Author: admin

  • Ian Paisley – 2007 Speech at Stormont

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ian Paisley at Stormont in Northern Ireland on 8th May 2007.

    How true are the words of Holy Scripture, ‘We know not what a day may bring forth’.

    If anyone had told me that I would be standing here today to take this office, I would have been totally unbelieving. I am here by the vote of the majority of the electorate of our beloved province.

    During the past few days I have listened to many very well placed people from outside Northern Ireland seeking to emphasise the contribution they claim to have made in bringing it about.

    However, the real truth of the matter is rather different.

    If those same people had only allowed the Ulster people to settle the matter without their interference and insistance upon their way and their way alone, we would all have come to this day a lot earlier.

    I remember well the night the Belfast Agreement was signed, I was wrongfully arrested and locked up on the orders of the then secretary of state for Northern Ireland. It was only after the assistant chief of police intervened that I was released. On my release I was kicked and cursed by certain loyalists who supported the Belfast Agreement.

    But that was yesterday, this is today, and tomorrow is tomorrow.

    Today at long last we are starting upon the road – I emphasise starting – which I believe will take us to lasting peace in our province. I have not changed my unionism, the union of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom, which I believe is today stronger than ever.

    We are making this declaration, we are all aiming to build a Northern Ireland in which all can live together in peace, being equal under the law and equally subject to the law.

    I welcome the pledge we have all taken to that effect today. That is the rock foundation upon which we must build.

    Today we salute Ulster’s honoured and unageing dead – the innocent victims, that gallant band, members of both religions, Protestant and Roman Catholic, strong in their allegiance to their differing political beliefs, unionist and nationalist, male and female, children and adults, all innocent victims of the terrible conflict.

    In the shadows of the evenings and in the sunrise of the mornings we hail their gallantry and heroism. It cannot and will not be erased from our memories.

    Nor can we forget those who continue to bear the scars of suffering and whose bodies have been robbed of sight, robbed of hearing, robbed of limbs. Yes, and we must all shed the silent and bitter tear for those whose loved one’s bodies have not yet been returned.

    Let me read to you the words of Deirdre Speer who lost her police officer father in the struggle:

    Remember me! Remember me!

    My sculptured glens where crystal rivers run,

    My purple mountains, misty in the sun,

    My coastlines, little changed since time begun,

    I gave you birth.

    Remember me! Remember me!

    Though battle-scarred and weary I abide.

    When you speak of history say my name with pride.

    I am Ulster.

    In politics, as in life, it is a truism that no-one can ever have 100% of what they desire. They must make a verdict when they believe they have achieved enough to move things forward. Unlike at any other time I believe we are now able to make progress.

    Winning support for all the institutions of policing has been a critical test that today has been met in pledged word and deed. Recognising the significance of that change from a community that for decades demonstrated hostility for policing, has been critical in Ulster turning the corner.

    I have sensed a great sigh of relief amongst all our people who want the hostility to be replaced with neighbourliness.

    The great king Solomon said:

    ‘To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven.

    A time to be born and a time to die.

    A time to plant and a time to pluck up that which is planted.

    A time to kill and a time to heal.

    A time to break down and a time to build up.

    A time to get and a time to lose.

    A time to keep and a time to cast away.

    A time to love and a time to hate.

    A time of war and a time of peace.’

    I believe that Northern Ireland has come to a time of peace, a time when hate will no longer rule.

    How good it will be to be part of a wonderful healing in our province.

    Today we have begun to plant and we await the harvest.

  • Ian Paisley – 1970 Maiden Speech to the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Ian Paisley to the House of Commons on 3rd July 1970.

    Mr. Speaker, when I came into this House on Monday last and heard you elected to your high office, you said: At the heart of all the tensions that exist, rightly, between free citizens and which rightly divide them, we meet to resolve those tensions by free and fair debate, respecting not only one’s own right to hold an opinion but equally the right of the other man to hold diametrically opposed opinions and to express them equally freely …. And at the heart of that heart sits a neutral chairman, favouring neither side, except for his sworn duty to protect minorities”.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June, 1970; Vol. 803, c. 7–8.] The views which I shall be putting to this honourable House from time to time will be the views of a minority, and probably views which have never been expressed in this House before, concerning the situation in my homeland of Northern Ireland. I take your words, Mr. Speaker, as a charter for my individual right and freedom to express those sentiments.

    There is another great principle which I believe lies at the very heart of democracy. It can be set forth in a question: Does our law judge a man before it heareth him? I am extremely happy that I am able to answer both for the people I represent and for myself in this House today.

    I should like to make it perfectly clear that, although I sit on the Government back benches, I came to this House having smashed the 23,000 majority of a sitting Unionist Member of this House. Therefore, I am expressing the viewpoint of those Protestants who are against the present policies of the Ulster Unionist Party, and I shall from time to time take the opportunity of putting as forthrightly as I can the views of the people who have sent me here to speak for them.

    I have just come from Northern Ireland and from those very areas which suffered through the disturbances of last weekend. I have also come from another place where there has been a long and protracted debate on these matters and where contributions were made by every politician in that place concerning these very serious and tragic happenings. What is more, the main substance of the facts of the situation as I know them and as I would put them in this speech can be confirmed by the Army authorities in Northern Ireland. I use the phrase “main substance of the facts” deliberately, for it is a tragedy that when gunfire was being heard in the streets of the City of Belfast, and when people were being mown down by that gunfire, no personnel of the British Army were available to give the people who were being slaughtered any protection whatsoever. The police authorities who were there can confirm the facts of which the Army was not cognisant.

    I noticed that yesterday the Leader of the Opposition mentioned that a solemn promise was given to people in every section of the community in Northern Ireland, irrespective of their political views and religious beliefs, that they were entitled to the same equality of treatment. It is a tragedy that the Protestant people of East Belfast should have to suffer gunfire in the early hours of last Lord’s Day morning and that for two hours they were given no protection whatsoever. When I describe the scene which took place it will be clear to hon. Members—and if they want to confirm it they can do so with the Government of Northern Ireland—that no troops were available to give the necessary defence to these people who were being attacked.

    What is meant by freedom under the law? It needs to be made perfectly clear to all citizens of Northern Ireland what that really means. Does it mean that there is freedom to throw stones, to use petrol bombs and to use guns, and to know that the more stones you throw, the more petrol bombs you use, the more people are slaughtered, the more you will be heeded and hearkened to and the more the concessions which you want will be given to you? It is this pernicious principle which has bedevilled the scene in Northern Ireland. There are people who think that the more they agitate and the more they march and cause confusion, riot and anarchy, the more they will get from the Government of Northern Ireland and from the Government here in Westminster.

    I will tell hon. Members of the type of speech which sets out the point which I am making. I refer to a speech made by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) reported on 22nd July two years ago. It sets the pattern for the Northern Ireland theme.

    It was reported that the hon. Member for Belfast, West said that nothing could be gained from speeches at Stormont and Westminster. The time for action had arrived. By changing the situation in Derry, change would follow not only in the North but in the rest of Ireland as well.” Mr. Fitt declared that it was not possible to get reform by constitutional methods. “People in Derry and all over Northern Ireland who are victims of this system will have to end these wrongs by any means at their disposal. I may not have a great deal of time to stay on the political scene in Northern Ireland,” Mr. Fitt continued. “If constitutional methods do not bring social justice, if they do not bring democracy to Northern Ireland, then I am quite prepared to go outside constitutional methods”. It is in going outside constitutional methods that the scene at the weekend has been enacted.

    Three points have been made concerning the reasons for the outrages at the weekend. One is the imprisonment of the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin). The second is the Orange processions—should they go on and should they be continued? The third is the particular procession which took place on Saturday of last week. I will first apply myself to the first of those reasons.

    If any Members, no matter what their privileges may be in the community, set themselves out on a career of attack on the forces of the Crown, then, when they are apprehended, brought before the courts, tried and found guilty, no matter who they are, they must bear the full rigour of the law.

    Here I take issue with the members of the official Unionist Party: for too long the citizens of Northern Ireland have been brought to the courts not as citizens of Northern Ireland but in regard to their particular political affiliations and their relationships to the controlling Unionist Party. It is not only Roman Catholics who have felt aggrieved concerning injustice in Northern Ireland but also many Protestant people who refused to go by the dictates of the Unionist Party and who set themselves up in opposition, constitutionally, against the Unionist Party. These people, too, have suffered from the same thing. I need not remind this House, for this House very well knows, that twice I have been behind prison bars. When I listened to what was said by the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland at the Dispatch Box the other evening I felt that it would not be very long before I, too, would be back behind prison bars.

    The time has clearly come when every citizen in Northern Ireland, whether he be an Orangeman or a Hibernian, a Jew or a Hindu, or anyone else, should know that before the law he stands not as a person with certain religious affiliations or political affiliations but as a citizen of the country. No matter what his faith may be or his pedigree may be, no matter what the blood that flows in his veins may be, he should be treated equally in the eyes of the law. I have been in court cases in Northern Ireland in which certain citizens were summoned to appear as witnesses and in which the magistrates refused to allow them to come because those people who had been summoned had special privileges in the Unionist Party. Those things ought not to be.

    I should like to make it clear to the House that, no matter what the Press may say and no matter what image may be painted of me, in my constituency both Roman Catholics and Protestants receive equal treatment from me as a Member of Parliament. It is because of this that the Unionist Party fear the Protestant Unionists more than they fear anyone else at the present time in the Province.

    It is the duty—I need not tell hon. Members—of every Member of Parliament to treat all his constituents equally. That is something which the Unionist Party dread, for they would dread it if the Roman Catholics of the Province in a marginal constituency found out that a representative such as myself would give them the equal treatment which they ought to receive. I make this clear not only here today but also in the constituency.

    I want to talk about the imprisonment of the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster. If the law had been kept in the way in which it has been kept at other times, the hon. Lady would never have left the court. Her bail was up and it was a wrong move to give her the privilege even to leave the court where she had been sentenced. Other persons who have been sentenced in a court of law have been held there, some of them for six hours.

    Mr. Speaker Order. I hesitate to do what is most unusual—to interrupt a maiden speaker. But it is not in order to criticise by implication the special magistrates—unless by putting a Motion on the Order Paper.

    Mr. Paisley Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If anything in my remarks tended to criticise the decision of the magistrates, I make it clear that that was not the intention which I was seeking. I was seeking to criticise the police authorities, who should have held the prisoner in the court, as they have others, until the warrant arrived for arrest. But I will leave that aspect.

    The second aspect is that of processions. Both the Home Secretary and the former Home Secretary talked of the rerouting of processions. Let me say that the Orangemen who marched last Saturday accepted every ruling and re-routing required of them, and every proposal made by the Security Committee, by the Army authorities and by the police authorities. All those rulings were accepted, and the parade marched in a roadway agreed by the security forces. Let it not be said that these men refused to accept the rulings of the authorities.

    So this was a legally constituted parade, but at Mayo Street, where it comes out to Springfield Road, for two hours before that parade reached the mouth of that road, preparations were being made to attack it. I must criticise here today, on behalf of those who suffered as the result of that attack, the Army authorities for not taking the necessary steps to ensure that stones, and potatoes in which were inserted razor blades, were not gathered for an attack upon that parade. When that parade was at the mouth of Mayo Street it was savagely attacked, and the Army personnel there stood with their backs to those who assaulted the parade, and facing the Orangemen as they marched, and eventually they released tear smoke at those who were marching, many of whom were injured as a result of the release of the tear smoke upon them.

    These are the facts. These facts have been put in another place and have been admitted by the Government in another place.

    It has been said that this procession sparked off the trouble in the City of Belfast. Anyone knowing the geography of the City of Belfast will know that Springfield Road and the Whiterock Orange Hall are many miles away from the centre of the city. In the centre of the city there was a carefully connived scheme to cause explosions and burnings, and many of the large stores in the centre of the city, including Burton’s, Woolworth’s and Trueform, were set on fire, and this was going on at a time when the procession was not anywhere near the vicinity, where, within those buildings, the people were carrying on their legitimate occupations.

    Let me say today that in East Belfast there was a very serious riot, as everyone is now aware. This happened because a tricolour was brought out of Seaforde Street and used to provoke the Protestants on the other side of the road, which happens to be the Protestant side of the road. When the people on the other side moved towards this tricolour, gunfire came from Seaforde Street, and many of the people were shot. At the same time two policemen were fired on further up the road as they attempted to control the crowd of people coming down to join in the fray, and, almost at the same time, from the Roman Catholic chapel on that road there came a burst of gunfire and it was as a result of this gunfire that almost 30 people were injured, and as a result of this gunfire a very serious situation arose on that road.

    People came to my home on a deputation, and they said, “What can we do? The Army are not there. The police have had to withdraw.” Because the police are a civilian force now there they must be withdrawn when there is gunfire. I got in touch with the Prime Minister’s secretary, and after listening to me he told me to get in touch with the British Army authorities, and after I got in touch with them they said they were sorry but the lines of communication were so far stretched they were not able to give protection to those people who were under gunfire at that particular time. The facts of this are already available to the Home Secretary if he will make himself available to the Government of Northern Ireland—these facts as I put them here today.

    So here we have a situation in which the citizens of Northern Ireland—and it does not matter what religion they may belong to—should be given equal treatment. What matters is that they should be given equal treatment. I come back to what the former Prime Minister said, that every citizen is entitled to equality of treatment. At the very same time as the Protestant people were being slaughtered in other parts there were plenty of Army units to give protection to the Roman Catholic people who sought protection. The only thing that can bring peace in Northern Ireland is a sense of security, so that every citizen of Northern Ireland may feel perfectly secure.

    Before I left my home I had a telephone call from a young lady who married a member of the British Army the other day. When she arrived at the church for her wedding she was attacked as she got out of the bridal car, and many of her friends were attacked and her guests were attacked and had eggs and tomatoes thrown at them, and someone called out “Orange b—” from the crowd which had gathered there. After the wedding was over her guests were again attacked.

    It is this type of thing which is going on in Northern Ireland and which leads to the unrest and the troubles in the province. Every citizen is entitled to protection, and I want to say on behalf of the citizens of Northern Ireland that we demand that we get the protection which we need. Because of the arrangements between the Government of that day and the Government of Northern Ireland arms were taken from the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and the Ulster Special Constabulary—a very fine force of men, irrespective of what any Member of the House may think—were disbanded, and as a result of their disbanding and the disarming of the B Specials there are parts of Belfast today which have no protection whatsoever.

    I am speaking on behalf of those people. It is all right for the former Home Secretary to stand at the Despatch Box this day and say that now it is a matter of Catholics fighting Protestants. It is no such thing, for in Londonderry it is a matter of Roman Catholics fighting the Army at the present time, and there is no confrontation whatsoever at the moment between the Protestant people in Londonderry and the Roman Catholic community.

    This House needs to hear first hand of these things. I know that there are others who take a view opposite from mine, and, no doubt, they will give their interpretation of what I see as certain facts, but what I want to say is that we should get away from mere academics today and realise that men and women are being slaughtered on the streets of Belfast and that this has resulted because adequate protection has not been given to the citizens of our province.

    I want further to say in regard to processions that it seems strange to me that there is all the plea today that Orange processions should be put off. What about the processions—provocative processions—which took place at Easter? There was no clamour from the benches opposite then for these celebrations to be put off. What about the recent procession of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) through the predominantly Unionist town of Enniskillen? That procession, carrying an Irish tricolour, marched through the area provocatively, broke the windows of the local Orange hall and pulled down the Union Jack from the masthead of the town hall. That is the sort of procession that leads to unrest. Yet the Protestant people of that town did not lift a stone or throw a petrol bomb at that procession.

    These are some of the facts that I feel this House should hear. I know that many of them will be unheeded. I know that I shall stand alone in many of the views that I have preached, but I will still continue to do my best to bring to the attention of this House from time to time the needs not only of the Protestant people of Northern Ireland but of all citizens who deserve full protection and security from the forces of the Crown.

  • Jim Paice – 2012 Speech at the Dairy UK Dinner

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jim Paice at the Dairy UK Dinner on the 15th June 2012.

    Thank you, as ever to Dairy UK, for the invitation to speak for the third year running. We seem to have a long-running contract despite our ups and downs.

    This last year has been quite active in the industry, regrettably some closures in hard economic times but also many investments, new ventures, take-overs and now mergers afoot.

    I will always welcome and congratulate those who have invested in the British dairy industry. It has to be a good sign for the future for British dairying that such huge sums of money are being ploughed-in.

