Tag: Speeches

George Roberts – 1918 Speech on Trade Boards

Below is the text of the speech made by George Roberts in the House of Commons on 17 June 1918.

I beg to move, “That the Bill be now read a second time.”

This Bill is one to amend the Trade Boards Act of 1909. That Act provides for the establishment of trade boards in all trades set out in the Schedule to the Act, those trades being ready-made tailoring, cardboard box making, lace finishing, and chain making. Other trades have been covered subsequently by means of Provisional Orders. The principal function of a Trade Board is to fix minimum rates of wages. The Act came into operation on 1st January, 1910, and it applied, in the first instance, to the four trades set out in the Schedule. Roughly speaking, there are 200,000 persons normally engaged in these four trades, in the proportion of 86,700 men and 143,500 females.

After three years’ experience, the Board of Trade was so satisfied with the results achieved that it made a further extension by means of the Trade Boards Provisional Order Confirmation Bill of 1913. This extension brought in sugar confectionery and food preserving, shirt making, hollow-ware making, and linen and cotton embroidery. It is estimated that 190,000 additional workpeople were affected by this extension, in the proportion of 23,000 males and 167,000 females. Thus there are now, approximately, 390,000 workers under the Act, of whom about 80,000, or, roughly, 20 per cent., are males, and about 310,000 females. The number of firms affected is about 17,000. At the time the Act was passed it was admittedly an experiment. It was based very largely upon certain Australian experience. Wages boards were initiated in the State of Victoria, Australia. In that State, after various experiments to improve factory inspection and to remedy the sweating system, proposals were incorporated in the Factories and Shops Act of 1896, which were intended to regulate wages.

As in this country, after three years’ experience, the wages boards in Victoria were found sufficiently successful to warrant the Victorian Parliament in extending them to other trades. It is significant to remember that these extensions were made consequent upon the representations of both employers and workpeople. I believe I may make the same claim in respect of the amending Bill, the Second Reading of which I am moving this afternoon.

In Victoria, in 1903, an amending Bill was passed increasing the powers of the boards. In 1913 there were 134 boards in existence, covering 150,000 workers. The example of Victoria was subsequently copied by other Australian States. South Australia, Queensland, New South Wales, and Tasmania have all copied the Victorian model. Victoria has had twenty years’ experience of the operation of wages boards. Sweated industries have been largely diminished, unskilled workers have been protected from other competitive employment, employers have been placed on an equal footing as regards the price of labour, and I believe that the general opinion of Australia is that the system has been amply justified. I know of no movement to change it. I believe it may also be claimed in this country that with almost universal consent the Trades Boards Act of 1909 has brought a great deal of good, not only on behalf of the workers engaged in the trades, but also in the best interests of the trades themselves.

The present Bill aims at simplifying the procedure required for setting up boards and for fixing minimum rates of wages, and also at giving increased powers to boards in certain directions.

Undoubtedly great dislocation of industry will follow the War, and that renders it particularly necessary that rapidly adjustable machinery should be available for setting up boards in certain industries. I think this applies with particular force to the case of women. Many groups of women during the War have been able to elevate wage conditions to a more reasonable standard then heretofore, and it would be extremely undesirable, and undoubtedly would have a large number of undesirable social aspects, if they were to lapse back into the conditions which prevailed before the War. Moreover, there are other groups who have not, despite war conditions, been able to raise their status to anything which may be regarded as satisfactory. Therefore it seems to make it more desirable that we should provide machinery to adjust wages to a reasonable basis, and in more accord with the spirit of our times. The principle features of the Bill may be briefly summarised. First, it gives power to the Ministry of Labour to set up boards by Special Orders, after giving proper opportunity for inquiry and objections, instead of proceeding by means of a Provisional Order Bill. I believe this proposal is likely to meet with some little criticism. [HON. MEMBERS: “Hear, hear!”]

Possibly we shall have to meet it, but I hope I shall be able to convince the House that it is a right and proper course, and when we get into Committee all the criticisms will have to be considered. At any rate, I express the hope that the Bill will ultimately emerge with this provision in it.

This makes the machinery for extending the Act to new boards simpler and more expeditious. Undoubtedly the existing machinery is most cumbersome, necessitating the introduction of a Provisional Order Bill whenever it is desired to bring a new trade under the Act. Moreover, if a Provisional Order Confirmation Bill is opposed, it is necessary for an inquiry by a Select Committee of this House to take place, involving great expense and considerable delay. This procedure, with its delays and safeguards, was probably justifiable when trades boards were in their experimental stage, but now that they are proved to be a valuable part of our industrial organisations, it appears desirable and reasonable that speedier methods to set up the boards are required and can be justified. Again, I think that the congested state of Parliament affords an additional reason why this new method should be adopted. After the War, undoubtedly Imperial and domestic questions will emerge with great rapidity, and it does seem desirable that where it is possible to delegate to responsible bodies matters which would otherwise occupy Parliamentary time, that is very wise and expedient. I am aware, owing to representations that have been made to me, that some criticisms will be proferred on this point, but I do venture to ask for dispassionate consideration of the matter, and that hon. Members should have regard to the experience already acquired. I think, with the safeguards that are in existence now, and which can, of course, be made perfectly clear in the Bill, it will be granted that it is not an unreasonable departure.

Sub-section 4 of Clause 2 enables either House of Parliament to annul any special Order within forty days of its being made. The substitution of procedure by special Order for that by Provisional Order does not withdraw the control of Parliament over the application of the Act to new trades. It seems to me and to those with whom I act that this is an ample safeguard, and that, therefore, the proposal is not open to the dangerous conjecture suggested in some of the criticisms that have been made. Moreover, there is precedent. The proposed special Orders follow generally the precedent of the Factory Act. By Section 79 of the Factory and Workshops Act, 1901, the Home Secretary is empowered to make regulations in respect of dangerous trades. The procedure for making special Orders set forth in the first Schedule of this Bill is based on that provided in Sections 80 and 81 of the Factory Act. While not necessitating the promotion of a Bill in Parliament, the proposed procedure does make ample provision for the consideration of objections and for inquiry.

While Clauses 1 and 2. deal mainly with procedure, Clause 1 also effects substantial Amendments of Section 1 of the Principal Act inasmuch as it empowers the Minister of Labour to apply this Act to any new trade to which he considers it expedient to apply it, having regard to the wages prevailing in that trade or in any branch of the trade, whereas, in the superseded provision of the Principal Act it can only be applied on the ground that the rate of wages prevailing is exceptionally low compared with that in other employment. It is deemed desirable that this power should be conferred and exercised, because simply to set up a board in respect of a trade which can be proved to be paying comparatively low wages is not a satisfactory procedure. I believe that everybody desires now that the wages in every trade shall assure to those engaged in that trade a satisfactory standard of living, and, having regard to the independent and expert character of a trade board, I think it may safely be urged that this power is not too great a one to confer upon it.

There is a considerable Amendment in this respect. We propose to confer upon a trade board discretion to fix a guaranteed minimum time rate. This simply accords with the experience of many trades. Trade unions invariably urge, and have been able to establish this principle as expressed in the Bill. This is a rate to secure to piece-workers a minimum rate of remuneration on a time-work basis. Where workers are employed on piece-work their earnings vary considerably, of course. In the case of many trades it is customary to establish a time-work basis of remuneration below which no piece-worker’s earnings are allowed to fall. This policy has been adopted by the Ministry of Munitions in its Orders governing wages in controlled establishments. I am not urging that you should confer power upon the Ministry of Labour simply because the Ministry of Munitions have exercised it, but it is in accord with general trade practice, and the Ministry of Munitions, acting in accord with that practice, have found it work well, and the fact that we have that experience forms, I think, an additional reason why that power may be exercised. But I wish to point out that it is not obligatory on a trade board to fix such a rate. It has been urged upon us that we ought to make it compulsory on a trade board to do so, but we recognise that it might not be applicable to every trade, having regard to the varying conditions of trade, and, therefore, we simply confer upon a trade board the power to fix this minimum time rate, and do not propose to make it obligatory upon it to do so.

We also desire that a trade board should have the power to fix differential rates for overtime. Assuredly this was an omission in the original Act, for in every trade now I believe that it is customary to fix a higher rate for hours worked in excess of a normal week, and particularly on a Sunday; but a trade board under the present Act has no such power, and we are simply seeking to confer upon trade boards the power to determine the normal weekly hours of work and then to fix varying rates in respect of work in excess of those normal weekly hours. Last year Parliament did enact the same principle in the Corn Production Act, and I think that we shall have further experience to warrant us in asking that the trade boards working in respect of a larger number of trades should have the same power conferred upon them. We also desire to establish machinery for accelerating the fixing of these minimum rates of wages. Under the existing Act nine months will elapse from the time when notice is given of the intention to fix a rate and the coming of that rate into full operation. Experience proves that that is altogether too long and we desire to place a shorter limit upon it. Therefore we are seeking to take power to allow a trade board, with the Minister’s sanction to bring a new rate into full operation within three months, instead of nine months as at present. The rates are not at present obligatory until at least six months after they are fixed by the trade board. During the intervening period they are obligatory only on Government and municipal contractors. Now nine months elapsed from the date on which a trade board gives notice of its intention to fix the rate, and we are asking that that period should be reduced to three months.

In Clause 5 it will be observed that some change is made in taking proceedings against employers for violating the Act. Where an offence for which an employer is liable is committed by some other person we propose that that other person may be proceeded against and punished in the same manner as if he were the employer. The proposals empower the Ministry to allow any trade board to proceed against any guilty agent either alone or together with the employer. Again we are acting on precedent, for a like power exists under Section 140 of the Factory Act, but where an employer proves that the offence committed by his agent was committed without his knowledge, consent or connivance, he will be exempt from fine in respect of the offence. Where the worker employés another worker on the premises of the employer the occupier of the premises is proposed to be held jointly liable with the immediate employer of the worker. These Amendments are proved to be necessary by the experience procured in the operation of the Act so far. We propose to impose on the employer the definite duty of keeping accounts. I think that if we confer on a trade board the power to fix statutory rates of wages it is but right also that we should compel the employer to keep accurate accounts, in order to have available the opportunity of testing any cases that may arise. Moreover, I think in these days that it is not too much to expect that anybody who is in business ought to keep proper accounts, and I feel sure that Parliament will admit that we are not asking too much in seeking this power.

Mr. BOOTH Will it include farmers?

Mr. ROBERTS It should include farmers, I agree—all persons in business. Under the principal Act it is necessary to issue a separate summons in respect of every occasion on which an employer has paid less than the rate. If wages were paid at less than the rate for six months twenty-six separate summonses would have to be taken out. This is obviously a most inconvenient procedure. Therefore, in Clause 9, we propose to empower an officer to take out one summons for any one occasion on which an offence has been committed and to give notice of intention to prove failure to pay rates on other occasions during the two years immediately preceding the laying of information. The officer will have to prove the commission of the actual offence and the other cases during the previous two years. The Court may then convict in respect of the offence charged, and may also order that the worker be paid the amount of deductions which constitute the case. Clause 10 provides that the trade board make recommendation to a Government Department with reference to the industrial conditions of the trade, and that that Department shall forthwith take the recommendations into consideration. Under Section 3 of the principal Act the trade board must consider any matter submitted to it by a Government Department, and must make a report to that Government Department, but the trade board has no power to take the initiative in making any such recommendations. We feel that a trade board is capable of expressing the opinion of the trade in any matter affecting the welfare of the trade.

Wages are often a subject on which cleavage is relatively sharp, but there are many other matters in which a real community of interest exists between the two parties in the trade. I think that that is very largely the spirit, and will subsequently be the practical result of the joint industrial councils proposed to be set up according to the scheme of the Committee over which my right hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means presided. If we can get the parties in a trade to consider not only matters of wages and labour conditions, but persuade them to have a full regard to all the affairs of that trade, that must surely contribute to bringing the two parties into closer relationship, and with that close relationship you will get a wider sense of responsibility which, I believe, will contribute splendidly to the real prosperity of the State and of both the parties in the trade. I think that these are, briefly, the outstanding points of the Bill. We propose that the Bill shall go to a Grand Committee upstairs. This will give opportunity for the fullest possible investigation of its provisions, and I think that we may then have the assurance that all criticism will be properly attended to, and if it be such as will contribute to the strengthening of the measure, or if concessions can be made in order to meet real criticism, then I can only say that we will be very glad to consider any proposals which are submitted to us.

