is underway on sketching out a pipeline of opportunities for BIS to pursue as it paves the way for the bank. The search is on for transactors to build a capability within BIS to handle the resulting deals and governance structures are being put in place to ensure that deals are properly scrutinised before public money is committed to them.

So as you can see, there’s lots of activity and some good progress. I’m going to try to update the blog after each meeting of the Advisory Group, so until next time.