    Isn’t this the kind of positive sign that shows at least some have got a strategic plan – and plans should bring confidence – which is so important for this industry – if you are ‘down’ you are really ‘down’ – but if you can be ‘up’, you can really be ‘up’.

    This is very different to what I inherited over 2 years ago. There was no clear, common, ground – beyond perhaps the Dairy Roadmap as it now is. As an industry you are building collaboration. We now have Dairy 2020 and I know you are edging closer to a voluntary Code of Practice.

    That was one of the challenges I laid down last year, but I’d like to look at the others first.

    I am committed through my Dairy Supply Chain Forum to get the most appropriate senior industry representatives around the table – it is the place where the industry can debate key issues with me and set the course for ‘what industry can do for itself’.

    I have been really encouraged by the commitment the industry has shown to work together since I took over and how far it has come already, with links to the growing Dairy2020 industry sustainability initiative – which I wholeheartedly support – and work on the Green Food Project which will report in July.

    However, I have also noticed how important it is to have the active engagement from everyone at the Forum if it is to develop solutions to key issues and see them delivered to secure the future of British dairying.

    A future for the hugely important UK dairy sector – it is our single largest agricultural sector, and part of our very fabric – and yet we import a quarter of our needs and we barely export our quality products.

    Why, when we have one of the best climates for grass-based production in the EU, do we have a £1.27 Billion dairy trade deficit?

    You know I have banged the table about import substitution. We’re only about 80% self sufficient and have room to expand against quota whilst it lasts for three more years. Let’s put more British products on British shelves.

    And let’s export: there are huge opportunities out there for the dairy industry – some of which I saw recently for myself in China.

    It demonstrated to me that the UK has many competitive advantages in its high quality and safe produce which is exactly what Chinese consumers want.

    Current consumption in China is just one quarter of the global average, but it is rapidly catching up. Just think what that means in terms of the extra volumes of dairy products. Yet when two of my team from the IGD visited 16 Chinese retail outlets – no UK produce. Only Dutch, Danish and Irish!

    I asked last year – what are the barriers to taking advantage of these opportunities? Over time everyone has blamed everyone but themselves. Can’t we take strength from our domestic market for liquid milk, but stop it dominating our thoughts, and use it instead as the constant from which to explore other exciting markets?

    Maybe these investments that have been going on over the last year will start to unlock some of this potential.

    Before I move to what was the key challenge, I should touch on one or two other issues of relevance to you all.

    I cannot make a speech on dairying without mentioning TB. The coalition Government committed, as part of a package of measures, to developing affordable options for a carefully managed, science-led badger control policy in areas of high and persistent levels of TB in cattle.

    But badger control is only one part of the package needed to rid us of this disease. Cattle measures are absolutely essential and it is vital that every single farmer plays their part by fully adhering to the cattle testing and movement requirements and we will come down hard on anyone who does not and who risks spreading TB within their and other people’s stock.

    Measures to reduce the risk of bovine TB being spread between cattle are to be strengthened as part of the Government’s plan to eradicate the disease in England.

    From 1 July amendments to the rules on cattle movements will come into force, alongside changes to compensation policy, including reduced payments for owners of TB affected herds with overdue tests.

    You will all be aware that the CAP reform negotiations are progressing following the publication last October of Commission’s proposals for CAP post 2013.

    We are seeking a CAP that delivers improved value for money through the provision of public goods such as protection of the natural environment and climate mitigation.

    We are also seeking a CAP that is able to increase the competitiveness of EU agriculture, with the scope to encourage a real improvement in productivity and innovation in the agriculture sector, in order to prepare for a future without income support.

    Pillar 2 plays a pivotal role in delivering environmental benefits, improving agricultural competitiveness and supporting rural vitality across the EU.

    This is why we are arguing that Pillar 2 should receive an increased share of a smaller CAP budget and should be allocated more objectively. This could open the door to funding to improve farm infrastructure and performance, to provide farm business development and advisory services and perhaps even the setting-up of producer groups.

    And whilst I speak of environmental benefits, I’ve said before how much I welcome your sector’s leadership on sustainability.  With Rio +20 coming up,  we’ve an opportunity to show how dynamic food and farming businesses are meeting the challenges of climate change and working through their supply chains to reduce emissions.  Agriculture can’t meet its aim to reduce GHGs without the active support of your businesses, and I’m counting on you within both Dairy UK and your own supply chains to collaborate and deliver on the GHG Action Plan.

    I’m confident that you’ll rise to the challenge of climate change, just as you’ve adapted and responded in your contribution to the sector’s Dairy Roadmap since it was first launched four years ago.  Continue to be a model for other sectors and other industries in both celebrating your achievements and pushing yourself further.

    The Dairy Roadmap shows the potential that exists for achieving real progress and recognition as an industry in dealing with the pressing environmental issues of the day.  I don’t know of any group that hasn’t welcomed what you’ve achieved, and I look forward to welcoming in the autumn the new goals you’ve set for yourself.

    I had also sincerely hoped to be welcoming today the adoption of your own voluntary Code of Practice on contractual relationships. I know that processor and producer representatives have met today but that you are not quite there yet.

    Whilst the EU Dairy Package brings farmers some hope of stronger contracts and bargaining power, processors fear it will unsettle the supply chain and threaten competitiveness. You will know in any case that we prefer not to legislate. Indeed under MacDonald we’re seeking to reduce the burden of legislation where possible.

    And you as processors and farmers will all know that I believe that a code of practice is the best solution to current relationship problems.

    It would allow the industry to find an agreed way forward on a number of issues which the Dairy Package will not, including the management of price changes and notice periods for contracts, which are critical to both producers and processors. The code can also deal with exclusivity of supply.

    But it cannot and will not affect prices specifically. However, it should improve the trust in your relationships to a point where you are genuinely working together.

    I am not aware of anyone disagreeing just now that a voluntary code is preferable to where we are today and is the best solution.

    I have been impressed by and would like to recognise tonight the degree of engagement and commitment that industry representatives involved in these negotiations have shown in driving this forward for themselves.

    I know that it is not easy achieving such changes at industry level, but I also recognise the need for the entire supply chain to achieve a successful outcome.

    You are not quite there yet – but I implore you all to recognise the benefit you could bring this iconic British industry if you can just reach agreement on a sensible compromise.

    We all know, from recent weeks, that market prices are a real concern – but volatility of world markets will affect both processors and farmers in the UK.

    Price peaks don’t reach us because we don’t trade enough internationally, but price drops do hit us because of the risk of cheaper imports of any tradable products – albeit we see less impact than elsewhere in the EU, thanks in particular to our strong domestic liquid market.

    But the real problem in contractual relationships isn’t the price, it is really about the terms and conditions of contracts – and particularly the manner of any changes to them which can be hard to justify.

    As I understand it, what farmers really need is a contract that is fair and a price that is more transparent. It doesn’t have to be a formula or static price – it simply has to be something they can understand, believe in and can trust.

    Farmers understand that more revenue could be secured by trading more broadly. We know farmers would love more income – but they also understand that the market in which we trade will be the major influence.

    They can however have far more say on achieving a better balance to contractual terms, but need to be realistic about what this will achieve.

    A key element which farmers seek is the ability to resign from contracts within a reasonably short timeframe, particularly in the event that they don’t like a price change.

    This room is full of milk processors. In all your time, how many of you have received resignations from farmers because of a price change?

    All of you and lots of resignations I expect. But how many of those farmers who put in their resignations actually moved?

    Very few – and why? Quite simply because the prevailing market didn’t offer them anything better to go to.

    Greater freedom to move between processors does not guarantee farmers a significantly better price. Nobody likes being told they’re going to be paid less, but ultimately, if the prevailing price goes down, are farmers going to be able to secure a better price elsewhere? Frankly, no.

    How come businesses have succeeded in keeping the vast majority of their farmers despite operating with the shortest notice periods amongst major processors?

    Given this history, I ask you – why is there so much concern about farmers changing their processors? Is it not rather more simple?

    It is a two way street – I know processors need to be able to respond to market conditions such as changes in market prices or demand, but you also need security of supply.

    Processors who treat farmers properly have nothing to worry about. And this is what you should be aiming to achieve through the voluntary Code of Practice.

    The dairy industry is important to Britain’s rural economy and the manner of recent cuts to farm gate milk prices has been a real concern for many people.

    However, in a volatile market everybody knows prices will go up and down. The key is for us to build trust and transparency, so that farmers and processors can work together and take advantage of the huge business opportunities both here and abroad.

    A voluntary code of practice will mean people having to do things slightly differently – but it will ultimately benefit the industry as a whole – and I implore all sides to make a final push and agree a workable compromise.

  • Dave Prentis – 2013 Speech to UNISON Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Dave Prentis, the union General Secretary, to the UNISON conference on 18th June 2013.

    Welcome to conference, and welcome to Liverpool. A great city steeped in our trade union history –  a Tory free city-  a proud city that for centuries has fought valiantly for working class people and for what is right.

    That fighting spirit defined so perfectly by the magnificent Hillsborough campaign, a campaign that unites this city, where families have battled for 24 long years to seek truth and justice. We will never forget the sickening vilification by the Sun and the establishment as they tried to bury the truth.

    This union has stood with these families from the outset. And today we pledge to continue our support, until they get the justice they deserve, until there is justice for the 96! And right at the start of my speech, I want to say, I stand by what I said last year, we must break the pay policy. And we must build our members’ resolve. And that is why I welcome Sunday’s united call for a national campaign on pay in local government.

    And as the majority union I call on our sister unions in GMB and UNITE to join with us in that campaign. Either we stand together united, or our members are hung out to dry. And to our members in mid-Yorkshire hospitals, hundreds of whom stood strong, to the 17 branches balloting for industrial action, and to our sisters in Rochdale – Future Directions, we send you a message of solidarity and support. And to our Scottish local government members balloting over industrial action on pay – this union salutes you and will rally behind you.

    And to our President, Chris, who started his working life here in Liverpool – a calm, cool, caring President – on behalf of our conference, I thank you. And on your behalf, I’m proud to welcome our international guests, trade unionists from across the globe, unions we work with on a daily basis, comrades we campaign with, battling together for that more equal society. In some countries, their lives under threat just for being a trade unionist. And let’s applaud the release of one of the Miami 5 who is. Free because of our joint campaigning.

    Never say we don’t make a world of difference. And to those unions across the world, at the forefront of those battles, in Palestine, Syria, Turkey, Colombia, who face tear gas, brutality, bullets, we send today a clear message that this union will always stand in solidarity with you. And at home we have our own battles on our hands. The Tories see opportunity, opportunity to reduce wages, cut sick pay. impoverish our future. They wan to take away our employment rights with punitive charges to access justice. Those brutal charges – up to £1,000 take a case to an employment tribunal. A devastating denial of justice, but we will not allow our members to suffer in this way. Conference, our union will pay our members tribunal fees up front, because we care, because it’s the right thing to do.

    This union – the only union that has applied to the high court for a judicial review to stop these fees. Just as we’re the union taking on rogue councils like Barnet in the employment courts. And it is UNISON in the Supreme Court, the European court, Challenging the decisions of this vicious coalition. And now in the ILO the international labour organisation, UNISON and UNISON alone challenging the anti-union laws, and the harsh restrictions on the right to strike in this country. We have a legal strategy to underpin our political work. It’s never a substitute for strong organisation, but where we can we’ll use it to take on the establishment and this coalition.

    I don’t have to tell people in this hall that we are in the eye of a storm. You more than anyone are living it.

    Protecting members who are kept awake at night by the fear of losing their job. You more than anyone can see what is happening in our workplaces, In our communities, to families around the country.  While those at the top cream off the wealth, our people, pay the price. And as the carnage mounts, the victims are countless. The true loss incalculable. How many lives will be diminished? How many children will miss their chance? How many families will be broken by the strain?

    The Tories using the recession to destroy our welfare state with no price too high for our people to pay. A scorched earth policy of welfare cuts and spending cuts to shrink our state beyond repair. Creating an intolerant society where the vulnerable are pilloried. They are trying to finish what Thatcher started. Cameron, Osborne, his Tory faithful, crying crocodile tears at her funeral. The self same Tories who ruthlessly ditched her as a liability. £10 million pounds on a funeral to assuage their guilt. £10 million that would have treated 300 cancer patients. A waste of public money – hypocrisy at its worst.  The longest deepest slump in over a century. Wages in free fall except for those who caused the crisis in the first place. Our public services savaged. Local government, education, probation, homecare, police staffs, the voluntary sector all hung out to dry, cast aside by this government. Politicians talk of austerity when they mean cruelty, vindictiveness, ideology. They talk about transformation  when they mean destruction. And they have the audacity to talk about growth, But in Osborne’s brave new world, there has been growth. Growth of the pay day loan industry – grown ten fold in 4 years, desperate borrowers in a vicious cycle of debt with no way out. And to add insult to injury, the Lib Dems call on the government to do more to curb the lenders, as though they are not in government.

    Taking their opportunism to a new level. A growing new banking industry – food banks – massive rise in users. The growth in the tax avoidance industry – now in overdrive, with only last week a foul stench from Thames Water

    – No tax paid on profits of £549 million as a new tax dodger is added to the list.

    – Growth in free schools, as Michael Gove, secretly plans to allow them to make a profit.

    Conference, If anyone needs a re-sit it’s Michael Gove. And didn’t he get it so wrong when he attacked our teaching assistants with his supporters? How out of touch can you be? The mumsnet website collapsed. There was a national outpouring of support for our teaching assistants, and rightly so. And I say to every teaching assistant in this hall today and in our union, you have our full support and respect for the essential jobs you do. And if Michael Gove ever tries to do it – we will fight him and we will win.

    And now the most vicious assault on our welfare state. And in the past year, the cruellest attacks yet on the weak and vulnerable. Welfare legislation designed to crush the very people who need the help the most ordinary people attacked for being too sick to work; for having a disability; for falling on hard times. They are punished for being part of a growing number left behind. Worst of all, conference. the vile and vicious bedroom tax – a callous attack on thousands of  households, as poor people are forced out of their communities.  A tax we expect no Labour Council to implement. A cruel tax we will fight to the bitter end, just as we did the Poll Tax. If we stopped the poll tax, we can stop the bedroom tax. And in the tabloid press, so much is written about benefits abuses – young women having babies to get state hand-outs.

    Our NHS, celebrated in unforgettable style by Danny Boyle at the Olympics, and yet, in England, to be chopped up and sold off to the highest bidder. The hated Health Act – a massive top down reorganisation that was never mentioned in any manifesto. Competition, markets thrust into the heart of our most cherished institution and as we celebrate the 65th anniversary, remember what Nye Bevan said all those years ago when he was asked if the NHS was secure. He said, it will last as long as there are folk left to fight for it. Well conference, we are those folk. we are the ones who must fight to deliver it to future generations, we are the ones who must mobilise our communities to stand up for what is ours.

    And conference, with the election less than two years away, it is our week to set out a new agenda radical, bold, progressive, that builds on our past 20 years  but now looks to the future. A UNISON agenda, where we campaign and are visible, Our union organising rallies, protests, demonstrations. in every city and every town. An agenda where we work towards co-ordinated action – as a tactic, not an end itself. Where we are bold on policy – UNISON policy. A massive house building programme – of council housing, social housing –  no more housing benefit for rich landlords.

    With a banking system that’s transparent, accountable – made to lend money for house building and infrastructure. And our railways back to public ownership, where they behave to serve the public, not the privateers. But more than anything conference, we demand from Labour the full repeal of the Health Act and the restoration of our National Health Service  we are the folk who will fight for it. Conference, we have mountains to climb, but we can’t do it alone. We need to work with our sisters and brothers in other trade unions, with our communities, and we need Labour on our side.

    For too long we’re built the careers of Labour politicians, only to be let down when we needed them most.I don’t want to hear Labour apologising for past mistakes, I want to see a clear agenda from Labour for the future.  We must not support a Labour Government that does not: put an end to privatisation and market madness or restore our NHS- invest in our public services, restore the facility time taken away from our activists, restore workers rights and remove the shackles on trade unions. We want a clear vision for a more equal society. Using power to support our class like the Tories always do. And for Ed Balls, it’s time to decide which side are you on? Ed cutting welfare and rivalling Tory spending cuts may win you support in the right wing press, but it won’t win you the next election. And to Ed Miliband, a bit of advice from me in the words of Nye Bevan: We know what happens to people who stay in the middle of the road – they get run down.