But before leaving the Bill I would like to make a few observations on a point which we have been pressed to include in the Bill. It has been strongly represented to us that Parliament should fix a national minimum wage. This principle was the subject of a good deal of discussion when the Corn Production Bill was before the House. Whatever may be said in respect of any one industry, surely it must be seen that it is difficult for Parliament to agree upon any one figure which may be adaptable to every one of our industries or all the industries which are likely to come within the purview of the trade boards. I have been immensely attracted by the idea, which accords with a sense of justice, but on closer examination grave difficulties present themselves. It raises highly controversial questions as to the relationship of men’s and women’s wages, and it also raises, in an intense form, the question of the principle on which a national minimum wage should be based. The demand for fixing a minimum national wage arises from the feeling that every worker should be assured of a reasonable living wage. That, I believe, is how the demand originated, and I believe that everybody in this House and outside the House will agree that every worker is entitled to a reasonable minimum wage.

Sir F. BANBURY If they do the work.

Mr. ROBERTS I am glad my right hon. Friend joins in thinking that this will stimulate workers to render a fair share of work for the wages they receive. The question arises whether the wage shall be sufficient to maintain the individual or a family, a large or a small family, or a family of average size. Such diverse views are advanced on the whole subject that there is no chance of agreement in the community such as to justify Parliament to sanction, at this stage, one view or the other. Therefore we aim at the gradual improvement of the conditions in our industries, recognising that we cannot accomplish all this by a mere stroke of the pen. The best method appears to be to bring the representative employers and workpeople together, and to set them the task of improving their own conditions. Parliament has not the information regarding the conditions of all industries. Statutory figures are in the highest degree inelastic, and can only be changed by further legislation; meanwhile, irreparable damage might be done. The trade board system is flexible, and allows ready adaptability to changing conditions and the prompt correction of errors. Therefore we feel, however strong the sentiment may be in favour of the fixation of a national minimum wage, that it is far better and more expeditious to leave the fixing of the wages to trade boards for the various industries. The trade boards will have power given to them to so fix rates that they would rise gradually, and allow the trades time to adapt themselves to the new conditions. That is the principle on which we have worked in our trade union experience—recognising that firms may have contracts that they have made upon the existing wage standards, and that to impose great advances upon them would be most unjust to them; at the same time, we have generally been able to compromise and make an arrangement whereby the advances, mutually agreed upon, were brought into operation by degrees.

In conclusion, I want to urge that experience warrants the extension of the trade board system under the Bill by more expeditious means. Our experience shows a wide improvement in the wage standards, while no legitimate interests have been prejudiced. Organisation has been improved, efficiency has stimulated, and, above all, industrial relationships have been markedly bettered. I feel that everybody who has come into contact with the representative employers and workpeople who constitute the membership of these boards will agree with the last statement. I have heard many employers, even before I had anything to do, as Minister of Labour, with the trade boards, advance that as one of the main justifications for the schemes established in 1909. The wage board is a committee of experts who fix the minimum rates of wages in consultation with the representative employers and workpeople. A rate of wages is settled which corresponds fairly accurately to the circumstances of the particular industry, because the arrangement is made by persons who understand the conditions, being in the industry themselves. I desire to sec the whole of our industries covered by joint industrial councils or wages boards.

I would like to regard the wages boards as a temporary expedient facilitating organisation within the industry, so that, in the course of time, the workers or the employers will not have need of the statutory regulations, but that their organisation will have then developed into a joint industrial council, whereby the affairs of the industry will be controlled and managed by the people concerned in the industry themselves, without any recourse to any legislative expedient. It has been alleged that the proposals of this Bill conflict with the scheme of joint industrial councils which has been advocated throughout the country.

The joint industrial council presupposes a good state of organisation among the employers and the workpeople in a given industry, and I myself am for upholding the voluntary principle of negotiation, and the chief point is that employers and workers should continue to manage their own affairs. I want to see the whole of our industries covered by joint industrial councils or wages boards. Either of those bodies would consist of the most expert persons, employers and employed, in the trade or industry. They are removed from Parliamentary or political influence, and I feel that both of them are essential to the maintenance of harmony in industry and the development and expansion that we all desire for the trade of our country. I believe that would both well work for harmony and for greater and better productivity, bringing us much nearer to the time when the country will have assurance that every willing worker has sufficiency and security, while uplifting the working classes, and better developing the trade of our country and putting it on a sounder foundation.

The stability of markets will be ensured, for, after all, the best markets we can possibly have is the home market. If the wealth of the country is more equitably distributed, it will increase the consuming power of the whole of our people, and, in my view, will develop the most stable and desirable market, namely, that which is within our own shores. Therefore, given these wage boards for fixing wages on a reasonable basis, I think that we bring larger content into the homes of our people, not only advantaging those who are brought immediately under the operation of the Act, but contributing to the betterment and well-being of the country as a whole. For these reasons, therefore, I commend the Bill to the favourable consideration of the House.

May 2, 2016
Michael Gove – 2016 Speech on the EU

Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Gove, the Lord Chancellor, on 19 April 2016.

Speech available as a PDF.

May 2, 2016
Priti Patel – 2016 Speech at Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers Conference

Below is the text of the speech made by Priti Patel, the Minister of State for Employment, on 28 April 2016.

It is a privilege to be here today and speak to and meet so many representatives from our licensed retail sector.

Coming from a family business background,

I believe passionately in the vital role that businesses and entrepreneurs play in supporting investment, growth and jobs in our economy.

A strong, dynamic private sector creates wealth and opportunity for all.

So I want to pay tribute to everyone here today for the tremendous work you do and the tireless efforts you put into supporting our economy.

The 200 companies that are members for the ALMR have an amazing and powerful economic footprint.

22,000 outlets supporting 650,000 jobs gives you a voice in every part of the country

– And that number is growing at a fast and impressive pace.

And I particularly welcome the employment opportunities provided to young people, starting out in their chosen careers and getting their first taste of employment.

The skills and responsibilities that they learn and the training and apprenticeships that this sector provides gives them an invaluable start in life.

I also welcome the lead your members are taking with supporting apprenticeships, with over two-thirds of your members giving young people the chance to earn and learn through this career path.

Your success and entrepreneurial spirit is very much appreciated and welcome.

I also welcome the opportunity to be able to speak to you about the big choice that Britain faces in the forthcoming referendum on our membership of the European Union,

The economic benefits of standing tall as a free, independent and sovereign country,

And to set out the positive case for Britain to Vote Leave on 23 June.

EU Referendum

I am a firm believer in setting business free to innovate and invest,

I know how much red tape and regulation acts a barrier to your businesses.

I know that every pound you have to spend complying with rules and regulations is a pound taken away from investment on the frontline of your business;

And as a result you expect and demand action from Government on delivering supply-side reforms and reductions in red tape.

But Government and Parliament can only go so far –

There is a limit to what they can do to cut red tape

And that limit is there because we are a member of the European Union.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a fact that while we remain a member of the European Union, our hands are tied and we are powerless to act on reducing the burdens of red tape.

Britain is a proud nation of entrepreneurs, and small businesses, including in your sector, are the backbone of our economy.

I want us to be able to do everything we can to support them to thrive, but EU membership prevents that.

Unaccountable and unelected bureaucrats with no clue how to run a business and no local knowledge of this country dictate the rules that we all must follow.

British Ministers and MEPs are left to plead our case but all too often their views are over-ruled.

The UK has not managed to block a single proposal from becoming law through the EU Council, costing this country £2.4 billion each year.

We have opposed 72 measures in the EU Council, all of which have gone on to become law with the British interest ignored.

While our success rate at standing up for the Britain interest in the EU Parliament is also almost as bad.

During the last full term of the EU Parliament (2009-2014), 1,936 motions were passed, of which 576 were opposed by a majority of British MEPs.

But 485 of those – 84% – were still passed.

That means that when the British national interest is at stake,

Government Ministers in the EU Council have always been outvoted by the rest of Europe,

And five times in every six votes, European MEPs block our national interests.

Not only does this undermine our democracy as we are unable to hold European decision-makers to account,

Our lack of power over these matters is worrying because new rules and regulations from Europe cost you and our country money.

Research from Open Europe has shown that there are dozens of regulations imposed by the EU with the costs on British business totalling over £33 billion.

In 2010 the British Chambers of Commerce put the total cost of EU regulation on British business at £80 billion per year.

In 2005, the Treasury, estimated that the costs of the ‘single market’ could be over £125 billion per year, which is the equivalent of 7% of GDP, £4,639 per household, or £23,236 per company.

Other research shows that while every single business is bound to the EU’s ever-increasing rulebook, the percentage of businesses exporting to the EU are 6% and 12.5% of the British economy is exports to the EU.

Just think of the jobs that you could create and the investments you could make in expanding your businesses if you were not bound by these burdens.

Just think of the freedom you would have to innovate if we were no longer forced to compel with every diktat from Brussels.

Just think that by getting rid of some of the EU rules that make it so difficult to create employment, we could deliver a £4.3 billion boost to our economy and 60,000 new jobs.

The evidence from business of the consequences to our economy of EU regulations is damning.

CBI members list cutting back EU regulatory burdens as a priority, and 49% of their members report that EU employment law has a negative impact on their business.

Similar findings from the English Business Survey found that 46% of businesses affected by EU red tape said the impact was negative.

Bureaucracy from the EU does not have the confidence of British businesses.

Businesses, growth and jobs have all been sacrificed to satisfy the dogmatic march towards greater integration and a federal European superstate.

The only way we can liberate ourselves from these burdens is to Vote Leave and take control over our laws on 23 June.

Red Tape Cuts for Small Business

If this country Votes Leave, we can have a strong and positive future as an independent, free and sovereign country.

By being able to take back control of the laws that we make, we can begin the process of auditing and untangling our laws from the Brussels red tape from that hits our businesses hardest.

This is categorically not about rolling back workers’ rights

– this is about releasing businesses from unnecessary and meddlesome red tape

– which will in fact benefit working people by helping businesses create more jobs.

Cutting EU red tape on business – starting with small and medium sized businesses business – will be a valuable boost to productivity, growth and job creation.

We know that we can only safeguard business from EU red tape by leaving the EU because attempts to reform from within have failed.

Despite those wanting to remain in the EU stating that they want to “exempt Europe’s smallest entrepreneurial companies from more EU Directives.”

The renegotiation deal has given no guarantees of red tape cuts.

But if we Vote Leave on 23 June, we will not need to negotiate and lobby the EU,

Or beg Commissioners and other Governments for favours.

We can crack-on and free business from the shackles of regulation.

EU laws will be replaced by laws made in the UK by politicians accountable to you.

Risk

During the campaign so far, those in favour of remaining in the EU have played up the so-called risks of leaving the EU.

We’ve heard all sorts of scare stories about the economy,

And British business has been talked down.

But the biggest risk and uncertainty does not come from leaving the EU.

The biggest risks to business come from remaining in the EU.

Leaving business exposed to face the consequences of the future burdens that the EU can unilaterally impose on them is playing Russian Roulette with peoples’ livelihoods.

With all the damage and costs from the EU, it is astonishing to see that those who want the UK to remain in the EU have put so much faith in its failing institutions.

It is simply not plausible to claim that the EU is ‘good for jobs’ when there is over 20% unemployment in Spain and Greece, with youth unemployment in some parts of the EU over 40%.

And there’s over 10% unemployment – some 3.6 million people – across the Channel in France.

In fact, 3 of the 4 European countries with the highest employment rates – Norway, Switzerland and Iceland – are not in the EU,

While Japan and the USA also have much lower unemployment rates.

Membership of the EU is no guarantee of a strong healthy jobs market.

In fact, with the plans from Brussels to harmonise more of our employment, social and other laws with countries that have a terrible jobs record, like Greece and Spain,

We can see that the big risk to peoples’ jobs is staying in the EU.

Outside of the EU, we can set the sensible and flexible employment policies that suit employers and employees and offer secure employment.

History also tells us that the prosperity of our businesses cannot be left in the hands of the EU.

I remember the devastating consequences that the ERM had on businesses, including my parents’.

And just imagine the utter carnage that would have affected our economy had we listened to the EU elite and joined the Euro.

More recently, the EU has forced up insurance prices for female drivers.

Last year they turned their fire on small scale cider producers demanding the removal of tax exemptions.

And they’ve put obligations on housebuilders, set limits on the maximum energy of appliances like vacuum cleaners, and limited the size of containers that olive oil can be sold in.

Remember, at any time bureaucrats from the Commission and judges in the Court can strike.

And your business and your interests could be next.

That is a risk that to business that I cannot stand by and accept.

And this is why we are safer and more secure as a free, independent, and sovereign country.

Money

If we vote to leave the EU, we will be better off from being liberated to cut red tape to boost productivity.

We will also be better off as a result of no longer needing to send a £350 million per week membership fee to Brussels.

Those costs are forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Treasury to be a contribution to the EU of £19 billion in this financial year,

And a total of £96.5 billion by 2021.

As our economy grows stronger compared to the rest of the EU, we could end up paying even more in.

That money does not come out of thin air.

It comes from the tills of your businesses from the taxes that you pay.

It comes from the fruits of your labours and from the rewards for the risks that you take.

And what does the EU do with your money?

It does not spend it on your priorities.

It spends it on its own self-serving schemes, wasteful bureaucracy, and on projects in far-flung parts of Europe.

By leaving the EU, that money can be spent in this country on your priorities.

We can use it, for example, to support businesses by investing in new infrastructure, or by cutting the tax burden.

I am sure you will agree with me that your hard-earned taxes can be put to more productive use in this country.

Conclusion

I spoke earlier of the importance of business and your sector to our economy,

And it is because I am determined to see business succeed that I believe we will be better off voting to leave the EU.

We have the fifth largest economy in the world, with growth outstripping Germany for the past four years.

We are bursting with innovators, entrepreneurs and wealth-creators who bring in investment, create growth, and support jobs.

We have a workforce that is upskilling.

We have more children learning in good and outstanding schools being equipped with the skills needed for the modern workplace.

We have record numbers of people in work.

And we have more people starting their own businesses.

But I want us to do better,

And we can only do better if we vote to leave the EU and take back control of our laws and our money.

Our choice on 23 June is a clear one.

We can choose to remain in an unaccountable, unreformed EU,

– that damages British business,

– takes our money,

– and puts our future prosperity at risk.

Or we can vote for a positive and secure future as a free, independent and sovereign country,

Where we can spend our money on our priorities,

Make our own laws,

Take an axe to EU red tape to free enterprise,

And make the most of the potential and talent that our great country has to offer.

Let’s Vote Leave on 23 June and take control of our destiny.

Thank you.

May 2, 2016
Anthony Eden – 1937 Statement on Foreign Affairs

Below is the text of the speech made by Anthony Eden, the then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in the House of Commons on 21 October 1937.

It is symptomatic of the state of the world to-day that our last Debate before our Summer holidays and the first opportunity for a debate on the resumption of our work should both be concerned with the foreign situation. During the period of our holiday, which I must confess seemed to me a singularly short one, the world has been far from observing the rules of August and September quietude in respect to which this House has set them so excellent an example.

Indeed, internationally the holidays have been almost stormier than term time. I will not attempt to give the House this afternoon a full account of all the events in the international sphere which have so fully occupied the chancellories of Europe and the world during the past few months. It would unjustifiably tax the patience of hon. Members. At the same time, the House will no doubt wish to have on this first available occasion some account of the main events of the Recess and some appreciation of the present outlook. In two parts of the world far removed from each other—the south-western corner of Europe and the Far East—undeclared wars are at present raging. The House will not be surprised if I confine most of what I have to say this afternoon to these two parts of the world.

I would like, for I think it is good to keep some kind of chronological sequence, to begin with events in the Mediterranean, which began to take place not very long after the House had adjourned for its summer holidays. We became confronted with what was something of a new phenomenon in the international situation. The commerce of the Mediterranean found itself confronted with a new menace. Merchant ships, neutral merchant ships, non-Spanish merchant ships were stopped and sunk, often without warning and with consequent heavy loss of life in the Mediterranean. Our own shipping, British shipping, began in consequence to suffer from what were in effect acts of piracy. That was a situation which could not be allowed to continue.

I have seen it said that the action of His Majesty’s Government in conjunction with the French Government and the other Mediterranean Powers—now all the other Mediterranean Powers—has militated against the chances of victory of one side or the other in Spain. Whether that be so or not, it is a charge to which we are quite indifferent, for the action which we took had, of course, nothing whatever to do with whatever our sentiments might have been in respect of the Spanish conflict itself. Against such acts the only possible safeguard was the use of such overwhelming strength for the protection of trade routes in the Mediterranean as would effectively deter the pirates.

There were, moreover, two conditions for such action—that it should be speedy, that it should be based on international authority. Hence the Nyon Conference. We and the French Government—the latter were the conveners of the Conference—were sincerely sorry that the Italian Government could not see its way to participate in the Conference for reasons which we need not go into now. That difficulty has since been resolved. Fortunately, however, a remarkable measure of unity manifested itself within the Conference, and within 48 hours all the necessary plans and details, both political and technical, had been agreed to by the members; and within actually less than a fortnight the decisions of the Conference, including the patrolling of the trade routes in the Mediterranean by an Anglo-French force totalling some 80 destroyers, were actually in operation. It is always dangerous to offer any prophecy in present world conditions, but it is at least true that from the Assembly of the Nyon Conference until to-day the acts of piracy against shipping in the Mediterranean have ceased.

There is one additional comment I would like to make. The rapid progress realised by that Conference was only made possible by the marked degree of co-operation between the British and French delegations, both naval and political, and, no less important, by the ready spirit of comprehension shown by the other Mediterranean Powers present. His Majesty’s Government will not cease to be sincerely grateful for the part played by each one of the signatories of the Nyon Agreement.

Now I must turn to the sphere of the international situation, which presented, and in a measure continues to present, a less satisfactory picture. The working of the Non-Intervention Agreement during this period continued to be so unsatisfactory that the French Foreign Minister, M. Delbos, not unnaturally preoccupied, as were His Majesty’s Government, by the situation, seized the occasion of a conversation with an Italian representative at Geneva to propose spontaneously Three Power conversations between the French and Italian Governments and ourselves in an attempt to improve the Spanish position in all its aspects. In the circumstances the House will appreciate that in view of the origin of the invitation there was no time for prior consultation with us, but we were prepared and are still prepared to fall in with any proposal that gives prospect of a speedy betterment of the situation. I have no doubt that M. Delbos then hoped that the improved international atmosphere created by Italy’s joining in the Nyon Agreement created an opportunity for his initiative.

The House knows the later history and I am not going to recapitulate it here. The Italian Government declined the Three Power conversations, but suggested a reference back to the Non-Intervention Committee. Despite previous disappointments the French Government and ourselves decided to make one more effort, even though it might have to be the last, to refloat the Non-Intervention Committee, which had been virtually waterlogged for two months. At the same time we thought it only fair to make it plain that if the meeting could not achieve results within a limited period we should have to be free to resume our liberty of action. I want to make our position plain to the House. That statement was made, not because we had ceased to believe that the policy of nonintervention was still the only safe course for Europe in the Spanish conflict, but because no Government can continue to associate itself for an indefinite period with an international agreement which is being constantly violated.

So we come to Tuesday’s meeting. I confess that this was my first personal experience of a meeting of the Non-Intervention Committee. I would add also that at its close I myself saw no alternative but that the meeting the next day should decide to report failure to the General Committee, with all the consequences that such a decision must inevitably entail. In this connection I understand that there have been certain reports that on the morning of yesterday His Majesty’s Government took some new decision to modify their attitude, to grant belligerent rights, or seek to grant them, at once, and attempt to withdraw volunteers afterwards. I believe it has even been said that we approached the French Government in that sense. Lest there should be any misunderstanding, not only at home but elsewhere, I think I should make it plain that there is no truth whatever in that story. But at the eleventh hour there came a new and very welcome contribution by the Italian Government. However chastened some of us may be by the international experience of the last few years, no one will, I hope, belittle the significance of this offer.

There are two points to be borne in mind which I wish to emphasise to the House in connection with it. The first is this: the chief difficulty in connection with this problem of the withdrawal of volunteers had been the relation in time between the withdrawal of the foreigners and the granting of belligerent rights. On this issue both the Italian and the German Governments have substantially modified their attitude. Secondly, a stubborn difficulty had been the question of the proportionate withdrawals from both sides. Without proved figures it was virtually impossible to reach agreement on numbers, consequently on the basis for proportionate withdrawal. Here, too, the Italian Government have proposed a solution which should be acceptable—that we should undertake in advance to agree to proportions based on the figures of the Commission to be sent to Spain, whatever its figures may ultimately prove to be. His Majesty’s Government are themselves in complete accord with this view, and sincerely appreciate the contribution to international agreement which these two concessions and the acceptance of the British plan as a whole undoubtedly imply.

I should be the last to indulge in exaggerated optimism. There are problems enough and to spare still outstanding. In any event, however, there was truth in the remark one of my colleagues on the Committee made to me as we left last night: “Yesterday there seemed to be no hope; to-day there are real chances of making progress.” Can we profit by them? The next few weeks will show, and I say “weeks” deliberately. His Majesty’s Government will spare no endeavour to see that progress, now once begun, proceeds rapidly and unchecked. With this in view the Committee will meet again tomorrow, when we hope to receive the replies of all Governments to the Italian Government’s new offer.

But while I am speaking about Spain there are some general observations about that country and the Mediterranean situation which I would like to make to the House. The Government have always maintained, not, I know, with full approval from all quarters of the House always, that the right policy for this country in this dispute is non-intervention. This was the doctrine so often and eloquently preached to us, if I remember aright, by hon. Members opposite in the early days of the Russian Revolution. The fact that others may be intervening now does not detract from the truth of the doctrine. I am convinced that the people of this country are united and emphatic in not wishing the Government of this country to take sides in what should be a matter for the Spanish people. I am also convinced that our people wish the Government to do everything in their power, by example and by conference, not to let the principle of non-intervention he finally and irrevocably thrown over, if that can be contrived.

In this Spanish conflict our determination is to concentrate on what is possible; by a combination of patience and persistence, even at the risk of criticism and misrepresentation, to localise this war; and to watch over British interests. Those seem to us our two principal tasks, and in this connection I repeat to-day what I said in North Wales a few days ago, that non-intervention in Spain must be sharply distinguished from indifference in respect to the territorial integrity of Spain or in respect of our Imperial communications through the Mediterranean. There will be no indifference on the part of the Government where it is clear that vital British interests are threatened. In matters of such delicacy and importance the House will agree that the utmost precision and clarity are called for. Let me, therefore, once again make it plain that our rearmament bears with it neither overt nor latent strains of revenge either in the Mediterranean or anywhere else. Such sentiments are wholly alien to the British character, and even were the Government of the day to harbour them, which it does not, the British people would never be willing to give effect to them. Our position in the Mediterranean is essentially this, that we mean to maintain a right of way on this main arterial road. We are justified in expecting that such a right should be unchallenged. We have never asked, and we do not ask to-day, that that right should be exclusive.