    And conference, there has been a lot of talk about UKIP. Their easy answer to all our problems. when times are tough and anxiety is high,. Easy answers are attractive, but conference UKIP will never be the answer. A party led by stock brokers and financiers – Farage – conman extraordinaire, but lurking behind that beer swilling grin is a calculating operator. He has much to say on immigration and Europe, but a deathly silence on his plans to tear up your rights by ending sick pay and paid holidays and slash health and safety, scaremongering and cynical, like Enoch Powell. And I say to those politicians who think it’s best to keep quiet , I say, UKIP if you want to – but UNISON will never. We will take them on, building on our work in local communities – to defeat the EDL, the BNP – We will take UKIP on too! And last week I met Doreen Lawrence to talk about our work – her work – about doing more.

    Doreen was fearful of the increase in racial tension, the relentless racist attacks, the vile thuggery of the far right – the BNP, the EDL. And conference -I share her fears. And that’s why today we must re-double our efforts. And I as general secretary, will double the resources we put into our anti-racist campaigning. A promise – from me and a clear commitment from this union – that racist bigots will not take us backwards, because we will be the union that stands in their way.

    Conference, you, our activists are our lifeblood. And I want to thank you for all you do, continuing the fight for others, day in day out. And what unites us all is that we are all part of the same trade union family – an international family, united by our shared values – justice, equality, solidarity. Solidarity I’m told is old fashioned, had its day. But for me it’s time has come. Solidarity is what drives our great union, it is what drives me. It’s at the heart of our union, and our movement and our dreams. It’s the solidarity we show to each other – from day to day. It’s the solidarity we have for our members when times are tough. It’s the solidarity we lend to those in struggle, in our own union, in other unions. It’s the hand that we reach out to trade unionists across the world as they battle for justice and survival. Solidarity our driving force – giving our union strength through these torrid and terrifying days. Solidarity that makes us achieve so much more when we work together than when we walk alone. This is our week to show the world we are strong, standing up for our members and public services, offering hope to those who say it can’t be stopped, and answers to those who ask what we can do. We are united that in solidarity – we will build a stronger union and we will fight for a better world.

  • Enoch Powell – 1977 Contribution to the Scotland Bill

    Enoch Powell, referring to the comments made by Tam Dalyell, coined the phrase “The West Lothian Question”. The comments were made on 14th November 1977.

    Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)

    I was deeply moved, in the speech of the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), to hear him enunciate the principle that should apply to this Bill – namely, that a constitutional change of this importance should not be passed through a deeply divided House of Commons and that, if these changes are to be made, they should be made with as near full-hearted consent – the phrase was not originally mine – as can be achieved. I take it as a sign of grace in the right hon. Gentleman, who was the Chief Whip in 1972, when an even greater constitutional change than is proposed in this Bill was carried through by a majority of only eight, that he now speaks for so many in saying that that is not the atmosphere and not the way in which such changes should be made.

    There is inevitably a certain repetitiveness in this debate after those which took place a year ago. We recall that the Bill of last year, containing a Scottish Bill Mark I, received a substantial majority on Second Reading, but that three months later it foundered on what was in form a procedural motion but was well understood by the House to be a verdict on the Bill itself.

    What was the reason for that apparently striking change between a majority for the principle and then, after a number of sittings in Committee, the dismissal of the same principle, the dismissal of the Bill itself? It was, I believe – I think that this will be supported by a number of hon. Members who lived through those days of debate – because the House had come to see that there were deep, unresolved, and perhaps unresolvable, questions which the Government had not answered and had shown no indication of being able to answer. That is where we are again this afternoon.

    This afternoon the Secretary of State for Scotland showed himself unable to explain what would be the function of Scottish Members in this House. But behind there looms the much larger question not of the function of Scottish Members in this House in regard to Scottish affairs, but of the whole functioning of this House, when 71 of its Members come from a part of the United Kingdom where the responsibility for a great range of legislation, and consequently of policy, is borne by elected representatives elsewhere.

    This is the question with which, by an iteration for which he should be praised rather than blamed, the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has identified himself. It is not the fault of the hon. Gentleman that the Government cannot answer the question. Nor does it answer his question to say that if he goes on asking it he will not be allowed to vote. Nor does it solve the question, or resolve the dilemma, to tell the House that the measure is to be whipped through on a three-line Whip, or to whisper outside the Chamber about votes on matters of confidence.

    The fact that the question has never been answered is the evidence that we are in this legislation attempting to do something which runs contrary to a principle established by common sense, by experience and by endless debate over decades, namely, that it is not possible within a unitary parliamentary State to devolve widespread legislative authority to an elective Assembly in one part of that State unless the State itself is to be resolved into a federation. The question as to the position of Scottish Members after such a change as this Bill proposes, the question whether they are all to vote or none is to vote, or half of them are to vote, is not a conundrum or a trick question. It is a theorem which illustrates an underlying principle which time and again we are seeking ways to affront. I repeat that experience – painful experience, experience attended with tragic results – has shown that there is no means of circumventing the logic of the question which the hon. Member for West Lothian has so insistently posed.

    I expect that the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council, if he does me the honour to notice my remarks when he replies to the debate –

    Mr. Millan

    My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Privy Council Office, will be replying.

    Mr. Powell

    Well, if I am not to have that honour, then there will be others who will deploy the same argument. At all events, the Lord President has frequently thrown back the precedent, as he would fain claim it to be, of the government of Northern Ireland between 1922 and 1972. He understands, of course, perfectly well what is the answer to his question, but it is well that it should be understood generally and that there should be no suggestion that there is any way out, or any resolution, offered by the experience of Northern Ireland.

    There is in the first place, as has often been observed, the entire difference of scale. It is one thing for 71 Members, or half that number – especially in Parliaments where majorities may be narrow – to hold the balance on great issues of policy. It is quite a different thing, during decades in which such narrow majorities have been unusual, for a very small number of Members to have been tolerated in this House and for the adherence of the majority of them to one of the great parties to have been overlooked, not without criticism, by those who belonged to other political parties.

    But I will not rest upon the matter of scale, though in itself the de minimis rule applies – Northern Ireland has been de minimis in this matter over the last 50 or 60 years. But that does not go to the heart of it. Does anyone who knows anything about the story of the 1920s really imagine that Home Rule was forced upon the people of Northern Ireland, as forced it was, in order to strengthen the United Kingdom; that it was done in order to tighten the ties between that Province and Great Britain? On the contrary, it was done in order to achieve by two steps, since one step proved for the time being to be impracticable, what people already then knew was the true meaning of Home Rule – the separation of the island of Ireland from the United Kingdom. It was only the fact that the motivation of the majority in the Province was not nationalist, that their overwhelming desire was so to use the institutions they had been given that the union would not be disturbed or threatened, which during all that period prevented the inherent consequences of devolved legislation in a unitary State, even upon that tiny scale, from becoming evident.

    But, of course, it is something quite different which is proposed in the Bill, and the Government themselves recognise that it is something different. The Government recognise it in the Bill itself by the crass contradiction between Clause 1 of the Bill – with its bland assertion, which flies in the face of experience and of common sense – and Clause 81, which appeals to the popular will as expressed by referendum, not in the United Kingdom but in Scotland. Why, Mr. Speaker? If this is a constitutional reform, a reform which, as the Government assert, will leave the United Kingdom intact, but undoubtedly a constitutional reform which will put one part of the United Kingdom in an entirely new and – dare I say? – privileged position, then, if this is a United Kingdom Bill, if it is a measure which recognises and sustains the union, to whom, if not to this House, to whom beyond this House, ought that issue to be submitted? Not to the people of one part of the United Kingdom but to the people of the United Kingdom as a whole.

    There is only one set of circumstances, there is only one context, in which it is right and logical to go to a part of the people of the United Kingdom and say “Do you agree with this or not?” Those are the circumstances in which such a question was put in 1973 to the people of Northern Ireland, namely, when the question is: “Do you want in or out?”

    The reason why this referendum is to be limited to the people of Scotland is that the Government recognise – it is an implicit admission – that what is at stake in this Bill is the separation of Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom, on which, of course, it should be the people of Scotland, and ultimately the people of Scotland only, who should have a voice.

    This is a Bill by which the whole Kingdom is affected, by which every hon. Member of this House is affected, by which every constituent of every hon. Member of this House is affected. There is a list set out in Part I of Schedule 10 of the subjects on which the Scottish Assembly will be empowered to legislate. Hon. Members might do worse than spend part of the time between now and 11 pm reading Part I of Schedule 10 of the Bill. As they do so, hon. Members representing constituencies in England should say to themselves “On all these questions it is even chances that the decisions in the future as to the law which is to apply to my constituents will be taken by the deciding vote of Scottish Members of the House of Commons, Members who in that context are irresponsible; that is, who have no corresponding responsibility upon that subject to their own constituents.”

    On housing, planning, health and all the rest, the law for England is to be made by an assembly in which often enough the decision will be in the hands of Members representing Scottish constituencies, by the majority within the 71. What would the Government not have given in the last three years for the difference between the minority and the majority among 71 Members of the House? Occasionally they have been eased round a difficult corner by a very much lesser margin than would be available from 71 Members.

    Mr. Raison

    Would not the right hon. Gentleman also stress that it is not only the law of England that will be so affected but the law of Wales and the law of Northern Ireland, and that Members representing constituencies in Wales and Northern Ireland should also bear these facts in mind?

    Mr. Powell

    That is certainly true. I did not mention the Welsh in this context, because we are to come to them tomorrow, and I confess that I thought I might be engaging in de minimis if I associated little Northern Ireland with England in the injustice which we shall jointly suffer, and which our constituents will jointly suffer under a constitution of this type.

    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot)

    I want to get quite clear from the right hon. Gentleman how he seeks to remedy the injustice. I do not want to misunderstand his amendment in any way. The amendment is “That this House declines to give the Scotland Bill a second reading so long as Northern Ireland, an integral part of the United Kingdom, remains deprived of any devolved or local administration above the level of district councils.” If we were at some future date to be able to get, say, a devolution for Northern Ireland on the same scale as is proposed in this Bill for Scotland, would that overcome the right hon. Gentleman’s other constitutional objections to the Bill?

    Mr. Powell

    I cannot really believe that the right hon. Gentleman has read our amendment so myopically, or that he is unaware that whereas in Scotland they have regional administration and district administration, we in Northern Ireland have democratic control over only the most minimal subjects. In our amendment we are concerned with what those in Scotland already possess, with local administration of the general policies and laws which are decided for the kingdom as a whole. Let us by all means devolve, and devolve to democratic assemblies, the administration of the laws which are made in this House and of the policies which are framed in this House. That we can do without incurring the curse which this Bill incurs. But if we go beyond that, there arises again the West Lothian question, to tell us “In that event you must resolve the Union into a federation unless you are to end up in inextricable contradictions and injustices in the House of Commons, which is the essence of our Parliamentary Union.”

    Mr. Foot

    Will the right hon. Gentleman apply his mind to this question? Did not the West Lothian question – I perfectly agree with him that he was entitled to call it that – apply during that period earlier when we did have the devolved constitutional situation in Northern Ireland? Is he advocating the restoration of a position in which the West Lothian question would still be applied to Northern Ireland?

    Mr. Powell

    In answer to that, perhaps I might read words from the policy statement of my own party, which it arrived at three years ago in what was called the Portrush Declaration: “we do not believe that devolution itself would be appropriate. A British federal system would serve the dual purpose of maintaining the Union and ensuring the democratic rights of the entire Ulster people.” From the beginning to the end of this question, from the days of Isaac Butt in the 1860s right the way through to the present, the theorem has been understood, by those who had the patience to understand it and were not blinded by what they thought were contemporary political necessities, that one cannot in a unitary State devolve legislative power to the representatives of a part of that State unless one resolves the State itself into a federation.

    Of course, if there be found some way, after all these years, some way which has escaped 100 years of British politicians, or if there is to be a British federation, a federation of the United Kingdom, we in Northern Ireland shall claim – I use words which we reiterate – the same rights as are enjoyed by any other part of the kingdom. But our supreme interest is in the maintenance of the unity of the United Kingdom. We do not claim to be a nation; we claim to be a province of this nation. So we of all who come to this House have a vested interest, perhaps greater than any, in the preservation of the parliamentary Union. It is because we believe that the parliamentary Union would inevitably be eroded and then dissolved if such a measure as this were to be forced into operation that my hon. Friends and I, as we did last Session, will vote against this measure at every stage until it is destroyed.

    Mr. Norman Buchan (Renfrewshire, West)

    I have no intention of following the argument of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) relating to Ireland. However, I accept that the West Lothian question, if that is what it is to be called, is a central weakness of the proposals before us. I am not at all sure that it is a central weakness which is soluble merely by the application of logic. I do not think that it can be answered only in these terms. It can be seen and answered only within the context of not only these proposals but the reasons for these proposals and, above all, the background of these proposals.

    The truth is that if we were to examine any constitution we would find it full of flaws. I shudder to think of what the right hon. Member for Down, South would make of the British constitution if we were to try to write it out in full legislative form and analyse it clause by clause. I can think of no constitution that would be more shot through with flaws – as the right hon. Gentleman claims this is, on one particular and obvious point. Would any of us have devised a British constitution in which we would have failed to take action on the sovereignty of the elected Parliament and then said “By the way, we shall have a chamber at the end of the corridor which can delay and overturn these measures”? What nonsense. What denunciations we would have received from the right hon. Member for Down, South.

    Therefore, we have to look at this in the perspective of the weakness of all constitutions. We have to say, given a constitution which will have flaws, can that constitution operate because the will of the people is such that it should operate? One thing that we have to devise here is precisely the kind of solution which will command the support of the general will behind it. That is the only reason that this place works, and it is the only reason that the proposed Assembly and the new structures, both of this place and in the Assembly, will work – if there is the general will to make it work.

    It is no use saying that Northern Ireland was exceptional because of the de minimis argument. I accept this, but what this is saying is that there was a flaw in the situation which was tolerated and which worked. It worked for half a century, however badly, because it was a de minimis situation. That, at least, was deserting logic. That was at least dealing with the practicalities of the situation – that there was a general acceptance that it should work for a period until a flaw developed. If I were sure that the Assembly proposals would work comfortably for half a century, during that process I think that we could find the necessary change and, above all, the modus vivendi which would allow it to operate.

    There was a deep political reason – not the logical reason – for its failing in Northern Ireland. It was a political reason. It was the presence of partition. It was that which caused the breakdown in Northern Ireland, and not the illogicality of the constitution.

    Mr. Powell

    The hon. Member is entirely right in saying that, apart from the de minimis argument, it worked only because of the determination of those concerned, under constant threat as they were, not to use the powers which they had in any fashion which would differentiate them from the rest of the United Kingdom. The hon. Member has the point.

  • Enoch Powell – 1968 Rivers of Blood Speech

    By Allan warren - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=13721986
    By Allan warren – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=13721986

    Below is the text of the speech made by Enoch Powell on 20 April 1968 in Birmingham.

    The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature. One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future. Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: “If only,” they love to think, “if only people wouldn’t talk about it, it probably wouldn’t happen.”

    Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical. At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician.

    Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after. A week or two ago I fell into conversation with a constituent, a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalised industries. After a sentence or two about the weather, he suddenly said: “If I had the money to go, I wouldn’t stay in this country.” I made some deprecatory reply to the effect that even this government wouldn’t last for ever; but he took no notice, and continued: “I have three children, all of them been through grammar school and two of them married now, with family. I shan’t be satisfied till I have seen them all settled overseas. In this country in 15 or 20 years’ time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.”

    I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by repeating such a conversation? The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so. Here is a decent, ordinary fellow Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that his country will not be worth living in for his children. I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking – not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history. In 15 or 20 years, on present trends, there will be in this country three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. That is not my figure. That is the official figure given to parliament by the spokesman of the Registrar General’s Office. There is no comparable official figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of five to seven million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population, and approaching that of Greater London. Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population.

    As time goes on, the proportion of this total who are immigrant descendants, those born in England, who arrived here by exactly the same route as the rest of us, will rapidly increase. Already by 1985 the native-born would constitute the majority. It is this fact which creates the extreme urgency of action now, of just that kind of action which is hardest for politicians to take, action where the difficulties lie in the present but the evils to be prevented or minimised lie several parliaments ahead.

    The natural and rational first question with a nation confronted by such a prospect is to ask: “How can its dimensions he reduced?” Granted it be not wholly preventable, can it be limited, bearing in mind that numbers are of the essence: the significance and consequences of an alien element introduced into a country or population are profoundly different according to whether that element is 1 per cent or 10 per cent. The answers to the simple and rational question are equally simple and rational: by stopping, or virtually stopping, further inflow, and by promoting the maximum outflow. Both answers are part of the official policy of the Conservative Party.