The House has been encouraged to hope by the events of yesterday that a final step forward may be made in eliminating the Spanish question from the sphere of international conflict. His Majesty’s Government most ardently hope that this will prove to be the fact, for let us be frank about the consequences. The Government are conscious, as everyone else who has watched the international situation in the past year must have been conscious, that foreign intervention in Spain has been responsible for preventing all progress towards international peace. If they had wanted to see how plain this fact is, hon. Members opposite should have been at the League Assembly this year, where despite efforts which were made, notably by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and by M. Leon Blum for France, to obtain an agreed resolution, such agreement was found to be quite impossible. So it is with every aspect of international life. This is the cloud that obscures the prospects of improving the relations between the Mediterranean Powers. It would be futile to deny that until it is finally dissolved real progress will not be possible between them. If and when, however, the Spanish question, with all its attendant problems, both strategic and political, ceases to be the nerve centre of international politics, then it will be possible for the nations of the Mediterranean to seek in friendly conversations among themselves to restore those relations of traditional amity which have governed their intercourse in the past. In such conditions there is every reason why such conversations should succeed. That is the objective which we should all like to see realised. It is one in which our whole-hearted co-operation, whatever party be in power in this country, can always be counted upon, on the condition that this problem of intervention in Spain is resolved.

I should like to make some comments, if the House will allow me, upon the other sphere of warfare, the tragic situation which has developed in the Far East. There events have been happening which, whatever their military outcome, must inevitably result in the impoverishment of both nations now engaged in the conflict, and in the loss for a while at least to the other nations of the world of the hopes that a rising standard of living in the Far East and an expanding market in that part of the world would result in increased opportunities for commerce and for prosperity for all. This country more deeply regrets these events not only because we have great commercial interests in the Far East but also because, just previous to the outbreak of this conflict, we were, as I think the House knows, actually engaged in conversations with the Japanese Government which might have led to a programme of international co-operation, including of course the co-operation of China, for the improvement of relations and the development of trade in the Far East. These conversations, of course, were interrupted at once on the outbreak of the conflict, and their resumption is clearly impossible in present conditions. At the same time I would like to give the House a condensed account of the efforts which we have made to seek a settlement of this conflict, and I shall have something to say upon its origins and responsibilities in a moment.

As soon as we received news of the outbreak of fighting in North China we made repeated attempts to persuade the two Governments to enter into negotiations with a view to settling their differences before they assumed large proportions, and we made it clear that our good offices were available at any time to them for that purpose. Equally, when hostilities seemed to threaten in Shanghai, and after they had broken out, we went further than that, for we made an offer that if the Japanese forces in Shanghai were withdrawn and both Governments would withdraw their forces, we would undertake the protection of Japanese nationals in Shanghai jointly with other Powers. Other Powers accepted that offer and so did the Chinese in principle provided it were accepted by the Japanese Government. I think perhaps everybody in the Far East regrets that that offer was not universally accepted. In all these efforts we have kept in the closest touch with the Governments of other countries principally concerned, and especially, of course, with the Government of the United States. The views of these Governments and the action which they have taken, either with the Japanese or Chinese Governments, or both, have been substantially of a similar character.

Here I would turn for a moment to League action and our part in it in connection with this dispute. On 12th September the Chinese Government came to the League of Nations and referred their dispute with Japan to the League under Articles X, XI, and XVII of the Covenant, and the Council, with the full consent and approval of the Chinese Government, referred the matter to a special advisory committee which has been responsible for following the situation in the Far East. That advisory committee met at Geneva and, very wisely, I think, came to the conclusion that a body composed of the Powers principally interested in the Far East would be most likely to find a way of composing the dispute. They, therefore, proposed that the parties to the Nine-Power Treaty signed in Washington soon after the War should Initiate consultations in accordance with Article VII of that Treaty. Such consultation was immediately initiated by cable and through the diplomatic channel by His Majesty’s Government and various other Governments, with the result that the Belgian Government, having first been assured that such a course would he generally approved, have issued invitations to all parties signatories to the Treaty to meet in conference at Brussels, and we meet there on 30th October. We hope to be able to announce in the course of a day or two the delegates who are to represent the Government of this country.

At Geneva certain pronouncements were made both about the origin of this conflict, in what I thought was an admirably drafted document by the advisory committee, and also as to the air bombing which has taken place. I will add nothing more on either of those subjects to-day, except to say that, as our own representative at Geneva made abundantly clear, we fully endorse every word of those reports and everything that they say. We welcome the summoning of this conference, because in our view a meeting of the Powers principally concerned, in the capital of one of the signatories of this Nine-Power Treaty, is the best hope of finding a means of putting an end to this unhappy conflict. I would remind the House of the initiative that the League took in the matter and of the words in which that initiative was defined.

The words are: The sub-committee would suggest that these members”— that is, the members who signed the Nine-Power Treaty should meet forthwith to decide upon the best and quickest means of giving effect to this invitation. The sub-committee would further express the hope that the States concerned will be able to associate with their work other States which have special interests in the Far East to seek a method of putting an end to the conflict by agreement. It will be seen from this that our mandate is a definite one. I would only to-day add this: naturally we are in consultation with other Governments interested and shall continue to be so up to the moment of the Conference, and I received a message to-day to say that the French Foreign Secretary will himself attend the Conference and I also learn that the Italian Government are to send a delegation while the United States Government are being represented by their Ambassador at large. But I would submit this to the House: to talk now about what is to be included in or excluded from the Brussels Conference in advance of the meeting would be most unwise. We have our definite agenda given us by the League, and I suggest to the House that the proper procedure for us to follow is, in consultation with other signatories to the Treaty who will be present, to do the utmost that lies in our power to discharge that Mandate. The paramount desire of everyone must be to see an end put to the slaughter, the suffering and the misery of which we are witnesses in China to-day. If the meeting of the Brussels Conference can achieve this—and I repeat that, in our view, it offers the best chance there is of achieving it—the Conference will render the greatest possible service. If it fails, then we enter into a new situation which we shall have to face.

Mr. Herbert Morrison Refer it to the Non-Intervention Committee, I suppose!

Mr. Eden The right hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, explain what policy he wishes to advocate. I can only say that His Majesty’s Government will enter that Conference with the determination to do everything in our power to assure the success of its labours.
So, if the House will allow me I will make one or two observations upon the international situation in general before I conclude. I would like to quote first of all from an important statement which has recently been issued on the international situation and which I read with the greatest interest. The statement said: During the past two years there is good reason to believe that Europe has more than once been on the very brink of the precipice. The position was very critical when Germany reoccupied the Rhineland. It then said: It was publicly declared by Leon Mum to have been very critical in the first weeks of the Spanish war and, as this war has continued, the danger of its spreading into a European conflagration has never been absent. Those who read that statement—[An HON. MEMBER: “Read on.”]—That statement will be recognised by hon. Members opposite. I expect they would rather say that it is all our fault. If it goes on to say that it is all our fault, they may quite believe it, but surely they are the only people who will believe it. My purpose is not to quarrel with that statement but to say that I am in full agreement with it. Unfortunately it is true, but if it is true surely it throws all the greater responsibility upon us to see that we do nothing at this time that might result in pushing us over the brink of the very precipice in respect of which hon. Gentlemen are so eloquent.

I cannot but have constantly in mind in these anxious days the phrase which was used by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Coordination of Defence about the years that the locusts have eaten. It is impossible in the conduct of international affairs at this time, in a rearming world where, as President Roosevelt has graphically described, international law is no longer respected—it is impossible for foreign policy to be other than very closely related to the condition of our armaments. The experience of these years should be a grim warning to us and, more important, a grim warning to every future Government who hold office in this country. Now, at length, our growing strength in the field of armaments is beginning to appear, and its significance can scarcely be exaggerated. That is why I cordially welcome in this House the verdict of the recent Socialist party—Labour party—conference.

Mr. McGovern A completely National Government.

Mr. Eden It is easy for hon. Members to throw taunts about that conversion, but I, for one, will never do so because I am only too glad for that conversion, because of the steady influence I am convinced that verdict will have upon the present international situation. If it be the precursor of closer unity in other spheres, so much the better; even for what it stands for in itself it is an element for which the Government cannot be too grateful.

Mr. Gallacher It will not stand long.

Mr. Eden Whatever our party differences here, there are no Members in any part of the House who do not care deeply for the preservation of peace, and the verdict thus given, and the votes cast even before the unity arrived, are a real contribution in present conditions towards that result.

May 2, 2016
Viscount Astor – 1923 Speech on Juvenile Employment

Below is the text of the speech made by Viscount Astor in the House of Lords on 16 May 1923.

My Lords, I desire to submit to your Lordships the Question which stands in my name upon the Paper. I need not remind your Lordships that in spite of a slight improvement in trade there is still a tremendous amount of unemployment in this country. Hundreds of thousands of men and women are unable to find work, and the labour market is not able to absorb them. Nor need I remind your Lordships that at the present moment tens of thousands of children leave school every year, and no opportunity is provided to these juveniles between fourteen and eighteen to find employment.

A man who is out of work for any considerable period of time becomes demoralised. Nothing is so demoralising as hanging about with nothing to do. If that is what happens to adults, how much more demoralising is it for young men and women, boys and girls, who have no regular training, to wait for months and even years with absolutely nothing to do. It is particularly demoralising when they are able to draw what is called the dole, and do nothing all the time.
After the Armistice the Government decided that it would not be in the national interest that this sort of thing should go on. Training centres for juvenile employment were established, and were so successful that something like 200 of them were in existence at one period.

Unfortunately, when the cry for economy was raised the Government grant was diminished, and eventually withdrawn altogether. These unemployment centres were consequently closed clown. As a result there was such a popular clamour for their re-establishment that last December the Government decided on 75 per cent. grants to juvenile unemployment centres which were started by local authorities. I regret to say, however, that it was announced recently in another place that the Government contemplated the closing down of these juvenile centres at the end of Tune.

I raise the question to-day because, if the Government are not able to announce that they intend to continue these juvenile centres, I am very anxious that people should realise what the policy of the Government is going to be in order that public opinion may be mobilised and make itself felt, and that the Government, not for the first time in relation to this question, may reconsider its decision. I find it difficult to understand the attitude of the Government, because only the other day the Minister who is responsible for the administration of these juvenile centres paid eloquent tribute to their success. As recently as last December the Government, in a circular which was sent to local authorities, stated that it was thought most desirable, after consultation with the Board of Education, that is the Department primarily interested in the welfare of persons of this age, to revive these centres which had been closed down, and thus to mitigate the evil effects of unemployment.

If it was desirable in. December, 1922, to mitigate the evils of unemployment by setting up these juvenile unemployment centres it is equally desirable now.

It has been my good fortune to visit several of these centres, and I can say from my personal experience of those which I have visited that they have been extraordinarily successful. Young men and young women, boys and girls, have been taught occupations such as carpentry, they have had organised games, they have learnt the principles of citizenship, the responsibilities of leadership and esprit de corps. I know of another centre, which I have not myself visited but which I have heard about, where when it was started those who were responsible for running it were horrified to find how quickly young men who came to the centres had lost all that discipline which had been instilled into them during their period of school training and had become disobedient. I am glad to say that after six months those responsible for the centre are able to report that the boys again act under their control, and are working well, and that the effect upon them of the discipline and training which they get in the centre has been entirely beneficial.

I agree that there may be some centres which are not so good as others, but that is no reason for sweeping away those which have done good work. If there are any which are not satisfactory let us change the conditions governing them, but do not let us scrap the whole lot. The other day I noticed a letter written by Sir Arthur Yapp, of the Y.M.C.A., to The Times, in which he stated that he had heard with consternation that it was proposed to close down these centres, and he heard the news with consternation because of the excellent results achieved. I submit that there is absolutely overwhelming evidence that these centres have been successful, not merely in manual training and in developing the intellects of the boys and girls attending them, but, a matter which I think is oven more necessary and desirable, in developing their characters.

What are the objections? We are told, first of all, that we cannot afford the cost; that they are too expensive. There is nothing so costly as false economy. There is nothing so ruinous to a nation as neglecting the welfare and development of its rising generation. If we have to economise, I suggest that it is unfair and unwise to begin with the children. It is also, I understand, suggested that these centres can well be closed down in the summer—that in the summer there is not so much need for them as in winter. I do not believe that to be the case. I believe that it is particularly in the summer that organised games can be developed: that as the summer goes on you will find an increasing number of young men and women with nothing whatever to do, and that it is desirable to have these centres to which they can be attracted. Anybody who has had anything to do with boys’ clubs, for instance, will know how difficult it is to get the right men to run them, and the right spirit established within those clubs. The success or failure of these centres must depend upon having the right men to run them, and the right spirit established in them. Therefore I suggest to the Government that it would be unwise, and extravagant, having got sixty or seventy centres established, to close them down for the summer months and then have to re-open them in the winter.

I remember a conversation that I had after the Election with a trade unionist and Socialist, who told me that what had struck him during the last Election was the fact that young men and women were attracted by what he described as the loudest noise. They had lost all sense of control and discipline. They would not even listen to their trade union leaders. It is doubly necessary that we should keep any machinery which promotes discipline in the rising generation.

We hear and read about proletarian schools. I have heard it alleged that in these schools boys and girls are taught that there is no God, and that it is not for them to respect law and authority and government as we understand them. Nowadays the man in the street judges the ruling classes not by the labels that they wear but by their actions. There is not a single man in this House who would deliberately take his boy or girl away from school and let him or her run around without any supervision or control. Yet that is what the Government’s action proposes to do—to have tens of thousands of young men and women with no control or discipline and no chance of getting work.

If we can only teach citizenship to the rising generation I have no fear whatever of Bolshevism or atheism, but if we turn boys and girls into the street, give them nothing to do, and convert them into hooligans and loafers, we shall have great responsibility, because we shall be providing soil upon which the seed of Bolshevism and atheism will take root and flourish. I trust that the noble Earl, when he replies, will be able to announce either that the Government do not intend to close, or if they have done so are willing to re-open, these centres, because I am convinced that if the Government do shut down these centres they will be prejudicing the welfare of the rising generation. I am equally certain that public opinion will insist upon having them re-opened.

May 2, 2016
Douglas Hurd – 1989 Statement on Hillsborough Stadium Disaster

Below is the text of the speech made in the House of Commons by Douglas Hurd, the then Home Secretary, on 17 April 1989.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the disaster at the Sheffield Wednesday football club ground at Hillsborough on Saturday. Everyone has been horrified by this incredible tragedy in which 94 lost their lives and 174 were injured.
Shortly after the start of the match, there was a surge of spectators on the Leppings lane terrace, which crushed many at the front against the perimeter fence. This accounted for most of the deaths and injuries.

The match was due to start at 3 pm. To help ensure orderly access, the gates of the ground were opened at 12 noon. At 2.30 pm most of the Nottingham fans were in the ground, but many of the Liverpool supporters were still arriving. It was clear to the police officers in charge that there was ample capacity still to be filled in some parts of the enclosure allocated to Liverpool.

At about 2.45 pm there was a large crowd of Liverpool supporters at the turnstiles in Leppings lane behind the west stand. There was difficulty in coping with the pressure on the turnstiles, and the police used loud hailers to urge the crowd to be patient. At about 2.50, more Liverpool supporters arrived and the numbers in front of the turnstiles increased. Some supporters started to climb the walls and turnstiles, and those at the front of the crowd outside the stadium were under considerable pressure from those behind.

The senior police officer present considered that there was a possible danger to the lives of the spectators at the front of the crowd outside the stadium. In order to relieve the pressure, he arranged for an exit gate near the turnstiles to be opened to let a section of the crowd through. The relationship of that action to the disaster on the terrace shortly afterwards is clearly a central question to be investigated.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I yesterday visited the football ground and the two Sheffield hospitals which received casualties. I should like to pay tribute to all those involved in the rescue operations at the ground, including the many spectators who gave their help, and to those others, including the hospital staffs and voluntary agencies, who have since been working so hard treating the injured and consoling the bereaved. We heard many accounts of courage exerted on behalf of others.

I have asked for further factual reports from the police and other services, the local authority and the Football Association. Inquests will be held in due course. But over and above this, there is clearly need for a full and independent inquiry to identify the causes of the disaster and to examine what needs to be done to prevent such an accident happening again. I have therefore asked Lord Justice Taylor to carry out an inquiry with the following terms of reference: To inquire into the events at Sheffield Wednesday football ground on 15 April 1989 and to make recommendations about the needs of crowd control and safety at sports grounds. Mr. Brian Johnson, the chief constable of Lancashire, has agreed to assist the inquiry as an assessor, and arrangements will be made as necessary for other qualified assessors to be appointed and for the inquiry to be provided with technical advice and support. I am asking that the inquiry should proceed with all possible speed. Lord Justice Taylor will visit Sheffield tomorrow to begin his investigation. I am grateful to him for agreeing to undertake this task.

However, we need also to take a wider view. The Government believe that the future of football in this country lies in a national membership scheme in designated grounds and now, it seems, also in providing all-seated accommodation at major football clubs. This would involve the disappearance of terraces at those grounds. It might also involve amendments to strengthen the Football Spectators Bill so that its provision for the licensing of grounds matched this concept. We shall be considering these matters urgently.

An appeal fund is being set up by the civic authorities of Liverpool, Nottingham and Sheffield. The Government will be contributing £500,000 immediately towards this fund.

This was a devastating tragedy. Our deep sympathy goes to the families of those who died, to those recovering, and—particularly moving yesterday—to those young people who are still fighting for life and health. We owe a duty, it seems to us, to these passionate supporters of football to examine urgently and thoroughly the causes and the background, and to do all in our power to prevent such a thing from happening again. We have to set our sights high and find a better way for British football.

May 1, 2016
Queen Victoria – 1876 Queen’s Speech

Below is the text of the Queen’s Speech given in the House of Lords on 8 February 1876. It was spoken by the Lord Chancellor on behalf of HM Queen Victoria.

My Lords, and Gentlemen,

It is with much satisfaction that I again resort to the advice and assistance of my Parliament.

My relations with all Foreign Powers continue to be of a cordial character.

The insurrectionary movement, which, during the last six months, has been maintained in the Turkish Provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and which the troops of the Sultan have, up to the present time, been unable to repress, has excited the attention and interest of the great European Powers. I have considered it my duty not to stand aloof from the efforts now being made by allied and friendly Governments to bring about a pacification of the disturbed districts, and I have accordingly, while respecting the independence of the Porte, joined in urging on the Sultan the expediency of adopting such measures of administrative reform as may remove all reasonable cause of discontent on the part of his Christian subjects.

I have agreed to purchase, subject to your sanction, the shares which belonged to the Khedive of Egypt in the Suez Canal, and I rely with confidence on your enabling me to complete a transaction in which the public interests are deeply involved.

The representations which I addressed to the Chinese Government, as to the attack made in the course of last year on the Expedition sent from Burmah to the Western Provinces of China, have been received in a friendly spirit. The circumstances of that lamentable outrage are now the subject of an inquiry, in which I have thought it right to request that a Member of my Diplomatic Service should take part. I await the result of this inquiry in the firm conviction that it will be so conducted as to lead to the discovery and punishment of the offenders.

Papers on all these subjects will be laid before you.

I am deeply thankful for the uninterrupted health which my dear Son, the Prince of Wales, has enjoyed during his journey through India. The hearty affection with which he has been received by my Indian subjects of all classes and races assures me that they are happy under my rule, and loyal to my throne. At the time that the direct Government of my Indian Empire was transferred to the Crown, no formal addition was made to the style and titles of the Sovereign. I have deemed the present a fitting opportunity for supplying this omission, and a Bill upon the subject will be presented to you.

The humane and enlightened policy consistently pursued by this country in putting an end to slavery within her own dependencies, and in suppressing the Slave Trade throughout the world, makes it important that the action of British National ships in the territorial waters of Foreign States should be in harmony with these great principles. I have, therefore, given directions for the issue of a Royal Commission to inquire into all Treaty engagements and other International obligations bearing upon this subject, and all instructions from time to time issued to my naval officers, with a view to ascertain whether any steps ought to be taken to secure for my ships and their Commanders abroad greater power for the maintenance of the right of personal liberty.

A Bill will be laid before you for punishing Slave Traders who are subjects of Native Indian Princes.

The affairs of my Colonial Empire, the general prosperity of which has continued to advance, have received a large share of my attention. Papers of importance and interest will soon be in your hands showing the proceedings with respect to a Conference of the South African Colonies and States.

The murder of a high officer of the Straits Settlements whilst acting as Resident in a neighbouring Malay State, and the disorders ensuing on that outrage, have demanded the interference of my troops. I trust that the operations, which have been ably and energetically conducted, though not without the loss of some valuable lives, have restored order, and re-established the just influence and authority of this country.

Gentlemen of the House of Commons,

I have directed the Estimates of the year to be prepared and presented to you without delay.

My Lords, and Gentlemen,

Bills for regulating the Ultimate Tribunal of Appeal for the United Kingdom, and for the amendment of the Merchant Shipping Laws, will be immediately submitted to you.

Legislation will be proposed relating to the Universities and to Primary Education.

Your attention will be called also to the Acts relating to the Inclosure of Commons, and to a measure for promoting economy and efficiency in the management of Prisons, and at the same time effecting a relief of local burthens.

Other important measures, as the time of the Session permits, will be introduced to your notice; and I pray that your deliberations may, under the Divine blessing, result in the happiness and contentment of my people.

May 1, 2016
Harriett Baldwin – 2016 Speech on Financial Centres

Harriett Baldwin

Below is the text of the speech made by Harriett Baldwin, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, in Manchester on 28 April 2016.

For those of you who don’t know me, I’m the Economic Secretary to the Treasury – often known as ‘The City Minister’. My job is to make sure the UK remains a world leader when it comes to Financial Services.

But I want to make it absolutely clear from the start: my job is certainly not just about the City of London.

One of the things I’m always keen to point out is that the UK has a lot more than a square mile to offer the world of finance.

And in fact out of over 2 million people who work across the UK in financial and related services, around two-thirds of them are employed outside London.

So it’s a real pleasure to be here in Manchester today and I want to thank Matt [Wells – Site Exec BNY Mellon] and our hosts at BNY Mellon.

BNY Mellon is clearly a global company which knows full well just how much the UK has to offer – with offices across the country – from London to Poole, from Leeds to here in Manchester.

Because this is a country which has considerable strengths:

– we have a global location that allows firms to do business with Asia in the morning and the Americans in the afternoon

– we have a robust and independent legal system

– a fair and effective regulatory system

– a multicultural, multilingual workforce

– and full access to the EU single market

We can be proud of the reputation we have built as one of the best places to do business – we have more overseas financial institutions and investors choosing to do business in and with the UK than any other country.

It’s also great news that earlier in the month, the Global Financial Centres Index kept us in the number one position.

But we need to keep it that way and I’d like to elaborate briefly on three particular areas where we’re taking action to support this.

Firstly, we want our financial services industry to be the most competitive and innovative in the world.

We want it to deliver greater choice and value for customers.

So we’re delivering the 7 day Current Account Switch Service and midata, making it easier for customers to switch when they see a better deal.

We’re also helping new entrants and challengers enter the market by lowering the barriers to entry and establishing a regulatory environment which helps smaller, new firms grow.

And we’re leading the world on innovation around open bank data to provide a range of extra services to consumers.

We’re also setting the pace when it comes to financial technology, or FinTech. This is already of huge significance to our economy – last year it brought in £6.6 billion of revenue.

We’re helping it grow further with a wide range of supporting measures – from establishing an industry-led panel to lead our strategy, to creating an information hub or creating ‘FinTech Bridges’ to help our FinTech companies expand internationally.

We’re also looking at how we can best aid FinTech growth around the UK – be that through regional hubs or special envoys.

And we’re not letting our regulation lack behind the advances made in technology – and the FCA Innovation Hub’s work on this is being copied around the world.