    It almost passes belief that at this moment 20 or 30 additional immigrant children are arriving from overseas in Wolverhampton alone every week – and that means 15 or 20 additional families a decade or two hence. Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fiances whom they have never seen. Let no one suppose that the flow of dependants will automatically tail off. On the contrary, even at the present admission rate of only 5,000 a year by voucher, there is sufficient for a further 25,000 dependants per annum ad infinitum, without taking into account the huge reservoir of existing relations in this country ñ and I am making no allowance at all for fraudulent entry. In these circumstances nothing will suffice but that the total inflow for settlement should be reduced at once to negligible proportions, and that the necessary legislative and administrative measures be taken without delay.

    I turn to re-emigration. If all immigration ended tomorrow, the rate of growth of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population would be substantially reduced, but the prospective size of this element in the population would still leave the basic character of the national danger unaffected. This can only be tackled while a considerable proportion of the total still comprises persons who entered this country during the last ten years or so. Hence the urgency of implementing now the second element of the Conservative Party’s policy: the encouragement of re-emigration. Nobody can make an estimate of the numbers which, with generous assistance, would choose either to return to their countries of origin or to go to other countries anxious to receive the manpower and the skills they represent. Nobody knows, because no such policy has yet been attempted. I can only say that, even at present, immigrants in my own constituency from time to time come to me, asking if I can find them assistance to return home. If such a policy were adopted and pursued with the determination which the gravity of the alternative justifies, the resultant outflow could appreciably alter the prospects.

    The third element of the Conservative Party’s policy is that all who are in this country as citizens should be equal before the law and that there shall be no discrimination or difference made between them by public authority. As Mr Heath has put it we will have no “first-class citizens” and “second-class citizens “. This does not mean that the immigrant and his descendent should be elevated into a privileged or special class or that the citizen should be denied his right to discriminate in the management of his own affairs between one fellow-citizen and another or that he should be subjected to imposition as to his reasons and motive for behaving in one lawful manner rather than another.

    There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it “against discrimination”, whether they be leader writers of the same kidney and sometimes on the same news papers which year after year in the 1930s tried to blind this country to the rising peril which confronted it, or archbishops who live in palaces, faring delicately with the bedclothes pulled right up over their heads. They have got it exactly and diametrically wrong. The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and of resentment, lies not with the immigrant population but with those among whom they have come and are still coming. This is why to enact legislation of the kind before parliament at this moment is to risk throwing a match on to gunpowder. The kindest thing that can be said about those who propose and support it is that they know not what they do.

    Nothing is more misleading than comparison between the Commonwealth immigrant in Britain and the American negro. The negro population of the United States, which was already in existence before the United States became a nation, started literally as slaves and were later given the franchise and other rights of citizenship, to the exercise of which they have only gradually and still incompletely come. The Commonwealth immigrant came to Britain as a full citizen, to a country which knew no discrimination between one citizen and another, and he entered instantly into the possession of the rights of every citizen, from the vote to free treatment under the National Health Service. Whatever drawbacks attended the immigrants arose not from the law or from public policy or from administration, but from those personal circumstances and accidents which cause, and always will cause, the fortunes and experience of one man to be different from another’s.

    But while, to the immigrant, entry to this country was admission to privileges and opportunities eagerly sought, the impact upon the existing population was very different. For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country.

    They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted. They now learn that a one way privilege is to be established by act of parliament; a law which cannot, and is not intended to, operate to protect them or redress their grievances is to be enacted to give the stranger, the disgruntled and the agent-provocateur the power to pillory them for their private actions.

    In the hundreds upon hundreds of letters I received when I last spoke on this subject two or three months ago, there was one striking feature which was largely new and which I find ominous. All Members of Parliament are used to the typical anonymous correspondent; but what surprised and alarmed me was the high proportion of ordinary, decent, sensible people, writing a rational and often well-educated letter, who believed that they had to omit their address because it was dangerous to have committed themselves to paper to a Member of Parliament agreeing with the views I had expressed, and that they would risk penalties or reprisals if they were known to have done so. The sense of being a persecuted minority which is growing among ordinary English people in the areas of the country which are affected is something that those without direct experience can hardly imagine. I am going to allow just one of those hundreds of people to speak for me:

    “Eight years ago in a respectable street in Wolverhampton a house was sold to a negro. Now only one white (a woman old-age pensioner) lives there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war. So she turned her seven-roomed house, her only asset, into a boarding house. She worked hard and did well, paid off her mortgage and began to put something by for her old age. Then the immigrants moved in. With growing fear, she saw one house after another taken over. The quiet street became a place of noise and confusion Regretfully, her white tenants moved out.

    “The day after the last one left, she was awakened at 7am by two negroes who wanted to use her phone to contact their employer. When she refused, as she would have refused any stranger at such an hour, she was abused and feared she would have been attacked but for the chain on her door. Immigrant families have tried to rent rooms in her house, but she always refused. Her little store of money went, and after paying rates, she has less than 2 per week. She went to apply for a rate reduction and was seen by a young girl,.who on hearing she had a seven-roomed house, suggested she should let part of it. When she said the only people she could get were negroes, the girl said, ‘Racial prejudice won’t get you anywhere in this country.’ So she went home.

    “The telephone is her lifeline. Her family pay the bill, and help her out as best they can. Immigrants have offered to buy her house ñ at a price which the prospective landlord would be able to recover from his tenants in weeks, or at most a few months. She is becoming afraid to go out. Windows are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letter box. When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know. ‘Racialist’, they chant. When the new Race Relations Bill is passed, this woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong? I begin to wonder”

    The other dangerous delusion from which those who are wilfully or otherwise blind to realities suffer, is summed up in the word “integration”. To be integrated into a population means to become for all practical purposes indistinguishable from its other members. Now, at all times, where there are marked physical differences, especially of colour, integration is difficult though, over a period, not impossible. There are among the Commonwealth immigrants who have come to live here in the last 15 years many thousands whose wish and purpose is to be integrated and whose every thought and endeavour is bent in that direction. But to imagine that such a thing enters the heads of a great and growing majority of immigrants and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception, and a dangerous one.

    We are on the verge here of a change. Hitherto it has been force of circumstance and of background which has rendered the very idea of integration inaccessible to the greater part of the immigrant population – that they never conceived or intended such a thing, and that their numbers and physical concentration meant the pressures towards integration which normally bear upon any small minority did not operate. Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population. The cloud no bigger than a man’s hand, that can so rapidly overcast the sky, has been visible recently in Wolverhampton and has shown signs of spreading quickly. The words I am about to use, verbatim as they appeared in the local press on 17 February, are not mine, but those of a Labour Member of Parliament who is a minister in the present government “The Sikh communities’ campaign to maintain customs inappropriate in Britain is much to be regretted. Working in Britain, particularly in the public services, they should be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of their employment. To claim special communal rights (or should they say rites?) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This communalism is a canker; whether practised by one colour or another it is to be strongly condemned.” All credit to John Stonehouse for having had the insight to perceive that, and the courage to say it.

    For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here is the means of showing that the immigrator communities can organise to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see “the River Tiber foaming with much blood”. That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century. Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.

  • George Osborne – 2015 Budget Speech

    Below is the text of the speech made by George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the House of Commons on 18 March 2015.

    Mr Deputy Speaker,

    Today, I report on a Britain that is growing, creating jobs and paying its way.

    We took difficult decisions in the teeth of opposition and it worked – Britain is walking tall again.

    Five years ago, our economy had suffered a collapse greater than almost any country.

    Today, I can confirm: in the last year we have grown faster than any other major advanced economy in the world.

    Five years ago, millions of people could not find work.

    Today, I can report: more people have jobs in Britain than ever before.

    Five years ago, living standards were set back years by the Great Recession.

    Today, the latest projections show that living standards will be higher than when we came to office.

    Five years ago, the deficit was out of control.

    Today, as a share of national income it is down by more than a half.

    Five years ago, we were bailing out the banks.

    Today, I can tell the House: we’re selling more bank shares and getting taxpayers’ money back.

    We set out a plan. That plan is working. Britain is walking tall again.

    So Mr Deputy Speaker, the critical choice facing the country now is this: do we return to the chaos of the past?

    Or do we say to the British people, let’s go on working through the plan that is delivering for you?

    Today we make that critical choice: we choose the future.

    We choose, as the central judgement of this Budget, to use whatever additional resources we have to get the deficit and the debt falling.

    No unfunded spending.

    No irresponsible extra borrowing.

    For no short term giveaway can ever begin to help people as much as the long term benefits of a recovering national economy.

    In the Emergency Budget I presented to this House 5 years ago I said we would turn Britain around – and in this last Budget of the Parliament we will not waiver from that task.

    For we choose the future.

    Our goal is for Britain to become the most prosperous major economy in the world, with that prosperity widely shared.

    So we choose economic security.

    This Budget commits us to the difficult decisions to eliminate our deficit and get our national debt share falling.

    We choose jobs.

    This Budget does more to back business and make work pay, so we create full employment.

    We choose the whole nation.

    The Budget makes new investments in manufacturing and science and the northern powerhouse for a truly national recovery.

    We choose responsibility.

    This Budget takes further action to support savers and pensioners.

    We choose aspiration.

    This Budget backs the self-employed, the small business-owner and the homebuyer.

    We choose families.

    This Budget helps hard-working people keep more of the money they have earned.

    This is a Budget that takes Britain one more big step on the road from austerity to prosperity.

    We have a plan that is working – and this is a Budget that works for you.

    Economic forecasts

    Mr Deputy Speaker, the British economy is fundamentally stronger than it was five years ago – and that is reflected in the latest forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility.

    Today, figures are produced with independence and integrity by Robert Chote and his team, and I thank them for their work.

    The OBR confirm today that at 2.6%, Britain grew faster than any other major advanced economy in the world last year.

    That is fifty per cent faster than Germany, three times faster than the euro-zone – and seven times faster than France.

    There are some who advise us to abandon our plan and pursue the French approach.

    I prefer to follow the advice the Secretary General of the OECD gave us all last month: “Britain has a long term economic plan – and it needs to stick with it”

    “A long term economic plan” – now there’s someone with a way with words.

    We need to stick with that plan at a time when global economic risks are rising.

    The biggest development since the Autumn Statement has been the further sharp fall in the world oil price.

    This is positive news for the global economy. But the overall boost this provides has not yet offset the rising geo-political uncertainty it causes.

    And the Eurozone continues to stagnate.

    So at this Budget, the OBR have once again revised down the growth of the world economy, revised down the growth of world trade and revised down the prospects for the Eurozone.

    And they warn us that the current stand-off with Greece could be very damaging to the British economy.

    I agree with that assessment.

    A disorderly Greek exit from the euro remains the greatest threat to Europe’s economic stability. It would be a serious mistake to underestimate its impact on the UK, and we urge our Eurozone colleagues to resolve the growing crisis.

    The problems in Europe remind us why Britain needs to expand our links with the faster growing parts of the world.

    We’ve made major progress this Parliament. I can report that the trade deficit figures published last week are the best for 15 years.

    And we will do even more – so today I am again increasing UKTI’s resources to double the support for British exporters to China.

    We have also decided to become the first major western nation to be a prospective founding member of the new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, because we think you should be present at the creation of these new international institutions.

    Mr Deputy Speaker, you would expect weaker world growth, weaker world trade and weaker European growth to lead to weaker growth here in the UK.

    However, the OBR haven’t revised down Britain’s economic forecasts – they have revised them up.

    A year ago, they forecast growth in 2015 at 2.3%.

    In the Autumn Statement that was revised up to 2.4%.

    Today, I can confirm GDP growth this year is forecast to be higher still, at 2.5%.

    It is also revised up next year, to 2.3%.

    That is where it remains for the following two years, before reaching 2.4% in 2019.

    So the OBR report growth revised up – and their numbers confirm that growth is broadly based.

    For we are replacing the disastrous economic model we inherited.

    Between 1997 and 2010, investment accounted for less than one fifth of Britain’s economic growth – four fifths came from debt-fuelled household consumption.

    Meanwhile manufacturing halved as a share of our national economy, and the gap between the North and South grew ever larger.

    I can report since 2010:

    Business investment has grown four times faster than household consumption.

    Britain’s manufacturing output has grown more than four and a half times faster than it did in the entire decade before the crisis.

    And over the last year, the North grew faster than the South.

    We are seeing a truly national recovery.

    Employment

    Mr Deputy Speaker let me turn now to the rest of the forecasts.

    This morning we saw the latest jobs numbers.

    It is a massive moment. Britain has the highest rate of employment in its history.

    A record number of people in work.

    More women in work than ever before.

    And the claimant count rate is at its lowest since 1975.

    For years governments have talked about full employment – the government is moving towards achieving it.

    Unemployment today has fallen by another 100,000.

    And compared to the Autumn Statement, the OBR now expect unemployment this year to be even lower.

    It is set to fall to 5.3% – down almost a whole 3 percentage points from 2010.

    When we set out our plan, people predicted that a million jobs would be lost.

    Instead, over 1.9 million new jobs have been gained.

    Because our long term plan is based on the premise that if you provide economic stability, if you reform welfare and make work pay, and if you back business, then you will create jobs too.

    Today’s figures show that since 2010, 1000 more jobs have been created every single day.

    The evidence is plain to see – Britain is working.

    And Mr Deputy Speaker, what about those who say “the jobs aren’t real jobs; they’re all part time; they’re all in London.”

    Nonsense.

    How many of the jobs are full time? 80%

    How many of the jobs are in skilled occupations? 80%

    And where is employment growing fastest? The North West.

    Where is a job being created every ten minutes? The Midlands.

    And which county has created more jobs than the whole of France? The great county of Yorkshire

    We are getting the whole of Britain back to work with a truly national recovery.

    Living standards

    Mr Deputy Speaker, it is only by growing our economy, dealing with our debts and creating jobs, that we can raise living standards.

    To the question of whether people are better off at the end of this Parliament than they were five years ago we can give the resounding answer “yes”

    You can measure it by GDP per capita, and the answer is yes – up by 5%

    Or you can use the most up-to-date and comprehensive measure of living standards which is Real Household Disposable Income per capita.

    In other words, how much money families have to spend after inflation and tax.

    It is the living standards measure used by the Office for National Statistics and by the OECD.

    On that measure I can confirm, on the latest OBR data today, living standards will be higher in 2015 than in 2010.

    And it confirms they are set to grow strongly every year for the rest of the decade.

    The British people for years paid the heavy price of the great recession.

    Now, the facts show households on average will be around £900 better off in 2015 than they were in 2010 – and immeasurably more secure for living in a country whose economy is not in crisis anymore, but is instead growing and creating jobs.

    Mr Deputy Speaker because we have strong growth and a strong economy we can also afford real increases in the National Minimum Wage.

    This week we accept the recommendations of the Low Pay Commission that the National Minimum Wage should rise to £6.70 this autumn, on course for a minimum wage that will be over £8 by the end of the decade.

    And we’ve agreed the biggest increase ever in the apprentice rate.

    It’s the oldest rule of economic policy. It’s the lowest paid who suffer most when the economy fails and it’s the lowest paid who benefit when you turn that economy around.

    Inflation

    Mr Deputy Speaker household incomes also go further because we now have the lowest inflation on record.

    The OBR today revise down their forecast for inflation this year to just 0.2%, and revise it down for the following three years.

    It is driven by falling world oil and food prices. Not by the kind of stagnation we have seen on the continent.

    But we will remain vigilant.

    I am today confirming that the remit for the Monetary Policy Committee for the coming year remains the 2% symmetric CPI inflation target.

    And I am also confirming the remit for our new Financial Policy Committee too, so that this time we spot the financial risks in advance.

    The fall in food prices is good for families; but it reminds us of the challenge our farmers face from volatile markets.

    The National Farmers Union have long argued they should be allowed to average their incomes for tax purposes over five years; I agree and in this Budget we will make that change.

    We will also use this opportunity to lock in the historically low interest rates for the long term.

    I can tell the House that we will increase the number of long-dated gilts that we sell.

    We’ll also redeem the last remaining undated British Government bonds in circulation.

    We’ll have paid off the debts incurred in the South Sea Bubble, the First World War, the debt issued by Henry Pelham, George Goschen and William Gladstone.