Lastly, we are absolutely determined to invest in the skills of our workforce – and apprenticeships are at the heart of this.

The new apprenticeship levy will put the funding in the hands of employers to ensure that it delivers the training that they need.

This will help realise our commitment to significantly increase the quantity and quality of apprenticeships in England to 3 million starts by 2020.

And we’re looking at what more we can do to help more women get on in the financial services sector. Last month Jayne-Anne Gadhia, CEO of Virgin Money, published her review into the representation of women in senior jobs in the sector.

Since then we’ve launched a Women in Finance Charter – asking firms to adopt its recommendations – and if you haven’t heard of this yet, I’d urge you to look into it and sign up!

So we’ll continue to keep our regulation world class; to invest in talent; to develop areas such as financial technology, where we have a competitive advantage; to promote greater competition on the high street; and to continue to build up the strengths of all of our cities and regions.

That’s why we’re here today in the North West.

BNY Mellon is not alone in recognising that this is a great region for business.

Banks are increasingly choosing to make their homes here in Manchester.

The Cooperative Bank has its headquarters here. Barclays has over 4000 staff here, forming an essential part of their operations – whether they are supporting the bank’s infrastructure, working on product development or looking at Big Data opportunities.

There is also cutting-edge work in financial technology here.

And beyond Manchester, Liverpool has an experienced wealth, asset and fund management industry.

Chester is also a top city for financial and professional services – including for example the 2000 people employed by Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

Furthermore, the North West has excellent transport links. Manchester airport, for example, has seen rapid growth in direct long haul flights in recent years including the first direct route to China set to start soon.

And let’s not forget that the region is also within 2 hours rail commute from London and also Birmingham Airport, giving easy access to the UK’s largest international airports at Heathrow and Gatwick.

The North West is proving itself on the world stage as a great place to set up shop.

And it’s easy to see why.

Costs for businesses operating in the North West region are typically 30 to 40% lower than London, yet the region still provides the established business communities, infrastructure and quality of life that firms require to thrive.

Furthermore, it’s a region that can offer the talent and skills companies need. It’s not surprising. The North West boasts 14 universities and gives us around 50,000 graduates a year – two-thirds of whom choose to stay in the region after university.

So it is little wonder that the region’s financial services sector now has over 5,000 firms, is worth over £8 billion and already employs almost 100,000 people and counting – with Manchester alone set to create over 60,000 more jobs in the industry over the next decade.

But I think we’re all here today because we want to see the North West go even further.

That’s why I’m delighted that we are launching the North West Financial Centre of Excellence today…the fourth of an initial series of 8 UK regions, pulling out all the stops to convince companies across the world that they are the places to do business.

This has been an enormously collaborative project: the Treasury, UK Trade & Investment, and local enterprise partnerships have worked and are working hand-in-hand to promote the North West as a ‘Financial Centre of Excellence’.

And I want to thank everybody who is involved in this – I’ve been told again and again what a positive process this has been.

But particular mentions must go to Midas here in Manchester, and the Cheshire West & Chester and Liverpool region Local Enterprise partnerships; the Universities of Liverpool, Chester, Manchester, Lancaster, and Manchester Metropolitan and Liverpool John Moores Universities.

And a final thank you to TheCityUK who are helping us reach out far and wide to make our pitch on the world stage.

This project ties in closely with wider government work to help our cities and regions outside London realise their huge potential.

Our concept of the Northern Powerhouse is based on harnessing the latent power of the great cities of the North, and creating something that can compete not only with London, but with cities and financial hubs across the globe.

It’s based heavily on the work my Ministerial colleague Lord O’Neill carried out in Cities Growth Commission and beyond, which showed that the fastest-growing areas in the world all had clusters of innovative, interconnected urban regions beyond the capital.

So that’s what we want to do in the UK.

Of course, there is no monopoly on Powerhouses: we’re working closely with all our regions to create growth and build up their strengths.

But the North is where some of the most exciting things are happening.

Look at our devolution agenda.

We strongly believe in putting more power in the hands of the people who know best: the people who actually live there. That’s why we’ve been striking devolution deals with authorities in every part of England, giving local communities more power and responsibility to make the decisions that work best for them.

And last month, our Budget showed how serious we were – devolving even more powers to Greater Manchester – like the adult education budget, powers on criminal justice and powers to retain 100% of business rates.

Liverpool, too, will pilot the approach on the retention of business rates, as well as getting new powers over transport.

These are flagship leads: and it’s the North West leading the way.

Investment is an essential part of building the Northern Powerhouse – in everything from schools to science and technology, transport, digital and innovation, and culture and tourism across the region.

And, at the last Budget, we announced investment in vital transport connections – such as giving the green light to HS3 between Leeds and Manchester, spending over £160 million on improving the road network in the North, and exploring the possibility of a Trans-Pennine tunnel between Sheffield and Manchester.

With state-of-the-art transport links, with award-winning centres of research and development, with world-class skills and with a positive, can-do attitude, we can create another economic revolution here in the North West.

It is, ultimately, our ambition to end the historic North/South divide: and that will make the whole of the UK more prosperous.

I know it’s an agenda we all share and I look forward to continuing our work together to win more investment, more jobs, more opportunities and more growth for the North West – it’s not just good for this region, but for the prosperity and success of the country as a whole.

May 1, 2016
Nicky Morgan – 2016 Speech at NAHT Annual Conference

Below is the text of the speech made by Nicky Morgan, the Secretary of State for Education, on 30 April 2016.

Thank you, Kim [Johnson, NAHT President], for that introduction.

I want to start by saying thank you – to all of you. Thank you for your hard work, your commitment and your exceptional ability to bring about excellent educational outcomes for young people. You, together with your dedicated staff, are at the forefront of our education system and it’s thanks to your collective efforts that education in England has taken huge leaps forward, with 1.4 million more children and young people in ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ schools since our reforms began in 2010.

And let me be clear that, while we may not always agree, I have enormous respect for the work you do, leading your schools to success and ensuring that every child is encouraged and enabled to reach their potential.

Primary assessment

I recognise the pressures this term brings in terms of assessments, but it’s because we, like you, want to continue raising standards for young people that we made changes to primary assessment.

Let me take this opportunity to apologise again for the recent incident where a section of the key stage 1 final test was published early, alongside the sample papers. I have received a personal assurance from the Chief Executive of the Standards and Testing Agency that she and her team will be taking every possible step, working closely with my department, to ensure that such a mistake can never happen again.

We all agree it’s critical that we get primary assessment right, with tests fit for purpose, because mastering the basics in primary school is vital to the future success of young people.

But in terms of evaluating school performance, the primary school floor standard has 2 parts: attainment and, crucially, progress. We are increasing the emphasis on the progress pupils make, because it’s a fairer way of evaluating school performance, particularly for those schools making great progress for pupils from a low starting point.

Although one part of the floor standard is more challenging this year, with the new expected standard, we are really clear that schools will be judged on their pupils’ progress as well as their attainment.

As you know, if a school meets the progress standard it is above the floor altogether. We have made sure all who hold schools accountable are aware of this too, and we will continue to do so.

Historically, the floor standard has identified only a small proportion of schools every year which are below that standard – and this year I can reassure you that no more than 1% more schools will be below the floor standard than last year.

To get primary assessment right we have to make sure teachers have the time and resources to prepare, so we appreciate that we have to make primary assessment run more smoothly, with as much support as possible.

But I don’t accept the claim from some outside this hall, that the higher expectations embodied in the new national curriculum are somehow ‘inappropriate’. Virtually all children have the potential to become properly literate and numerate and I am unwilling, as I know you are, to settle for anything less.

In countries like Korea and Singapore, the proportion of functionally literate and numerate pupils aged 15 is over 90%, according to the 2012 PISA survey. In Ireland the proportion of functionally literate pupils aged 15 is more than 90% too, but in England it’s only 82%, and only 77% are functionally numerate.

According to the materials used by PISA, this means that one year prior to leaving school, just under a fifth of our pupils cannot read and understand the moral behind one of Aesop’s fables. And more than a fifth are unable to work out how many people on average climb a mountain each day, when given the annual figure – while more than 90% of their peers in Korea and Singapore can do so.

‘Will more rigorous tests at key stage 2 actually address this gap?’ you might ask. My answer is yes. These new key stage 2 assessments give a better picture of whether a pupil has the reading and mathematical ability, to prosper at secondary school. Because literacy and numeracy are not just 2 subjects among many, they are the foundation on which all other subjects rest.

And to those who say we should let our children be creative, imaginative, and happy – of course I agree, both as a parent and as the Education Secretary. But I would ask them this – how creative can a child be if they struggle to understand the words on the page in front of them – they certainly can’t enjoy them? What are the limits placed on a child’s imagination, when they cannot write down their ideas for others to read?

That is why the campaign being led by some of those who do not think we should set high expectations, who want to ‘keep their children home for a day’ next week, is so damaging.

Keeping children home – even for a day – is harmful to their education and I think it undermines how hard you as heads are working. I urge those running these campaigns to reconsider their actions.

The case for every school as an academy

I realise some of you have concerns about our plan for every school in England to become an academy, so I want to take this opportunity to explain why I believe it’s the right step for our education system.

The autonomy academy status brings means putting power into the hands of school leaders, because we improve outcomes for young people by ensuring the teachers who teach them, and the heads who lead their schools, are given the freedom to make the right decisions in the interests of those children.

The status alone doesn’t raise standards, it’s the framework of collaboration and support it provides that does. Far from creating a system of survival of the fittest, we want to build the scaffolding that will make it easier for swift action to be taken to support struggling schools with a range of solutions, facilitating excellent leaders to have a positive impact where they are needed most.

Academies make it easier to spread the reach of the best leaders over several schools; recruit, train, develop and deploy better teachers, incentivising them to stay in the profession through new career opportunities; and ensure teachers can share best practice on what works in the classroom.

On current projections, around three-quarters of secondary and a third of primary schools would convert to academy status by 2020. Before the white paper was published I was constantly being asked, at events like this one, whether this government wanted all schools to become academies. So I wanted to give you all a clear sense of direction and a 6-year time frame, so that all schools including those who had not yet considered academy status, can make the right choices, planning effectively for a sustainable future in the model – standalone or multi-academy trust – that works for them, keeping in place local arrangements that work and looking at new arrangements aimed at driving up standards.

We believe that most schools will choose to work in local clusters, which will enable you, our most effective leaders, and your best teachers to extend your reach locally, in order to support one other to succeed, as many do already.

Rowanfield Junior School, which I visited just 2 days ago, is a great example of how local schools can group together. A single converter academy, Rowanfield has expanded to form a MAT cluster in the Cheltenham community. Through this partnership it extends professional development, career opportunities and provides school to school support. Children benefit as teachers develop best practice and model excellence to develop the skills of colleagues within the trust.

Most multi-academy trusts are small and 80% are entirely based in a single local authority area – because collaboration works well. But I should be absolutely clear that there is a place for successful, sustainable, standalone academies.

For local authorities we envision a new role, continuing to provide special educational needs services and acting as champions for SEND young people, making sure every child has a school place, and offering excellent local services, which academies can continue to purchase – as many do now.

I know there are concerns about the costs of this policy but it is fully funded, and we have set aside more than £500 million to build capacity in the system, including the development of strong local trusts, so that no school will be left behind.

And as I know this is a particular concern for some members here, I want to be clear that no good rural school will close as a result of this policy.

‘Educational excellence everywhere’ white paper

But actually, despite what you might see in the media, or hear from the opposition, every school gaining academy status is only one chapter of a much bigger story told in the ‘Educational excellence everywhere’ white paper. In fact, much of it addresses issues raised by the teaching profession itself.

Our white paper is about great leaders, great teachers, intelligent accountability, fair funding and targeted support in challenging parts of the country – it’s about building the framework of school-led working and collaboration that will allow all schools to succeed.

We know that NAHT believes in the impact collaboration can have. The Aspire project demonstrates the potential of what can be achieved when schools work together to share expertise and drive up standards, and as we move towards a more school-led system that collaboration will soon be commonplace across the country.

Great leaders

We know that the leaders in our education system have an enormous impact on educational outcomes, with effective leadership shown to raise achievement, in some cases by the equivalent of many months of learning in a single school year.

So we need to make sure there is a healthy pipeline of leaders, and schools will take the lead on this. And through the new Foundation for Leadership, led by NAHT, ASCL and the NGA, we will be working with the best leaders and other experts, to develop a new suite of voluntary national professional qualifications for every level of leadership.

Through our new Excellence in Leadership fund we will encourage the best providers and multi-academy trusts to look at innovative ways of developing leadership in system cold spots, and through the new National Teaching Service we will put the very best leaders and teachers into the schools where they are needed most.

We envisage a dynamic new approach to collaborative system leadership with up to 300 more teaching schools and 800 more national leaders in education, targeted so that no part of the country misses out. And with new achieving excellence areas we will focus intensively on driving up standards where they have been too low for too long.

We want to ensure that accountability does not discourage excellent leaders from working in the most challenging areas, so as I’ve already said we are putting more emphasis on progress in accountability, which is fairer to schools with lower attaining intakes.

And we are introducing improvement periods, during which schools won’t be inspected, where a new headteacher is brought into a challenging school, so they can be given enough time to turn a school around before being judged by Ofsted.

And we’re doing it because you told us that you had concerns about taking the leap to schools in challenging circumstances, without sufficient time to make your mark and the potential career implications.

Excellent teachers

The white paper outlines our plans to get excellent teachers into the profession, recognise their proficiency in the classroom, and deploy them where they are needed most.

You have made it clear that recruitment is a challenge, so we have taken steps to help, like putting in place bursaries and prestigious scholarships for the subjects most difficult to recruit for.

But now we must go further, so we will reform the National College for Teaching and Leadership to plan and execute targeted incentive programmes, teacher recruitment campaigns, and opportunities that will attract the best graduates and entice back those who have left the profession.

We are continuing to drive up quality in initial teacher training, giving schools a greater role in selecting and training great teachers, and ensuring that there continues to be a clear role for high-quality universities, recognising the strengths they can bring to teacher education.

Crucially, we are replacing the arrangements for awarding qualified teacher status with a stronger accreditation that recognises consistently high standards of practice in the classroom. It is vital that school leaders and parents have confidence in the quality of teachers so the new accreditation will only be given to those demonstrating real proficiency in the classroom.

And we want the people best placed – leaders like you – to decide what good teaching looks like, and when a teacher should be accredited. And we want you to have the freedom to bring in subject experts who can have a positive impact on the lives of young people, developing and supporting them so they too can achieve accreditation.

Workload review reports

This government wants to make the school-led system a reality and we need your input to do that, as we develop the policies outlined in the white paper, so we will continue engaging with the teaching profession, as we do on things like workload.

The teacher workload reviews carried out by 3 outstanding school leaders – one of whom, Dawn Copping, is here today – with input from teachers and unions – including the NAHT’s very own Kathy James. The reviews were launched because of the concerns you highlighted.

I am committed to rising to the challenges set for the government and I hope you will consider the impact the recommendations have on the way you work, because reducing workload is not about one single policy from Whitehall, it’s about us in government, you in schools and Ofsted delivering on the report’s recommendations.

As I said at the beginning of this speech, for everything on which we disagree, we continue to be united in our desire to do better, be better and achieve more for children and young people in this country.

So let me say thank you once again, for everything you do already to bring about excellence in our system, let me reassure you that my door is always open and I always want to hear your views on how together we can achieve educational excellence everywhere.

Thank you.

April 30, 2016
David Cameron – 2016 Speech on the EU at Caterpillar Factory

Below is the text of the speech made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, at the Caterpillar Factory in Peterborough on 28 April 2016.

Thank you very much for the welcome, great to see so many of you here. I think this is probably the biggest one of these I’ve ever done so thank you for coming. It’s great to be here at Caterpillar. You are a huge employer in our country; 9,000 people. You’re a massive investor in training with something like 300 apprentices being hired every year. You’re a huge exporter from our country and something like 50% of what comes out of this plant goes into other European countries so you’re doing all the things that we want great British businesses to do. So it’s good to be here with you today. And it’s good to be here too with the former head of the Trades Union Congress, Sir Brendan Barber. It’s not often you find a Conservative prime minister and the leader of a trade union movement standing together, but we both think this issue about Britain and Europe is so important that we put aside our other disagreements, put aside party political arguments, in order to say very clearly we think Britain should remain within a reformed European Union.

Now, as I’ve said, I think this is the biggest question for our country that we’ve faced in 20 or 30 years. It’s much bigger than a general election. When you vote in a general election if you think you’ve made a mistake 5 years later you can throw them out again. I obviously don’t like that bit, a bit uncomfortable, but nonetheless that’s what happens in a general election. This is a choice for a generation, possibly a choice for a lifetime. When you vote on June 23rd, you’re voting for the sort of country and the sort of relationship you want with the rest of Europe for your children and your grandchildren. It is incredibly important. Now I want to take as much time answering your questions as possible, but let me just tell you the 3 things that I think are crucial in this debate.

First is, I believe Britain will be stronger if we stay inside the European Union. If you think of the things we need to get done in the world, whether it is standing up to Vladimir Putin, whether it’s fighting terrorism, whether it’s making sure Iran can’t get a nuclear weapon. We’re not weaker inside the European Union, we’re stronger. Working with our allies there’s strength in numbers to get things done. So I believe the bigger Britain choice, the patriotic choice, the way to get things done in the world choice to enhance the power of this great country will be stronger inside the European Union.

Second thing is I think will be safer. There’s no doubt in my mind about the scale of the terrorist threat that we face today. We saw those terrible attacks in Brussels, in Paris. We’ve had attacks before in London. And I know from being your prime minister from the last 6 years that, of course, our safety depends on the work of our police force. It depends on our intelligence and security services. It depends on our relationship with the United States of America and other close allies. But it also depends on our relationship with other European Union countries. We now exchange information about criminals, about terrorists, about passengers on aeroplanes, vital information that helps to keep our country safe. And if we were to leave, we’d have to work out how to get back into all those things that we just left, so we are safer inside the European Union.

But the third argument I think is the most important and the most crucial which is that we are better off as an economy, better off for jobs, better off for investment if we stay inside a reformed European Union. Why? Well, because the European Union and Britain together is a market of 500 million people. It’s the biggest single market anywhere on our planet. And we are in it. We have a say over it. And we can trade freely into it. As I said, I understand the 50% of what you make here goes into the European Union. Three million jobs in our country depend on trade with the European Union. Now I’m not saying that if we left the European Union all of those 3 million jobs would go, but the people who want us to leave can’t tell us what our trading relationship would be with the biggest market that we’re now a part of. One minute they say we’re going to be like Norway and have full access to the market. But then you discover if you have that position, you still get the free movement of people and you still pay into the European budget so there’s no point in that relationship. Then they say let’s have a trade relationship like Canada. Well that’s a good deal for Canada, but they’re thousands of miles away from the European continent. We’re just 20 miles away.

And that trade deal doesn’t cover services. It doesn’t cover all of agriculture. It would even mean for some manufactured goods, like what you make here, there wouldn’t be automatic access and tariff-free access to the European Union. That would be bad for our country. So then I’ve given up saying they want a trade deal like Canada, but they can’t tell you what we’d get. And I say that is a risk too far. I don’t think we should risk jobs. I don’t think we should risk our economy. We shouldn’t risk the investment that a company like this brings into Britain. So I think the most important argument in this debate is the one about our economy.

Now you’re going to hear lots of arguments. There’ve been lots of debates. And I want to take your questions. But I just want to leave you with one other last thought because I sit in this European Council with the 27 other member states and, yes, sometimes it can be a bit maddening. Sometimes you don’t get your way. Sometimes it can be frustrating, but however frustrated I get, I never forget that 70 years ago the countries of Europe that we sit round the table with were fighting and killing each other for the second time in a century. So for all its imperfections, we shouldn’t lose that idealism that we have found a way in Europe of settling our differences through discussion and negotiation rather than all the things that happened in the past.

So I have no hesitation in saying to you after 6 years as your prime minister that we will be stronger, we’ll be safer, we’ll be better off inside the European Union. It is your decision. I’m your prime minister. Whatever you decide on June 23rd, I will carry out. But I have no hesitation in saying I think the right outcome is to vote to stay in. And I hope that’s what you’ll do. Thank you.

Question

Hello Prime Minister, at one stage, you wanted us to go in the euro but we stopped in the pound so surely that decision at that time was worked out right that we stopped in the pound. So surely if we come out the EU, could that be the same effect?

Prime Minister

Right, very good question. I never supported Britain joining the euro. And I never will. I think we should keep our own currency, the pound. We’re the fifth biggest economy in the world. We can sustain and work with our own currency, and it gives us certain flexibility. And what we have now if you like is a special status in the European Union. Britain is in the single market which is what we want for the trade and the jobs, but we’re not in the single currency and we don’t have to join the single currency. And through my negotiation, we made sure we can never be asked to bail out other eurozone countries. And crucially, one of the things I secured in the negotiation is that the eurozone countries, 18 of the 28, they can’t gang up and try and disadvantage countries inside the EU that have their own currency.

Why does this matter so much for Britain? Well, because financial services are a big industry for us, and we want to make sure that, in Britain, we can do euro business and dollar business, and yen business, and all the rest of it, without the eurozone trying to take away our jobs. And we secured that, that they cannot discriminate against us. So in my view, we’ve got the best of both worlds: in the European Union; in the single market; out of the eurozone; and, crucially, out of the Schengen no-borders system. Some other countries in Europe have taken down their borders to ease the flow of people between countries. We’ve kept our borders; we are able to stop and search, and ask people questions at our borders, and we’ll maintain that throughout.

So the people who say, you know, joining the eurozone would have been a bad idea, and so staying in Europe is a bad idea, I think they’ve got the wrong argument. We’ve got the best of both worlds; in the market for the jobs, out of the currency to give us our own flexibility. And it’s that best of both worlds we should maintain.

Question

Thank you. Good afternoon Prime Minister. Everyone who works here at Caterpillar is familiar with the word ‘accountable’. We’re all held accountable for delivering in our roles, as are you as the prime minister of this great country. Why, therefore, should I vote for an organisation which is fundamentally unaccountable?

Prime Minister

Well, I would argue it is accountable. It is accountable to the 28 prime ministers and presidents who sit in the European Council. And I think it’s wrong to think that we don’t ever get our way in Europe, we do. The single market, which I was talking about; the 500 million people that we can sell our goods and services to, that was a British idea, that was a British proposal. So I don’t accept that it’s not accountable.

The European Union consists of these 28 countries. We are the sovereign ones, and if you don’t like what your prime minister’s doing or your government’s doing, you can get rid of them. So we’re all accountable, and the European Union has to account for itself by the things that we agree in that European Council.

So it goes to this argument, as well, about sovereignty. The people who want us to leave, one of their arguments is if we left, we’d have greater sovereignty and a greater ability to write our own laws. Now, that’s true in a technical sense, but is it really true that we’d become more powerful; that we’d be able to get things done? And I think the answer to that is no. Let’s take Caterpillar, let’s take this great business, right? You’re making engines, for instance, which are governed to some extent by single market rules in Europe. If we were to leave, if you want to sell your engines to Europe you’ve still got to meet those rules. The only difference is, today I’m sat round the table helping to write those rules. I can listen to you here at Caterpillar and make sure the rules are written in a way that will help British business. If we’re outside the EU, you’ve got to meet all those rules, but you have absolutely no accountability for what they are.

So I think we would be less sovereign; we’d be less in control of our destiny. We’d be subject to all these rules and regulations, but without a say on what they are. I think that would make us less powerful; less great, if you think of Great Britain; and less in charge of our own destiny. It’s the same in life. Just because an institution isn’t perfect, just because a relationship isn’t perfect, it doesn’t mean you walk away from it. It means you stay and you fight to get the outcome that you need, and that’s what we should do in Europe.