    And Mr Deputy Speaker, since the pound goes further these days, now is a good time to confirm the design of the new one pound coin.

    Based on the brilliant drawing submitted by 15 year old David Pearce, a school pupil from Walsall, the new 12 sided pound coin will incorporate emblems from all four nations – for we are all part of one United Kingdom.

    Banks and debt

    Mr Deputy Speaker, I now turn to the national debt.

    Lower unemployment means less welfare.

    Compared to the Autumn Statement, welfare bills are set to be an average of £3 billion a year lower.

    Lower inflation means lower interest charges on government gilts; those interest charges are now expected to be almost £35 billion lower than just a few months ago.

    Rising unemployment, and compounding debt interest, contributed to our national debt problem.

    But they weren’t the only cause.

    It sent the national debt rocketing up by a third.

    We have already sold the branches of Northern Rock; and raised £9 billion from Lloyds shares. Now we go further.

    Today I can announce that we are launching a sale of £13 billion of the mortgage assets we still hold from the bailouts of Northern Rock and of Bradford and Bingley.

    Lloyds bank has returned to profit and is paying a dividend – so we can continue our exit from that bailout too.

    We will sell at least a further £9 billion of Lloyds shares in the coming year.

    The bank sales, lower debt interest and lower welfare bills presents us with a choice.

    We could treat it as a windfall, even though we know the public finances need further repair.

    And with an election looming, some of my immediate predecessors may have been tempted to do this.

    But that would be deeply irresponsible.

    We’d be spending money we didn’t really have.

    Racking up borrowing our country couldn’t afford.

    We’d be repeating all the mistakes the last government made – instead of fixing those mistakes.

    So today, the central judgement of this Budget is this: we will use the resources from the bank sales and the lower interest payments and the lower welfare bills to pay down the national debt.

    We put economic security first.

    For higher national debt leaves our nation exposed, harms potential growth and costs taxpayers billions of pounds in debt interest.

    That would be throwing away billions of pounds we should be using to fund our public services and lower taxes.

    Five years ago, national debt was soaring.

    That’s why in my first Budget I set a target that we would have national debt falling as a share of GDP by 2015-16, the last year of this Parliament.

    The Eurozone crisis made that task here at home all the more difficult, and for much of the last five years it looked like we might fall short.

    I can announce this to the House:

    The hard work and sacrifice of the British people has paid off.

    The original debt target I set out in my first Budget has been met.

    We will end this Parliament with Britain’s national debt share falling

    The sun is starting to shine – and we are fixing the roof.

    So the OBR report today that debt as a share of GDP falls from 80.4% in 2014-15; to 80.2% in the year 2015-16.

    And it keeps falling to 79.8% in 2016-17; then down to 77.8% the following year, to 74.8% in 2018-19 before it reaches 71.6% in 2019-20.

    Mr Deputy Speaker, national debt as a share of our national income has been increasing every single year since 2001.

    Those thirteen years amount to the longest year-on-year rise in our national debt since the end of the seventeenth century.

    Today we bring that record to an end.

    And there’s a consequence for our fiscal plans.

    Because the national debt share is falling a year earlier than forecast at the Autumn Statement – the squeeze on public spending ends a year earlier too.

    In the final year of this decade, 2019-20, public spending will grow in line with the growth of the economy.

    We can do that while still running a healthy surplus to bear down on our debt.

    A state neither smaller than we need; nor bigger than we can afford.

    For those interested in the history of these things, that will mean state spending as a share of our national income the same size as Britain had in the year 2000.

    That’s the year before spending got out of control and the national debt started its inexorable rise.

    Deficit

    Mr Deputy Speaker, when we came to office, the deficit stood at more than ten per cent of our national income – one of the highest of any major advanced economy and the largest in our peacetime history.

    The IMF says we’ve achieved the largest, most sustained reduction in our structural deficit of any major economy.

    Today, the OBR confirm that it now stands at less than half of the deficit we inherited.

    But at 5% this year, it’s still far too high – and it must come down.

    With our plan it does.

    The deficit falls to 4% in 2015-16; then down to 2% the following year; and down again to 0.6% the year after that.

    The deficit is lower in every year than at the Autumn Statement.

    In 2018-19, Britain will have a budget surplus of 0.2%; followed by a forecast surplus of 0.3% in 2019-20.

    We will also comfortably meet our fiscal mandate and Britain will be running a surplus for the first time in 18 years.

    That leads to borrowing. Every one of the borrowing numbers is lower than at the Autumn Statement too.

    We inherited annual borrowing of over £150 billion from the last government.

    This year borrowing is set to fall to £90.2 billion; a billion lower than expected at the Autumn Statement.

    It falls again in 2015-16 to £75.3 billion; then £39.4 billion the year after that, before falling to £12.8 billion – in total that’s £5 billion less borrowing than we forecast just three months ago.

    In 2018-19, we reach an overall surplus of £5.2 billion – a £1 billion improvement compared to December.

    In 2019-20 we are forecast to run a surplus of £7 billion. So growth is up.

    Unemployment is down.

    Borrowing is down in every year of the forecast.

    We reach a surplus.

    All contributing to a national debt now falling as a share of national income. Out of the red and into the black – Britain is back paying its way in the world.

    Spending

    Mr Deputy Speaker, lower borrowing and falling debt as a share of GDP will only continue with a credible plan to control public spending and welfare.

    As we end the Parliament, we can measure the scale of the achievement.

    The administrative costs of central government will be down by 40%.

    We have legislated for welfare savings of over £21 billion a year.

    And because savings have been driven by efficiency and reform, the quality of public services has not gone down – it’s gone up.

    Satisfaction with the NHS is rising year on year.

    Crime is down 20%.

    One million more children attend good or outstanding schools.

    But the job of repairing our public finances is not done.

    And here’s a very important point the country needs to understand.

    National debt as a share of GDP is now falling.

    We’ll only keep it falling if we commit to the fiscal path set out in this Budget.

    If we deviate from this path, if we go slower or borrow more, the national debt share will not keep falling – it will start rising again.

    After all the hard work of the British people over the last 5 years to reach this point, that reversal would be a tragedy.

    Britain is on the right track; we mustn’t turn back

    And in order to deliver that falling debt share we need to achieve the £30 billion further savings that are necessary by 2017-18.

    I am clear exactly how that £30 billion can be achieved.

    £13 billion from government departments.

    £12 billion from welfare savings.

    £5 billion from tax avoidance, evasion and aggressive tax planning.

    We have done it in this Parliament; we can do it in the next.

    Fairness

    The distributional analysis we publish today confirms that that the decisions since 2010 mean the rich are making the biggest contribution to deficit reduction.

    I said we would all be in this together and here is the proof.

    Compared to five years ago:

    Inequality is lower.

    Child poverty is down.

    Youth unemployment is down.

    Pensioner poverty is at its lowest level ever.

    The gender pay gap has never been smaller.

    Payday loans are capped.

    And zero hours contracts regulated.

    Even more than this, opportunity has increased; the number of university students from disadvantaged backgrounds is at a record high, apprenticeships have doubled and there are fewer workless households than ever before.

    And in this Budget we are providing funding for a major expansion of mental health services for children and those suffering from maternal mental illness.

    Those who suffer from these illnesses have been forgotten for too long.

    Not anymore.

    We stand for opportunity for all.

    And we have created a fairer tax system. Further proof we are all in this together.

    The share of income tax paid by the top 1% of taxpayers is projected to rise from 25% in 2010 to over 27% this year – that is higher than any one of the thirteen years of the last government.

    We’re getting more money from the people paying the top rate of tax.

    Because we understand that if you back enterprise, you raise more revenue.

    And the House will also want to know this – the lower paid 50% of taxpayers now pay a smaller proportion of income tax than at any time under the previous government.

    We are delivering a truly national recovery.

    Tax avoidance

    Mr Deputy Speaker in this Budget everything we spend will be paid for and this requires the following decisions.

    We have already taken steps to curb the size of the very largest pension pots.

    But the gross cost of tax relief has continued to rise through this Parliament, up almost £4 billion. That is not sustainable.

    So from next year, we will further reduce the Lifetime Allowance from £1.25 million to £1 million.

    This will save around £600 million a year.

    Fewer than 4% of pension savers currently approaching retirement will be affected.

    However, I want to ensure those still building up their pension pots are protected from inflation, so from 2018 we will index the Lifetime Allowance.

    We have had representations that we should also restrict the Annual Allowance for pensions and use the money to cut tuition fees.

    I have examined this proposal.

    It involves penalising moderately-paid, long-serving public servants, including police officers, teachers and nurses, and instead rewarding higher paid graduates.

    In 2010, city bankers boasted of paying lower tax rates than their cleaners; the rich routinely avoided stamp duty; and foreigners paid no capital gains tax.

    We’ve changed all that – and it was this Prime Minister who put tackling international tax evasion at the top of the agenda at the G8.

    We will now legislate for the new Common Reporting Standard we have got agreed around the world.

    Our new Diverted Profits Tax is aimed at large multinationals who artificially shift their profits offshore.

    I can confirm that we will legislate for it next week and bring it into effect at the start of next month.

    I am also today amending corporation tax rules to prevent contrived loss arrangements.

    And we’ll no longer allow businesses to take account of foreign branches when reclaiming VAT on overheads – making the system simpler and fairer.

    We will close loopholes to make sure Entrepreneurs Relief is only available to those selling genuine stakes in businesses.

    We will issue more accelerated payments notices to those who hold out from paying the tax that is owed.

    And we will stop employment intermediaries exploiting the tax system to reduce their own costs by clamping down on the agencies and umbrella companies who abuse tax reliefs on travel and subsistence – while we protect those genuinely self-employed.

    Taken together, all the new measures against tax avoidance and evasion will raise £3.1 billion over the forecast period.

    I can also tell the House that we will conduct a review on the avoidance of inheritance tax through the use of deeds of variation. It will report by the autumn.

    We will seek a wide range of views.

    Mr Deputy Speaker, my RHF the Chief Secretary will tomorrow publish further details of our comprehensive plans for new criminal offences for tax evasion and new penalties for those professionals who assist them.

    Let the message go out: this country’s tolerance for those who will not pay their fair share of taxes has come to an end.

    Banks

    Because we seek a truly national recovery, today I also ask our banking sector to contribute more.

    Financial services are one of Britain’s most important and successful industries, employing people in every corner of the country.

    We take steps to promote competition, back FinTech and encourage new business like global reinsurance.

    But as our banking sector becomes more profitable again, I believe they can make a bigger contribution to the repair of our public finances.

    I am today raising the rate of the bank levy to 0.21 per cent. This will raise an additional £900 million a year.

    We will also stop banks from deducting from corporation tax the compensation they make to customers for products they have been mis-sold, like PPI. Taken together these new banking taxes will raise £5.3 billion across the forecast.

    The banks got support going into the crisis; now they must support the whole country as we recover from the crisis.

    Libor and charities

    Mr Deputy Speaker, in each Budget we have used the LIBOR fines paid by those who demonstrated the very worst values to support those who represent the very best of British values.

    Today I can announce a further £75 million of help.

    Last week’s service of commemoration reminded us all of the debt we owe to those brave British servicemen and women who served in Afghanistan.

    We will provide funds to the regimental charities of every regiment that fought in that conflict; and we will contribute funding to the permanent memorial to those who died there and in Iraq.

    And in the 75th anniversary year of the Battle of Britain we will help to renovate the RAF museum at Hendon, the Stow Maries Airfield and the Biggin Hill Chapel Memorial so future generations are reminded of the sacrifice of our airmen in all conflicts.

    We will provide £25 million to help our eldest veterans, including nuclear test veterans.

    Many members on this side have also written to me asking for support for their local air ambulances.

    We’ve backed brilliant local charities in the past, and we do so again today – with funds for new helicopters for the Essex & Herts, East Anglian, Welsh and Scottish air ambulances, and for the Lucy Air Ambulance that transports children requiring urgent care.

    Our blood bike charities also do an incredible job. I am today responding to the public campaign and refunding their VAT.

    We’ll also set aside £1 million to help buy defibrillators for public places, including schools, and support training in their use to save more lives.

    Talking about people who save lives, and who sometimes sacrifice their own life to do so, we will also correct the historic injustice to spouses of police officers, firefighters, and members of the intelligence services who lose their lives on duty.

    And there’s additional money today to support the fight against terrorism.

    The £15 million Church Roof Fund I set aside at the Autumn Statement to support church roof appeals has been heavily oversubscribed – so I am today more than trebling it.

    Apparently, we’re not the only people who want to fix the roof when the sun is shining.

    Every weekend thousands of people go out and raise sums for their local charities across Britain through sponsored events and high-street collections.

    I am significantly extending the scheme I introduced that allows charities to claim automatic gift-aid on those donations – increasing it from the first £5,000 they raise to £8,000.

    That will benefit over 6,500 small charities.

    And, Mr Deputy Speaker, we could not let the 600th anniversary of Agincourt pass without commemoration.

    The battle of Agincourt is, of course, celebrated by Shakespeare as a victory secured by a “band of brothers” It is also when a strong leader defeated an ill-judged alliance between the champion of a united Europe and a renegade force of Scottish nationalists.

    So it is well worth the £1 million we will provide to celebrate it.

    National recovery

    Mr Deputy Speaker

    Our country does not rest on its past glories.

    Within just fifteen years we have the potential to overtake Germany and have the largest economy in Europe.

    Five years ago, that would have seemed hopelessly unrealistic; economic rescue was the limit of our horizons.

    Today, our goal is for Britain to become the most prosperous of any major economy in the world in the coming generation, with that prosperity widely shared across our country.

    London is the global capital of the world, and we want it to grow stronger still.

    Today we confirm: new investment in transport; regeneration from Brent Cross to Croydon; new powers for the Mayor over skills and planning; and new funding for the London Land Commission to help address the acute housing shortage in the capital.

    For we don’t pull the rest of the country up, by pulling London down.

    Instead we will build on London’s success by building the Northern Powerhouse.

    Working across party lines, and in partnership with the councils of the north, we are this week publishing a comprehensive Transport Strategy for the North.

    We are funding the Health North initiative from the great teaching hospitals and universities there.

    We are promoting industries from chemicals in the North East to Tech in the North West

    And I can today confirm agreement with the West Yorkshire Combined Authority for a new city deal.

    Our agreement with Greater Manchester on an elected mayor is the most exciting development in civic leadership for a generation – with the devolution of power over skills, transport and now health budgets.

    I can announce today that we have now reached provisional agreement to allow Greater Manchester to keep 100% of the additional growth in local business rates as we build up the Northern Powerhouse.

    For where cities grow their economies through local initiatives, let me be clear: we will support and reward them.

    We will also offer the same business rates deal to Cambridge and the surrounding councils, and my door is open to other areas too.

    For our ambition for a truly national recovery is not limited to building a Northern Powerhouse. We back in full the long term economic plans we have for every region.

    The Midlands is an engine of manufacturing growth. So we are today giving the go-ahead to a £60 million investment in the new Energy Research Accelerator and confirming the new national energy catapult will be in Birmingham.

    And we’re going to back our brilliant automotive industry by investing £100 million to stay ahead in the race to driverless technology.

    And to encourage a new generation of low emission vehicles we will increase their company car tax more slowly than previously planned, while increasing other rates by 3% in 2019-20.

    We’re also connecting up the South West, with over £7 billion of transport investment, better roads, support for air links, and – I can confirm today – a new rail franchise which will bring new intercity express trains and greatly improved rail services.

    We are confirming the introduction of the first 20 Housing Zones that will keep Britain building, along with the extension of 8 enterprise zones across Britain, with new zones in Plymouth and Blackpool too.

    We’re giving more power to Wales. We’re working on a Cardiff city deal and we are opening negotiations on the Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon.

    The Severn Crossings are a vital link for Wales. I can tell the House we will reduce the toll rates from 2018, and abolish the higher band for small vans and buses.

    It’s a boost for the drivers of white vans. The legislation devolving corporation tax to Northern Ireland passed the House of Lords yesterday. We now urge all parties to commit to the Stormont House agreement, of which it was part.

    In Scotland, we will continue working on the historic devolution agreement, implement the Glasgow City Deal, and open negotiations on new city deals for Aberdeen and Inverness.

    While the falling oil price is good news for families across the country, it brings with it challenges for hundreds of thousands whose jobs depend on the North Sea.

    Thanks to the field allowances we’ve introduced we saw a record £15 billion of capital investment last year in the North Sea.

    But it’s clear to me that the fall in the oil price poses a pressing danger to the future of our North Sea industry – unless we take bold and immediate action.

    I take that action today.

    First, I am introducing from the start of next month a single, simple and generous tax allowance to stimulate investment at all stages of the industry.

    Second, the government will invest in new seismic surveys in under-explored areas of the UK Continental Shelf.

    Third, from next year, the Petroleum Revenue Tax will be cut from 50% to 35% to support continued production in older fields.

    Fourth, I am with immediate effect cutting the Supplementary Charge from 30% to 20%, and backdating it to the beginning of January.

    It amounts to £1.3 billion of support for the industry.

    And the OBR assesses that it will boost expected North Sea oil production by 15% by the end of the decade.

    Mr Deputy Speaker, it goes without saying that an independent Scotland would never have been able to afford such a package of support.

    But it is one of the great strengths of our three-hundred year old union that just as we pool our resources, so too we share our challenges and find solutions together.

    For we are one United Kingdom.

    Science and innovation

    Mr Deputy Speaker, we back oil and gas and we back our heavy industry too, like steel and paper mills.

    I’ve listened to the Engineering Employers, and I will bring forward to this autumn part of our compensation for energy intensive plants.

    But since we aim to be the most prosperous major economy in the coming generation, then we must support the latest insurgent industries too.

    So we take steps to put Britain at the forefront of the on-line sharing economy.

    Our creative industries are already a huge contributor to the British economy – and today we make our TV and film tax credits more generous, expand our support for the video games industry and we launch our new tax credit for orchestras.

    Britain is a cultural centre of the world – and with these tax changes I’m determined we will stay in front.

    And in the week after Cheltenham, we support the British racing industry by introducing a new horse race betting right.

    Local newspapers are a vital part of community life – but they’ve had a tough time in recent years – so today we announce a consultation on how we can provide them with tax support too.

    Future economic success depends on future scientific success. So we’ll add to the financial support I announced at the Autumn Statement for postgraduates, with new support for PhDs and research-based masters degrees.

    We’re also committing almost £140 million to world class research across the UK into the infrastructure and cities of the future, and giving our national research institutes new budget freedoms.

    And we’ll invest in what is known as the Internet of Things. This is the next stage of the information revolution, connecting up everything from urban transport to medical devices to household appliances.

    So should – to use a ridiculous example – someone have two kitchens, they will be able to control both fridges from the same mobile phone.

    All these industries depend on fast broadband.

    We’ve transformed the digital infrastructure of Britain over the last five years.

    Over 80% of the population have access to superfast broadband and there are 6 million customers of 4G that our auction made possible.

    Today we set out a comprehensive strategy so we stay ahead.

    We’ll use up to £600 million to clear new spectrum bands for further auction, so we improve mobile networks.

    We’ll test the latest satellite technology so we reach the remotest communities.

    We’ll provide funding for Wi-Fi in our public libraries, and expand broadband vouchers to many more cities, so no-one is excluded.

    And we’re committing to a new national ambition to bring ultrafast broadband of at least 100 megabits per second to nearly all homes in the country, so Britain is out in front

    Small business

    Mr Deputy Speaker,

    You can’t create jobs without successful business. As well as the right infrastructure, businesses also need low, competitive taxes.

    In two weeks’ time, we will cut corporation tax to 20%, one of the lowest rates of any major economy in the world.

    There are those here who are committed to putting the rate of corporation tax up.

    They should know that this would be the first increase in this tax rate since 1973, and a job-destroying and retrograde step for this country to take.

    And rather than increasing the jobs tax as some propose, we’re going to go on cutting it.

    This April we will abolish National Insurance for employing under 21s;

    Next April we will abolish it for employing a young apprentice;

    And I can confirm today that 1 million small businesses have now claimed our new Employment Allowance.

    From this April we’re also extending our small business rate relief and our help for the high street.

    But in my view the current system of Business Rates has not kept pace with the needs of a modern economy and changes to our town centres, and needs far-reaching reform.

    Businesses large and small have asked for a major review of this tax – and this week that’s what we’ve agreed to do.

    The boost I provided to the Annual Investment Allowance comes to an end at the end of the year.

    A better time to address this is in the Autumn Statement.

    However, I am clear from my conversations with business groups that a reduction to £25,000 would not be remotely acceptable – and so it will be set at a much more generous rate.

    Today I’m announcing changes to the Enterprise Investment Schemes and Venture Capital Trusts to ensure they are compliant with the latest state aid rules and increasing support to high growth companies.

    Mr Deputy Speaker, businesses, like people, want their taxes to be low. They also want them to be simple to pay.

    We set up the Office of Tax Simplification at the start of this Parliament and I want to thank Michael Jack and John Whiting for the fantastic work they have done.

    To support five million people who are self-employed, and to make their tax affairs simpler, in the next Parliament we will abolish Class 2 National Insurance contributions for the self-employed entirely.

    And today we can bring simpler taxes to many more.

    12 million people and small businesses are forced to complete a self-assessment tax return every year. It is complex, costly and time-consuming.

    So, today I am announcing this.

    We will abolish the annual tax return altogether.

    Millions of individuals will have the information the Revenue needs automatically uploaded into new digital tax accounts.

    A minority with the most complex tax affairs will be able to manage their account on-line.

    Businesses will feel like they are paying a simple, single business tax – and again, for most, the information needed will be automatically received.

    A revolutionary simplification of tax collection. Starting next year.

    Because we believe people should be working for themselves, not working for the tax man.

    Tax really doesn’t have to be taxing, and this spells the death of the annual tax return.

    Duties

    Mr Deputy Speaker, we want to help families with simpler taxes – and with lower taxes too.

    So let me turn now to duties.

    I have no changes to make to the duties on tobacco and gaming already announced.

    Last year, I cut beer duty for the second year in a row and the industry estimates that helped create 16,000 jobs.

    Today I am cutting beer duty for the third year in a row – taking another penny off a pint.

    I am cutting cider duty by 2% – to support our producers in the West Country and elsewhere.

    And to back one of the UK’s biggest exports, the duty on Scotch whisky and other spirits will be cut by 2% as well.

    Wine duty will be frozen.

    More pubs saved, jobs created, families supported – and a penny off a pint for the third year in a row.

    Fuel

    Mr Deputy Speaker,

    I also want to help families with the cost of filling up a car.

    It’s a cost that bears heavily on small businesses too.

    The last government’s plans for a fuel duty escalator meant taxes would rise above inflation every year.

    But I want to make sure that the falling oil price is passed on at the pumps.

    So I am today cancelling the fuel duty increase scheduled for September.

    Petrol frozen again. It’s the longest duty freeze in over twenty years.

    It saves a family around £10 every time they fill up their car

    Personal Allowance

    Mr Deputy Speaker.

    We believe that work should pay – and families should keep more of the money they earn.

    When we came to office, the personal tax-free allowance stood at just £6,500.

    We set ourselves the goal – even in difficult times – of raising that allowance to £10,000 by the end of the parliament

    We have more than delivered on that promise.

    In two weeks’ time it will reach £10,600

    That’s a huge boost to the incomes of working people and one of the reasons we have a record number of people in work.

    Today I can announce that we go further.

    The personal tax-free allowance will rise to £10,800 next year – and then to £11,000 the year after.

    That’s £11,000 you can earn before paying any income tax at all.

    It means the typical working taxpayer will be over £900 a year better off.

    It’s a tax cut for 27 million people and means we’ve taken almost 4 million of the lowest paid out of income tax altogether.

    Because we pass on the full gains of this policy, I can make this announcement today

    For the first time in 7 years, the threshold at which people pay the higher tax rate will rise not just with inflation – but above inflation.

    It will rise from £42,385 this year to £43,300 by 2017-18.

    So an £11,000 personal allowance.

    An above inflation increase in the higher rate.

    A down-payment on our commitment to raise the personal allowance to £12,500 and raise the Higher Rate threshold to £50,000.

    An economic plan working for you.

    And in this Budget the rate of the new transferable tax allowance for married couples will rise to £1,100 too.

    That’s the allowance coming in just two weeks’ time to help over 4 million couples – help that they would take away, but we on this side are proud to provide.

    Savings

    Mr Deputy Speaker,

    This Budget takes another step to move Britain from a country built on debt, to a country built on savings and investment.

    Last year I unlocked pensions with freedom for millions of savers.

    But there is more to do to create a savings culture.

    Today I announce four major new steps in our savings revolution.

    They are based on the principles that cutting taxes increases the return on savings, and that people should have freedom to choose how they use those savings.

    First, we will give five million pensioners access to their annuity.

    For many an annuity is the right product, but for some it makes sense to access their annuity now.

    So we’re changing the law to make that possible.

    From next year the punitive tax charge of at least 55% will be abolished. Tax will be applied only at the marginal rate.

    And we’ll consult to ensure pensioners get the right guidance and advice.

    So freedom for five million people with an annuity.

    Second, we will introduce a radically more Flexible ISA.

    In 2 weeks’ time the changes I’ve already made mean people will be able to put £15,240 into an ISA.

    But if you take that money out – you lose your tax free entitlement, and so can’t put it back in.

    This restricts what people can do with their own savings – but I believe people should be trusted with their hard earned money.

    With the fully Flexible ISA people will have complete freedom to take money out, and put it back in later in the year, without losing any of their tax-free entitlement

    It will be available from this autumn and we will also expand the range of investments that are eligible.

    Third, we’re going to take two of our most successful policies and combine them to create a brand new Help to Buy ISA.

    And we do it to tackle two of the biggest challenges facing first time buyers – the low interest rates when you build up your savings, and the high deposits required by the banks.

    The Help to Buy ISA for first time buyers works like this.

    For every £200 you save for your deposit, the Government will top it up with £50 more.

    It’s as simple as this – we’ll work hand in hand to help you buy your first home.

    This is a Budget that works for you.

    A 10% deposit on the average first home costs £15,000, so if you put in up to £12,000 – we’ll put in up to £3,000 more.

    A 25% top-up is equivalent to saving for a deposit from your pre-tax income – it’s effectively a tax cut for first time buyers.

    We’ll work with industry so it’s ready for this autumn and we’ll make sure you can start saving for it right now.

    So Mr Deputy Speaker:

    Access for pensioners to their annuities.

    A new Flexible ISA.

    Backing home ownership with a first time buyer bonus.

    And one other reform.

    Today I introduce a new Personal Savings Allowance that will take 95% of taxpayers out of savings tax altogether.

    From April next year the first £1,000 of the interest you earn on all of your savings will be completely tax-free.

    To ensure higher rate taxpayers enjoy the same benefits, but no more, their allowance will be set at £500.

    People have already paid tax once on their money when they earn it. They shouldn’t have to pay tax a second time when they save it.

    With our new Personal Savings Allowance, 17 million people will see the tax on their savings not just cut, but abolished.

    An entire system of tax collection can be scrapped.

    At a stroke we create tax free banking for almost the entire population.

    And build the economy on savings not debt.

    Conclusion

    Mr Deputy Speaker, five years ago I had to present to this House an Emergency Budget.

    Today I present the Budget of an economy stronger in every way from the one we inherited.

    The Budget of an economy taking another big step from austerity to prosperity.

    We cut the deficit – and confidence is returning.

    We limited spending, made work pay, backed business – and growth is returning.

    We gave people control over their savings and helped people own their own homes – and optimism is returning.

    We have provided clear decisive economic leadership – and from the depths Britain is returning.

    The share of national income taken up by debt – falling.

    The deficit down.

    Growth up.

    Jobs up.

    Living standards on the rise.

    Britain on the rise.

    This is the Budget for Britain.

    The Comeback Country.

  • George Osborne – 2015 Speech to BDI Conference

    gosborne

    Below is the text of the speech made by George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the BDI Conference in Berlin on 3 November 2015.

    I am very honoured to be asked to address this impressive gathering of German industry and ingenuity today.

    I’ve come to Berlin to talk to you about trade – for Britain and Germany trade €140 billion of goods and services every year.

    I’ve come to talk to you about investment – for Britain and Germany invest €1.9 trillion in each other’s economies.

    I’ve come to talk to you about business – for German companies like BMW, Bosch and Siemens are household names in Britain; while for British companies like Rolls Royce, GlaxoSmithKline and Vodafone, Germany is of course one of their biggest markets.

    Indeed I have just been to a Siemens factory in Berlin, which manufactures gas turbines which are sold into Britain but the fan blade is manufactured in Birmingham, exported to Germany and then exported again into Britain.

    So I’ve come to talk about the economic relationship, but I’ve also come to talk to you today about a friendship between our two countries that has brought peace and security to our continent for my entire lifetime.

    And I’ve come to talk to you about the shared values that we have together. The Wertegemeinschaft we both seek to build.

    A Wertegemeinschaft, a “community of shared values”, based on mutual respect and tolerance of differences; openness and a commitment to freedom.

    Each time I return to Berlin, I am reminded of what a beacon of freedom this city has been throughout my life.

    When I was a child, this city was divided, and so was my continent.

    And, like so many families in Europe, my family felt that division.

    My grandmother was Hungarian. She was born in Budapest, and she married an Englishman.

    And for most of her life she was not allowed to return to the country of her birth.

    And my mother remembers, as a child in 1956, her home in north London filling up with refugees from the Hungarian Uprising.

    She was telling me the other day about the extraordinary range of people who came through the door that autumn in 1956.

    One day they had a professor from Budapest University sleeping on a mattress on the floor.

    And then the next day there was a shepherd who had fled from the Hungarian countryside and made it to London.

    And of course as a young adult, I remember the lines of refugees crossing the Hungarian border again in 1989.

    And that night when we crowded around our TV screen to watch the Wall that ran through this city quite literally being torn down, remains the single most extraordinary and exciting and exhilarating political moment of my lifetime.

    I would never have imagined back then when I was just 18 that all these years later, 25 years later, as the British Finance Minister, I’d be working in partnership with Wolfgang Schauble – that remarkable man who negotiated and signed the Treaty to unify Germany.

    I had dinner last night with Wolfgang – he took me to an Italian restaurant – and we reflected on the fact that we are Europe’s two longest serving finance ministers.

    And while we have been sitting at the G7 table, we’ve seen 18 other finance ministers come and go.

    And in my many conversations over the years with Wolfgang, we’ve spoken of the history of Britain and Germany, of the deep links between our two cultures, and of the differences too of those shared values of tolerance and freedom – the Wertegemeinschaft I spoke about – that we apply today, each in our own way, to the challenges of our age.

    Those values are on display in Germany today as you deal with the mass of refugees seeking shelter and sanctuary in your country.

    And for all the challenges that represents, the whole world has been impressed by your generosity and your hospitality to those fleeing conflict and seeking a better life.

    Britain has a long tradition too of being a country that helps those in need.

    We are the home of Europe’s most multi-ethnic and diverse society, and we have a rapidly growing population within our shores.

    We are the only major country in the world that will spend 0.7% of our national income on overseas development assistance this year.

    We’re spending far more on aid in the region around Syria than any other European nation.

    Our military presence is greater there than any other European nation.

    And, because of this huge commitment of British resources and British military effort going in to help families on the Syrian border, it means more of them will feel they do not need to make that treacherous journey across the Mediterranean in the first place.

    Now we may not be part of Europe’s Schengen area. And that is true to our island’s story. But we will help you strengthen Europe’s external borders in countries like Greece.

    For Britain and Germany are both countries that do not shirk our responsibilities – but are ready to shoulder them.

    And today we both have a responsibility also to show economic leadership in Europe.

    For there is a simple truth: we are Europe’s engine for jobs and for growth.

    Since the economic crash 7 years ago, our two economies each expanded by the same 13%. The rest of Europe has grown by just 4%.

    We have together provided two-thirds of all the economic growth in Europe.

    And while we have together created over 3 million jobs, jobs have been lost across the rest of the European continent.

    Why have our two economies succeeded where too many others have struggled?

    I believe that’s because we have risen to the challenge of reform.

    We’ve both made difficult decisions to make our labour markets more flexible – not so it is easy to fire people, but because we wanted it to be easy to hire people.

    We’ve both made difficult decisions to fix our public finances and to live within our means.

    This year you have achieved a budget surplus; and I will be shortly setting out the measures required to achieve that surplus in Britain.

    For we both understand that without sound finances there is no economic security.

    We’re two countries that have reached out the hand of economic partnership to the new, great emerging economies of Asia.

    You are by far and away the largest European exporter to China.

    We attract more Chinese investment into Britain than France and Italy and Germany put together.

    We’re two societies that respect hard work, invest in science and embrace new technology.

    Four of the world’s top 10 universities are in Britain; and Germany tops the European league table for investment in research and development.

    This Anglo-German partnership is on display in the new Formula One Champion – the ingenuity of a British driver, Lewis Hamilton, powered to success by a German Mercedes car.

    I make this observation: The fastest car that Mercedes makes is the only car that they make in Britain.

    So we have driven economic reform in our own countries.

    And we have seen other countries like Spain and Ireland rewarded for their reform efforts.

    And now we need to drive economic reform together across our own continent, in the European Union.

    I said the friendship between our two countries was based on shared values.

    And one of those values is that we don’t insist on central uniformity, but instead we respect different histories and traditions and approaches.

    It is that respect for difference that has brought four nations together in one United Kingdom, and it’s the same respect for difference that united ancient kingdoms like Saxony and Bavaria with city states like Hamburg and Bremen in the great success of the Bundesrepublik.

    We should show the same respect to the difference of approaches our two countries take towards the European Union.

    I have huge respect for the leadership Germany has shown, alongside other countries like France and Italy and the Low Countries in first creating the European Union and now the effort you are making to ensure the common European borders work and the Eurozone is a strong and resilient currency area.

    And let me be absolutely clear. We want you to succeed in all these endeavours. It’s hugely in Britain’s interests, let alone Europe’s, that you do.

    And I know, in turn, you respect the fact that Britain has a different relationship with the European Union.

    We are not part of the single currency.

    Nor are we part of the Schengen single border area.

    But we are a huge part of the European economy.

    After you, we are the largest contributor to the European Budget.

    We – along with the French – provide the military capabilities to ensure Europe’s voice is heard on security and defence issues around the world.

    And in partnership with you, and our friends in Paris, we provide the diplomatic heft to help resolve crises the tragedy in Syria, and trying to bring Iran in from the cold.

    I think you would agree that Britain has been the strongest and most consistent voice in Europe for expanding the EU’s single market; for concluding free trade deals with other parts of the globe; for enlarging the borders of the EU to include first the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, and now the Balkans.

    And as you know, we’ve been arguing in favour of closer ties with Turkey for many years.

    So my country too has made a big contribution to the development of the European Union.

    The question now facing Britain is whether we remain in the EU, or we leave.

    It is the question that the law will require us to put to the British people in a referendum by the end of 2017, at the very latest.

    Remain or leave, it is the question our democracy has demanded we put because, quite frankly, the British people do not want to be part of an ever closer union.

    And we will not succeed as nations by ducking the big issues, or thinking we can avoid the key questions.

    We want Britain to remain in a reformed European Union.

    But it needs to be a European Union that works better for all the citizens of Europe – and works better for Britain too.

    It needs to be a Europe where we are not part of that ever closer union you are more comfortable with.

    In the UK, where this is widely interpreted as a commitment to ever-closer political integration, that concept is now supported by a tiny minority of voters.

    And I believe it is this that is the cause of some of the strains between Britain and our European partners. Ever closer union is not right for us any longer.

    And that is what the discussions we’re now having with the German government, other member states and the European Commission and European Parliament are all about. And they are getting more intensive now.

    So how do we build a better European Union?

    There are a number of changes needed to make that happen.

    If freedom of movement is to be sustainable, then our publics must see it as freedom to move to work, rather than freedom to choose the most generous benefits.

    If politicians are to be accountable then we’ll need to strengthen the role of national parliaments.

    And as Britain’s Chancellor, in charge of economic policy, speaking to German industry, I want to focus on two further specific changes today – and to ask for your support.

    For I believe these changes we seek are not just in our interests – they’re in the interests of the whole European Union, including Germany.

    And I very much welcome what Chancellor Merkel said on this stage just an hour ago, when she gave her support to our negotiations and she says when it comes to issues like competitiveness and making the EU work better, Britain’s plans are our plans too.

    So what are those changes? The first concerns the strength and competitiveness of the European economy.

    Europe is losing ground to the rest of the world, and the people who pay the price are our citizens.

    One fifth of young people in the European Union cannot get a job.

    US companies can get new products licensed and to market within days, yet it can take weeks or months in Europe.

    And a decade ago the Commission estimated a total administrative burden to EU businesses of €125 billion a year. Now, progress has been made, but only about a fourth of this cost has been reduced – much more needs to be done.

    Let’s be clear about what is at stake here.

    If the EU allows itself to be priced out of the world economy, the next generation will not get jobs, living standards will decline and the Union will lose the popular consent of the people of Europe.

    Now the decline of the European economy is not inevitable. Far from it. Our destiny is in our hands – and we have at our disposal today the tools to reverse it.

    The British government has fought hard, with others like you and the Dutch, to force the reduction of bureaucracy onto the EU’s agenda.

    Now, Jean-Claude Juncker and Frans Timmermans and others have succeeded in reducing the amount of new regulation coming out of the Commission by 80%.

    It’s a real achievement that we should acknowledge.

    But we need to tackle the existing body of European regulation – and I think we should set clear targets for doing so, and powerful mechanisms for delivering them.

    All of Europe’s citizens will benefit directly from the new agreement to cut mobile phone roaming charges – it is an example of the single market working for people.

    But where, in the age of the internet that Sigmar Gabriel talked about, where is the digital single market?

    I can buy a CD from a German music store with a British credit card while I’m here in Berlin, but I can’t log on to a German website with my British account and download a song.

    Now, we always, as Europeans, come together at conferences like this and lament the fact that the world’s biggest internet companies aren’t European companies; but that’s because we haven’t created the world’s largest market for them here in the European Union.

    Let’s do it, now – not in 2 years time or 5 years time.

    The Capital Markets Union has the potential to be a huge boost for Europe’s businesses, especially its small and medium sized businesses.

    And I congratulate Commissioner Jonathan Hill on what’s being achieved

    But let’s face it – some of Europe’s self-imposed regulations and rules have actually made this continent a less competitive place to run a financial services business.

    That’s not in Britain’s interests, as home to the world’s largest financial centre, but it is not in the interests of Germany either to see the centres of European finance move outside of Europe.

    We both have huge service economies – services make up 70% of Germany’s output, and 80% of Britain’s output.

    Yet trade in services in Europe is far too low.

    We’ve allowed the opponents of economic reform and the liberalisation of services to win the day.

    We should complete the single market for services and create millions of jobs in doing so.

    I welcome the Internal Market Strategy the Commission published last week.

    It reflects much of what Britain said it should. But now let’s turn a strategy document into reality.

    The free trade deal that the EU completed with South Korea is estimated to benefit the UK economy by £500 million a year alone.

    But there are trade deals with Japan and America, and an investment agreement with China, waiting to be concluded.

    Let Britain and Germany, whose cities were once at the heart of the great Hanseatic League, now meet in alliance to overcome the forces of protection – and make Europe the centre of a global network of free trade agreements.

    And I welcome Angela Merkel’s strong leadership on this, as on so many other things.

    So the policies and plans are all there. We’re making progress with them – but it’s all too slow.

    We need to pick up the pace.

    We need to make Europe more competitive, make this the place to start and grow a business, ensure the policies of the EU make us the home of jobs and growth and innovation.

    Do that and we will go a long way towards reconnecting the EU with the support of its citizens – including the citizens of Britain.

    That is the change we seek, and we want your help to achieve it.

    There is a second change to the EU we need to see – and that is we need to fix the relationship between the member states in the Eurozone and those outside the Eurozone, so it works better for everyone.

    And again, it is in Britain’s and Germany’s interests we succeed – so help us to achieve it.

    Today at this conference, Mr Grillo, as President of the BDI, you recognised that countries like Britain should not be forced into ever closer integration.

    I think it is a very strong example of the help you can provide – and I thank you for it.

    As many in Germany have recognised, the EU as currently constituted does not provide the strong legal and constitutional basis needed to make the euro the stronger currency you want it to be.

    Ideas like the Banking Union and the Single Resolution Mechanism have been real steps forward, but they have been put together through inter-governmental agreements and unsuitable single market provisions.

    And nor are you going to achieve the kind of binding commitment you want to see to improving competitiveness in other Eurozone countries if you rely on the current legal framework.

    In the end the inexorable logic of monetary union will mean the Treaties will have to be changed to support the financial and economic union required for a permanently stronger eurozone – the stronger eurozone we want you to build.

    At the same time, the current European Union arrangements are also not suitable for countries that aren’t in the euro, like Britain.

    Indeed, the fact that the Treaties simply assert that the euro is the currency of the EU shows that it does not reflect the reality of a Europe of many currencies today.

    As Wolfgang and I observed in an article we wrote together in the Financial Times last year:

    As the euro-area continues to integrate, it is important that countries outside the euro area are not at a systematic disadvantage in the EU.

    So future EU reform and treaty change, must include reform of the governance framework to put euro area integration on a sound legal basis, and guarantee fairness for those EU countries inside the single market, but outside the single currency.

    So let me be candid: there is a deal to be done and we can work together.

    Rather than stand in your way, or veto the Treaty amendments required, we, in Britain, can support you in the Eurozone make the lasting changes that you need to see strengthen the euro.

    In return, you can help us make the changes we need to safeguard the interests of those economies who are not in the Eurozone.

    What are those changes?

    Let me say more than we have done in public about what they are, and what they are not.

    We are not looking for a new opt-out for the UK in this area – we have the opt-out from the single currency we need.

    Nor are we looking for a veto over what you do in the Eurozone.

    Instead, what we seek are principles embedded in EU law and binding on EU institutions that safeguard the operation of the Union for all 28 member states.

    The principles must support the integrity of the European Single Market.

    That includes the recognition that the EU has more than one currency and we should not discriminate against any business on the basis of the currency of the country in which they reside.

    The principles must ensure that as the Eurozone chooses to integrate it does so in a way that does not damage the interests of non-euro members.

    And there will be cases where non-euro members want to participate in developments like the banking union. But that participation must be voluntary, and never compulsory.

    We must never let tax-payers in countries that are not in the euro bear the cost for supporting countries in the Eurozone.

    This is exactly what was attempted in July, when, out of the blue, in flagrant breach of the agreement we’d all signed up to, and without even the courtesy of a telephone call, we were informed we would have to pay to bail out Greece.

    That would have been grossly unfair.

    We have fought hard, with German help, to stop that happening – and we succeeded.

    But we shouldn’t have to fight a running battle on these issues.

    We should put things on an orderly basis with agreed principles.

    We need to recognise that just as financial stability and supervision have, rightly, become a key area of competence for Eurozone institutions like the European Central Bank – so financial stability and supervision are a key area of competence for national institutions like the Bank of England for countries not in the euro.

    We can achieve that at the same time as we go on building the single market in financial services.

    And these principles need to recognise that we are all partners in this European Union – when there are issues that affect all member states, they should be raised, discussed, and decided by all member states.

    We seek to make these principles permanent and legally binding – and we want to design a simple mechanism to ensure the principles are enforced. These are the kinds of checks and guarantees that exist in other parts of the EU’s governing rules.

    Today, for the first time I am spelling out more of the detail of the changes we need to stay in the European Union.

    And when it comes to the relationship between those who use the euro, and those who do not: here’s the deal.

    You get a Eurozone that works better.

    We get a guarantee that the Eurozone’s decisions and costs are not imposed on us

    You get a stronger Euro.

    We make sure the voice of the pound is heard when it should be.

    A deal that’s written into the law

    A deal that’s good for Britain.

    And a deal that’s good for Germany too.

    And the result will be a better European Union.

    Stronger economically – so it becomes more competitive in the world, and supports the creation of jobs and higher living standards for all its citizens.

    Stronger constitutionally – so it works better for the 19 countries of the Eurozone, and better for the 28 countries of the single market.

    I ask you to work with us to make these changes, and to form a partnership.

    A partnership of the two strongest economies in Europe.

    A partnership of two nations who respect difference and accommodate diversity.

    A partnership of two nations who share values of tolerance and openness and freedom.

    A partnership of two nations who will work together to build that Wertegemeinschaft – that community of shared values – in Europe.

    Let Britain and Germany work together as partners for a European Union that works better for all of us.

    And deliver that brighter and more secure future for all of our citizens.

    Danke schön.

  • George Osborne – 2014 Speech at UK-China Financial Forum

    gosborne

    Below is the text of the speech made by George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in London on 18th June 2014.

    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    We all share an interest in greater economic relations between the UK and China. And nowhere is that more important than in finance.

    That’s why I wanted to hold this conference here in London – the world’s leading financial centre.

    As someone who is a passionate believer in the importance of the UK-China relationship, can I begin by expressing my huge thanks to Premier Li for joining us this morning.

    Premier Li – your passion and your leadership is driving radical reform in China.

    It is a hugely exciting agenda that you set out in the Third Plenum – one that I am confident will bring prosperity and economic security to the people of China, and to the global economy.

    I want Britain to play a major role in helping you achieve those reforms – and I look forward to hearing from you today about the opportunities for closer financial cooperation.

    Yesterday, with Premier Li and Prime Minister David Cameron we spent many hours writing the next chapter in the story of the UK-China partnership.

    We have seen historic agreements between our countries.

    Agreements on energy – with multi-billion pound contracts for UK companies, and further steps towards a historic deal that could bring billions of pounds of Chinese investment into our new civil nuclear programme.

    We have seen agreements on science investment and research partnerships – as two nations dedicated to expanding the frontiers of human knowledge.

    But today we focus on finance, and the momentous progress that China, and the UK and China together, have made in this arena.

    Modern finance is constantly changing.

    But the number of historic changes in our financial world are relatively few: the emergence of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency after the First World War, is one; a second was the disintermediation of banks and growth in securities markets in the 1980s as savers sought higher returns.

    And I believe the emergence of China’s currency as one of the world’s leading currencies will be the next huge change.

    And, bluntly, I want the City to facilitate that change and be central to it.

    In the last three years, Renminbi has overtaken 23 other currencies to become the seventh most used currency in international payments.

    And that presents huge opportunities – both to China, who benefits from more investment, greater returns, and more diversification – and also to the UK.

    We are the world’s leading financial centre.

    And since coming to office I have been determined to make sure we capitalise on that position – and lead the way in this exciting new market.

    In 2011 there was almost no offshore Renminbi activity in London.

    Now we account for two thirds of Renminbi trading outside China and Hong Kong.

    Two years ago we saw the first UK bank, HSBC, issuing an RMB bond.

    Last year, with the permission of the Chinese government, we saw the first Chinese bank do the same. And now Chinese banks will soon be able to apply to set up wholesale branches here.

    We have made huge steps forward – and I am hugely grateful to my Chinese colleagues with whom we have worked so closely over the last four years.

    I have worked in partnership with my good friend Governor Zhou in particular on many occasions, and I look forward to continuing that strong relationship.

    We are so pleased to welcome you today, and my colleague, Finance Minister Lou Jiwei.

    Today we build on the progress we have made so far.

    First, I am delighted that yesterday the People’s Bank of China, with the Bank of England’s agreement, selected China Construction Bank as the Renminbi clearing bank in London.

    That makes it the first RMB clearing bank outside of Asia.

    It’s hugely important in underpinning the future growth of London’s RMB business.

    Second, I am very pleased to announce that UK Export Finance will now provide guarantees for transactions denominated in RMB.

    That’s a huge boost for UK businesses looking to export to China.

    This week UK Export Finance signed an agreement to commence work on its first transaction involving an RMB guaranteed loan, with a view to completing a major transaction later this year.

    Third, I welcome the news that the Chinese authorities have awarded new licenses to UK companies so they can make RMB denominated investments into China.

    Licenses will go to UK asset managers, HSBC Asset Management and Blackrock’s UK subsidiary.

    This was a major outcome of my visit to Beijing last October.

    And now that agreement is being put into practice, giving UK investors more opportunities to invest directly into Chinese securities.

    And finally, I welcome the news that the People’s Bank of China will launch direct trading between sterling and Renminbi on the China Foreign Exchange Trading System.

    Another boost to bilateral trade and investment – building further economic ties between our two great nations.

    We have made huge progress in the last four years.

    Everyone here has played a role in making the London RMB market what it is today.

    And I would like to thank you for the many contributions that you and your firms have made.

    And to thank the City of London initiative for all that they have done over the past three years.

    But of course, what we have achieved so far is just the beginning.

    And today we gather to work out what the next steps in our relationship should be.

    Here are some of my ideas:

    Firstly, I want to see the links between our financial markets grow further.

    For example, Hong Kong and Shanghai are developing arrangements to connect their stock exchanges. I want London to explore something similar.

    Secondly, we have already secured licenses for asset managers in London to invest RMB directly into China.

    I now want us to explore ways for Chinese individuals and institutions to invest RMB into London’s global capital markets.

    Thirdly, I want to see more British businesses grow in China, including in the very exciting Shanghai Free Trade Zone.

    And finally, as Chinese companies go global, I want them to find London the most attractive place to set up their international headquarters.

    But more than that, as Premier Li set out last night, I want UK and Chinese companies to be working together in third countries.

    Because that is the true sign of a successful partnership.

    These are just some of my thoughts, but there will be many others discussed at this conference.

    It’s a hugely exciting agenda, where the future belongs to those ambitious for reform.

    Let me be clear.

    Our long term economic plan is working, but the job isn’t done.

    We need to export to fast growing economies like China, and attract more investment to our shores.

    To do that we need to make sure China’s currency, as it emerges onto the world stage, is used and traded here – as that will not only be good for China, but good for UK jobs and investment too.

    Together – the people here in this room – we’ll work to make that happen.

  • George Osborne – 2014 Mansion House Speech

    gosborne

    Below is the text of the speech made by George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at the Mansion House, London, on 12th June 2014.

    My Lord Mayor, Ladies and Gentlemen, it is again an honour to attend this wonderful dinner and to speak to you as Chancellor for the fifth time.

    Lord Mayor, I remember coming here to Mansion House, just weeks after the government was formed in 2010 – with Britain on the brink of an economic crisis – to give my first major speech on the task ahead.

    I set out for you the economic plan we would follow, and I drew on the words Winston Churchill had uttered in this very hall, to say that while Britain could not pretend our travails were at an end, we were at least at the end of the beginning.

    In the four years since, supported by the resolution and sacrifice of the British people, we have worked through that plan.

    Now we are starting to see the results:

    Britain growing faster than any advanced economy in the world.

    A record number of people in work.

    Now strong business investment on the back of low business taxes.

    And a budget deficit this year set to be half what it was.

    Last week, the IMF said that our resolute fiscal policy had been in their words an ‘anchor for the British economy’ that had maintained confidence and stability in the face of the storm.

    And I want to say to the business and financial community: you did not waver; you stuck with us and I thank you.

    But the task is far from complete; and there are many risks to the progress we have made.

    Abroad, the risks stem from the weak eurozone, unpredictable geopolitics and the slowdown in some emerging markets.

    At home, our economy is still too unbalanced, so I am the first to say we need to continue our efforts to boost business investment, exports and housing supply.

    But the biggest risk comes from the tendency in parts of our body politics – the left and now too the populist right – to wage a war on enterprise, regulate prices, propose penal taxes, close Britain to business and return to the old ways of borrow and spend.

    We must win this battle.

    And go on confronting Britain’s problems with long term answers that will build an economy for everyone.

    So while I know this is my fifth speech to you as Chancellor; I hope it is not my last.

    For I want to finish the job.

    Lord Mayor, tonight we are joined by someone attending their first Mansion House dinner.

    Our Governor of the Bank of England.

    Mark, we all thank you for the integrity, intelligence and international reach you have brought to the challenges of the last year.

    And we look forward to what you have to say.

    Our 3 new Deputy Governors – Jon Cunliffe, Ben Broadbent and Minouche Shafik, together with Andrew Bailey, complete what I immodestly think is the strongest team of any central bank in the world.

    The Court continues the oversight of the Bank’s work, and at the end of this month Anthony Habgood will replace David Lees as its Chair.

    David, thank you for helping steer the Bank through the big reforms of recent years and the appointment of a new Governor.

    And thank you too to Charlie Bean for the 6 years he has given our nation as Deputy Governor.

    We are lucky that one of our greatest economists has chosen to dedicate his life to public service for so long.

    The Bank of England now sits back where it belongs, at the heart of our financial system – supervising the prudential regulation of our banks and insurers, thanks to the reforms I announced in my first speech here at the Mansion House in 2010.

    And in each speech since, I have set out new steps to strengthen the resilience of our economy and the financing that underpins it.

    2011, Ringfencing our retail banks

    2012, launching funding for Lending

    Last year, restructuring the Royal Bank of Scotland and firing the starting gun on the sale of our stake in Lloyds.

    It would be tempting this year, at the Mansion House, to pause for breath.

    But our task is far from complete – and today I will announce further changes to build that resilient economy for all and the strong, competitive financial services that should contribute to it.

    Lord Mayor, the City of London has emerged from the wreckage of what went so badly wrong, stronger and better regulated, more international and more responsive to the needs of customers here at home.

    Our financial exports grew 10% last year, and our surplus in finance and insurance has reached £45 billion – twice as much as our closest competitors.

    We’ve welcomed to Britain the headquarters of some of the world’s largest insurance firms.

    And we have been chosen as the location for the International Forum of the world’s Sovereign Wealth Funds.

    In my first Mansion House speech, I said I wanted British financial firms and markets to be at the heart of financing China’s extraordinary expansion.

    Now two thirds of all Renminbi payments outside of China and Hong Kong now take place in London.

    Chinese bonds are being issued here, Chinese assets are being managed here, Chinese banks will be able to apply for branches here, a Chinese clearing bank is soon to be appointed here – and next week, when the Chinese Premier visits, we will take the next big step forward in the economic partnership of our two great, historic trading nations.

    I can also confirm tonight our intention in the next few weeks, subject to market conditions, for Britain to be the first western nation to issue a sovereign sukuk – an Islamic bond.

    For I want Britain to be not just the western hub of Chinese finance – but of Islamic finance too.

    It is with these active steps that together we are making Britain the undisputed centre of the global financial system.

    But all this can so easily be put at risk.

    By badly-conceived EU rules that only reinforce the case for reform in Europe.

    By populist proposals for self-defeating bonus taxes and punitive income tax rates.

    And by the potential break up of our nation.

    Edinburgh is even stronger as a world-renowned centre for asset management because it is part of a United Kingdom that is a world-renowned centre of finance.

    And let us hope it remains so, for we are better together.

    We should be candid tonight about another risk.

    The risk that scandals on our trading floors call into question the integrity of our financial markets.

    People should know that when they trade in London, whether in commodities or currencies or fixed income instruments, that they are trading in markets that are fair and effective.

    The revelations about the manipulation of LIBOR added further damage to reputation of financial services, here and abroad.

    In Britain, thanks to the leadership of Martin Wheatley and Andrew Tyrie, we acted swiftly to punish the wrongdoers and fix the system.

    Let us not wait for the next wave of scandals in financial markets to hit us before we respond.

    The integrity of these markets matters to us. London is home to 40% of the global foreign exchange business; 45% of over-the-counter derivatives trading; and 70% of trading in international bonds. And Mark Carney and I intend to keep it that way.

    So today I can announce that the Treasury, the Bank of England and the Financial Conduct Authority will conduct a comprehensive review of standards in our fixed income, currency and commodity markets.

    The Fair and Effective Markets Review will be chaired by the new Deputy Governor, and former Deputy Managing Director of the IMF, Minouche Shafik – and she will be joined by Martin Wheatley and Charles Roxburgh.

    This Review must work closely with industry. So I am establishing a panel of market practitioners, chaired by Elizabeth Corley, chief executive of Allianz Global Investors.

    The Review will produce its report in a year’s time.

    And some of its recommendations may require international agreement.

    In the meantime, we will act here at home.

    I am today announcing that we will extend the new powers we put in place to regulate LIBOR to cover further major benchmarks across foreign exchange, commodity and fixed income markets – many of which are currently entirely unregulated.

    Based on the Review’s conclusions we will publish and consult on the full list of benchmarks to be covered by this autumn, and we will have the new regime in place by the end of the year.

    I am also extending the senior managers regime to cover all banks that operate in this country, including the branches of foreign banks.

    And I can also announce that we will introduce tough new domestic criminal offences for market abuse, rather than opt into European rules we do not think suitable or sufficient for our needs.

    For let me make this clear, so no one is in any doubt.

    The integrity of the City matters to the economy of Britain.

    Markets here set the interest rates for people’s mortgages, the exchange rates for our exports and holidays, and the commodity prices for the goods we buy.

    I am going to deal with abuses, tackle the unacceptable behaviour of the few, and ensure that markets are fair for the many who depend on them.

    We’re not going to wait for more scandals to hit– instead we are going to act now, and get ahead.

    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    Robust financial markets are an important part of building a resilient economy.

    But tonight, I want to address another market which can create a risk to Britain’s economic stability and prosperity.

    Not a new risk, but an old and very familiar one to us in this country – and that’s our housing market.

    The challenge is that we want several things which don’t sit comfortably together.

    For most people, their home is the biggest investment of their lifetime. And, of course, they want that asset to increase in value over time.

    But a home is also a place to live and build our lives – and we want all families to be able to afford security, comfort and peace of mind. That means homes have to be affordable – whether you’re renting or buying.

    The only way that can be achieved over the long term is by building more, so supply better matches demand.

    But we are a small and crowded island, keen to protect our green spaces and ready to object to new development.

    So the British people want our homes to go up in value, but also remain affordable; and we want more homes built, just not next to us.

    You can see why no one has managed yet to solve the problems of Britain’s housing market.

    Instead we have the repeated cycle of financial instability driven by high household debt; and we see the social injustice of millions of families denied good homes.

    But that should not deter our generation from trying to fix the housing challenge – for the price of failure is too high.

    So my message today is this.

    As Chancellor, I have never shied away from confronting Britain’s problems.

    The housing market is no exception.

    I’m determined to back aspiration in every way I can, including the aspiration to own your own home.

    But I’m not going to opt for the easy route of some of my recent predecessors: duck the issues, risk a housing boom, and keep my fingers crossed that it won’t damage the economy.

    So no irresponsible gambles with stability; no short-term fixes.

    Housing is a long term problem – and our economic plan will provide long term answers.

    Here’s how.

    First, we have to be clear-eyed about where the risks to economic stability lie today.

    The risks come when people borrow too much to pay for rising house prices.

    In excess, that debt can cause serious difficulties for them and the banks who lent to them.

    And it can cause difficulties for the economy as a whole if an overhang of debt suppresses consumer spending.

    Now, today, house prices are still lower in real terms than they were in 2007 – and are forecast to stay below that peak for some years to come.

    At the same time debt-servicing costs remain at near record lows and rental yields are in line with long term trends.

    So there is no immediate cause for alarm.

    Indeed the most recent data shows that mortgage approvals have actually slowed in the last couple of months.

    But we need to be vigilant.

    For there are on the horizon things that should give us some causes for concern.

    If London prices were to continue growing at these rates that would be too fast for comfort.

    And the rate of price rises is now beginning to spread beyond London. Across the country, the ratio of house prices to incomes is high by historical standards.

    And while average loan to value ratios for new lending are still well below normal, average loan to income ratios have risen to new highs.

    Let me spell it out: does the housing market pose an immediate threat to financial stability today? No, it doesn’t.

    Could it in the future? Yes, it could, especially if we don’t learn the lessons of the past.

    So we act now to insure ourselves against future problems before they can materialise.

    Because economic security comes first.

    The first challenge is to be clear about the issue, and we are.

    The second is to act on it.

    When I spoke to you in 2010, I said one of the weaknesses of the system of financial regulation I’d inherited was that no one was looking for broader risks across the economy, in areas like housing.

    So no one saw the rising debt levels – or had the tools to do anything about them.

    I have changed that.

    The new Financial Policy Committee in the Bank of England has been given the authority and the macro-prudential tools to act.

    They have also insisted on the toughest stress tests for our banks, so that this time round they can withstand the worst.

    Before Christmas, the Bank acted with the Treasury to refocus the Funding for Lending Scheme away from mortgages towards small business lending.

    And earlier this year, our regulators put much more rigorous mortgage standards in place.

    These are all important steps.

    The FPC already have further tools in their armoury. But today we go further.

    I want to make sure that the Bank of England has all the weapons it needs to guard against risks in the housing market.

    I want to protect those who own homes, protect those who aspire to own a home, and protect the millions who suffer when boom turns to bust.

    So today, I am giving the Bank new powers over mortgages including over the size of mortgage loans as a share of family incomes or the value of the house.

    In other words, if the Bank of England thinks some borrowers are being offered excessive amounts of debt, they can limit the proportion of high loan to income mortgages each bank can lend, or even ban all new lending above a specific loan to income ratio.

    And if they really think a dangerous housing bubble is developing, they will be able to impose similar caps on loan to value ratios – as they do in places like Hong Kong.

    It’s important that decisions to use these powerful tools are made independently of politics by the Bank of England.

    We saw from the last crisis the dangerous temptations for politicians to leave the punch bowl where it is and keep the party going on too long. And just in case there is any doubt.

    I say today, very clearly: the Bank of England should not hesitate to use these new powers if they think it necessary to protect financial stability.

    And I commit that while the Bank and the Treasury will need to design how these powers will work in detail, and will want to consult on them, I will make sure that they are legislated for and in place before the end of the Parliament.

    And I also commit today that if the Bank does act in future to limit mortgage lending then the same rules will be applied to every single Help to Buy mortgage.

    I know that some would take a more ideological position and end the Help to Buy scheme altogether.

    They would return to the situation where only those first time buyers lucky enough to have rich parents would be able to afford the large deposits demanded by the banks.

    My approach will be dictated by the facts, not by ideology.

    And the facts show that Help to Buy is working as intended.

    As the IMF concluded last week, it is helping lower income families, overwhelmingly first-time buyers outside London, to buy homes priced well below the national average.

    It is not fuelling house price inflation in London or at the top of the market.

    It is helping families, and that is how we intend to keep it.

    So today I’ve taken big new steps to protect financial stability, strengthen the new role of the Bank of England and completed the range of tools at their disposal.

    This addresses the economic problem of how we stop rising house prices leading to an unsustainable rise in household indebtedness, and threatening the wider economy.

    But it does not address the social problem of how we stop young families being priced out of the housing market altogether.

    That requires a third pillar to our housing strategy, alongside the clear analysis and new financial weapons.

    We need to see a lot more homes being built in Britain.

    The growing demand for housing has to be met by growing supply.

    The alternative, as in any market, is that prices will rise so that homes become unaffordable to many of our citizens and take up ever more of their incomes.

    We’ve already taken big steps to deliver those new homes.

    We’ve reformed our antiquated planning system.

    The changes were hard –fought and controversial, like all things worth battling for in politics, and now they are already starting to work.

    Last week we saw permissions for new homes rising by 20% in a year.

    We’ve got the biggest programme of new social housing in a generation; we’re regenerating the worst of our housing estates; and we’ve got the first garden city for almost a century underway in Ebbsfleet.

    Now we need to do more. Much more.

    We have beautiful landscapes, and they too are part of the inheritance of the next generation. To preserve them, we must make other compromises.

    If we want to limit development on important green spaces, we have to remove all the obstacles that remain to development on brown field sites.

    Today we do that with these radical steps.

    Councils will be required to put local development orders on over 90% of brownfield sites that are suitable for housing.

    This urban planning revolution will mean that in effect development on these sites will be pre-approved – local authorities will be able to specify the type of housing, not whether there is housing.

    And it will mean planning permission for up to 200,000 new homes – while at the same time protecting our green spaces.

    Tomorrow, Boris Johnson and I will jointly set out plans for new housing zones across London backed by new infrastructure, so that we see thousands of new homes for London families.

    And we’ll take the same approach in the rest of the country; with almost half a billion pounds of financial assistance in total set aside to make it work.

    Now I suspect there will be people who object to new building, even on the brownfields of our cities.

    But let me be clear.

    I will not stand by and allow this generation, many of whom have been fortunate enough to own their own home, to say to the next generation: we’re pulling up the property ladder behind us.

    So we will build the houses Britain needs so that more families can have the economic security that comes with home ownership.

    And today I will give the Bank of England the powers it needs over mortgages, so that Britain’s economic stability always comes first. And that is what our long term economic plan is delivering.

    Lord Mayor, Ladies and Gentlemen,

    Insisting on the integrity of our financial markets.

    Confronting the risks from our housing market.

    Tackling the long term challenge of housing supply.

    These are the further actions I take today to ensure that we learn from the mistakes of the past and build a resilient economy for all.

    These last four years have required difficult decisions.

    We embarked on the hard task of rebuilding our economy; and making sure our country could pay its way in the world.

    That task is not complete.

    Our national prosperity is not yet secure.

    But if we carry on working through our long term economic plan then we can say with confidence that brighter days lie ahead.