Question

Prime Minister. I believe that immigration is a good thing for the country, but uncontrolled immigration is damaging this country vastly. Only a few weeks ago I took – I had to take my boy to the hospital, to A&E. After an hour of waiting, a nurse came out begging people to leave A&E because there was too many people there. More than half of those people in there were from – not from the UK.

My daughter, at school, was – she was sat at home crying because of her homework. Her homework she got 100.0%; she was upset because she knew some of them answers were wrong. I have a friend – I have 2 friends who work at that school as teachers and they have told me that the reason they cannot mark the work correctly is because they spend too much time with the non-speaking – non-English speaking children. If we stay part of the EU, how will you control immigration?

Prime Minister

Very good question. Alex, I think it’s a very good question. First of all, I agree with the premise of your question, which is we benefit as a country from people coming here to work hard and contribute, but we don’t benefit from uncontrolled immigration; people want to know we have a control over it. Now, half of our migration comes from outside the EU and we’ve taken steps to bring it under better control. We’ve set a cap on the number of people that can come for economic reasons; we’ve closed down dozens of bogus education colleges; and tightened up some of the rules. But there’s more we should do, I would completely accept that.

When it comes to migration within Europe, there is the free movement of people; the ability that anyone in Britain has to go and live and work, and study, in another country, and people can come and study and work here in Britain. Now, what we’re going to do to control it better is to say if you come to Britain – and we’re putting these changes in now – and you don’t have a job, you can’t claim unemployment benefit. And after 6 months, if you haven’t got a job, you have to go home. If you come here and get a job, you do not get access in full to our welfare system, and tax credits and universal credit, and the top-ups and the rest of it. You don’t get full access for 4 years. You have to pay into the system before you get out of the system, and I think that is a very important change that I secured through this negotiation. But I do accept that we obviously need to make sure, as a country, that we continue to put money into our health service, into our schools, to make sure they are there for hard-working people who pay their taxes and work hard, like you do.

But you do have to ask yourself, if we were to leave the European Union, what would that mean, not just for our economy, but what would it also mean for immigration? If we chose the Norway option and said we’re going to stay in the single market because it’s so important for our jobs, we’d have to accept free movement of people. In fact, Norway doesn’t even have the deal I’ve got to make sure people have to pay in before they get out on welfare. So that’s the choice. If you leave but want the access to the single market that’s good for Caterpillar, that’s good for jobs, you don’t have the control over the free movement of people. If you decide to leave the single market altogether and you try and do some trade deal, it could be years of uncertainty, years of lost jobs, years of lower incomes, years affecting wages and prices, as the former head of the TUC said today.

So I think the right choice is to stay in; better control immigration from outside the EU; introduce our welfare changes inside the EU; and make sure we keep growing our economy and generating the jobs that pay for the hospitals and the schools that we need for our children.

Let’s have Faisal Islam from Sky.

Question

Thanks Prime Minister. Could you respond to the idea from Bernard Jenkin that you have done a deal with the unions to water down the Trade Union Bill for the sake of this EU referendum?

Prime Minister

For the issue of the trade union legislation, which I now hope is going to pass through Parliament, in the House of Lords, Lord Burns and a cross-party group suggested an amendment and voted on it, and defeated the government. We’ve accepted that amendment, but the Trade Union Bill, which I think is a very important piece of legislation, will pass. Am I talking to the trade unions and are my team talking to the trade unions about how to campaign to help keep Britain in a reformed Europe? Yes, I am, because although we have many disagreements, including over the Trade Union Bill, we’re putting aside those disagreements and saying, on this issue, we should stand alongside each other and say to people in Britain, ‘If we want jobs, if we want investment, if we want a successful economy, we should stay in.’

And the interesting thing is this, you can now add the TUC to the CBI, to the IMF, to the OECD, to President Obama, to just about every friendly government anywhere in the world or any reputable set of economists looking at this issue, that the best answer for Britain is to say in a reformed EU. Now, you can say that this is all some grand conspiracy. The establishment are all getting together. Well, it’s a pretty great conspiracy that can get a Tory leader standing next to the former leader of the TUC to say this is in our country’s interest. And it may just be possible that when we have all those people saying the same thing effectively, even though we have deep disagreements in other areas, it’s because we believe passionately this is the right answer for our country. For jobs, for investment, for livelihood and we worry about the leap in the dark and the uncertainty that would be involved in Britain leaving a reformed European Union.

Question

Thank you, Prime Minister, and welcome to our facility. As you can see, we’re so proud of it. I’ve worked here for 39 years. I’ve got a regional sort of concern, Lincolnshire. I live in South Holland and The Deepings, got a massive housing development programme over the next 20 years but I feel there’s a – a lack of infrastructure. Could you tell me what level of euro funding goes into that infrastructure?

Prime Minister

Right. Well, in terms of the – the money that the east of England gets from European grants I think it is something like, from memory, £400 million over – between the period of now to 2020. Some of that money can go into things like infrastructure or other projects like science and research and our universities. But the crucial thing we need to do is make sure that the decisions about housing are made more locally. And that’s why we’re saying to every local council, ‘Draw up your own local plan and when you’ve set out how you’re going to meet the demand for housing and when you’ve set out where you want the housing to be and where you don’t want the housing to be, you will then have far greater powers to say yes to things that fit with your plan and no to the things that don’t fit with your plan.’

The next thing we’re doing which I think helps, is to make sure that councils keep the council tax that they raise but crucially all of the business rates that they raise. So you restore the link between a council encouraging industry and development and enterprise and business and people living in the area. They keep the money so are better able to spend it on the infrastructure and the services that the area needs.

So I’m not arguing for a minute that Europe is absolutely vital for our infrastructure but I think it is vital for our economy. And the fact is if we leave, I think we’ll have a smaller economy, we’ll have lower taxes – tax revenues coming in and less ability to fund the vital infrastructure as well as the vital services that we need. And that’s not just my view. You’ve had in the recent weeks the Treasury, the OECD, the IMF, all saying the same thing. Our economy would take a hit if we leave. And if the economy takes a hit tax revenues take a hit. And if tax revenues take a hit you’ve got less money to spend on the things that we need.

Question

Prime Minister, do you believe it’ll be easier to change Europe from within or from without?

Prime Minister

Well, a very good question but I think the truth is absolutely it is easier to change from within. Indeed, if we leave, you lose your voice. I don’t believe as some say that if Britain leaves the European Union, the whole thing will collapse. I don’t think that will happen. I think what would happen is I think Europe will become more protectionist, more inward-looking, less engaged in the world, more of a political union, because the British voice wouldn’t be there. Our voice is about saying we should be trading with the rest of the world. We want Caterpillar to be able to sell products from here to countries all over the world. And Europe should be using its might of 500 million people to drive those trade deals all over the world, including the Far East because that’ll be good for us.

If we go, that’s the end of reform in Europe. I think it would slip backwards and we would be left outside. And, as I said, in an answer to an earlier question, we might have the impression of greater sovereignty but we wouldn’t have the ability to get things done. Now, I know some people look at what’s happening in Europe today and they worry about it. You look at the crisis of migration because of the Syrian conflict and people flooding through Turkey and into the European continent. You look at the problems with the eurozone and think, ‘Look, their economies aren’t doing very well because of the euro. Wouldn’t we be better off if we separated ourselves from this?’

Well, my answer is, no, we wouldn’t. Because we’d still be affected by those things. The migration crisis doesn’t go away because Britain leaves. The eurozone problems don’t end because we’ve exited the European Union. We’re still affected by those things. The thing that changes is we don’t have any say over how Europe is responding to those crises. Now, because Britain’s been there making a strong argument that you have to return people from the Greek Islands to Turkey to break the model of the business of the people smugglers and demonstrate they can’t keep bringing people to Europe. Because we were there making that argument, and that’s now happening, the migration crisis in the Eastern Mediterranean is getting better. And the same with the eurozone. If we weren’t in the room talking about how Europe can try and expand and improve its economies, we’re still affected by the eurozone crisis but we have no say.

So we’re better off there. As I said, it’s not a perfect organisation and it can be incredibly frustrating but you maximise your influence by staying in and fighting for the things that you want rather than walking away.

Question

Thank you very much. You mentioned just a few months ago, you kept referring to the European referendum. Today you have a number of times mentioned the reformed European Union or Union membership. One, I’d like to understand why you’ve changed your wording slightly to reformed. I think – personally I think it’s because you recognise it needs reformation because of the strength of feeling. I welcome your comment on that. And secondly, after the 23rd what will you do to reform this membership?

Prime Minister

Yes. Sure. Why I say the reformed European Union is because I’ve always believed it needs reform and that is what my renegotiation was all about. Now, I will not stand here and say, ‘I’ve solved all of Europe’s problems or indeed all of Britain’s problems with Europe.’ It is still an imperfect organisation but there were a set of things I thought needed fixing from Britain’s point of view. And I think we’ve gone a long way from fixing them. It was too much of a political union and a sense that people were being pulled into a political union against their will. And it now says very clearly in this legal document that I have negotiated, that Britain will not be part of a political – further political union and integration. So I think that – that helps.

The second thing is I think it was too much of a bureaucracy, too many rules being generated. So we have now got, for the first time, targets for cutting the amount of bureaucracy in Europe, to help businesses, to help farmers, to help those most affected. The third thing I think was wrong was there wasn’t enough emphasis on economic growth and generating possibilities for the future. And so I got in this document guarantees that we’re going to complete the single market, not just in goods such as you produce but in digital services, in energy and in services like legal services and financial services and the rest. And we’re going to sign more trade deals. It’s too slow at signing these trade deals. We want trade deals with India. We want trade deals with China. We want trade deals with other countries in the Far – Far East so we can sell our products to them and grow our economy.

And the fourth thing I wanted changed was this issue about immigration that I think while this free movement of people is something that is part of the single market, you can’t be in the single market without having it. And of course many British people choose to work or live or retire in other European countries. I think this issue about welfare needed to be addressed. And so for the first time ever people coming from Europe to Britain they cannot get full access to our welfare system, the tax credits and all the rest of it. They cannot get that until they’ve worked here for 4 years. They’ve got to pay in just like everyone in Britain does. They’ve got to pay in before they get out. And I think that is a very important change because I think people really feel that, yes, if you come here and work hard, you’re making a contribution, you’re paying your taxes, you’re – you’re contributing to our country but you shouldn’t get out of the welfare system until you’ve paid in.

So those were 4, I think, significant changes and that’s why I call it a reformed European Union. But is the job done? Should we go on with reform after 23rd June, if we vote to stay in? Yes, absolutely. And I think the right way to do this is make sure we continue to build on the special status that Britain has, not in the eurozone, not in the no-borders system, out of the political union. We shouldn’t be embarrassed about the fact that Britain is different. We are a very special country. You know, we’ve had our own successful political institutions. We haven’t been invaded for 1,000 years. We’ve helped to bring democracy and free trade and arguments about human rights, all over the world.

So our membership isn’t like the French membership or the German membership or the Italian membership and I wouldn’t want to be in Europe if it was. Our membership is special. And I want to make it more special. But if we vote to leave on 23rd June, that’s it. No more special membership, we’d be out of the EU and I think probably then thinking how do we get back in to things like the single market and the cooperation over terrorism and the work we do to keep our defences strong. How do we get back into those things we just got out of? So I say stay in and fight for the special status and for the values that our country rightly holds dear.

But time for a couple more. Let’s have – I think we’ve got some local newspapers and television.

Question

Emma Hutchinson, ITV News Anglia. Prime Minister if leaving the European Union was as risky as you say for the economy – could potentially cost 300,000 jobs in this region, could be bad news for businesses like this – haven’t you taken a huge gamble with people’s jobs, family finances, and businesses by having this referendum at all?

Prime Minister

I think it’s right for our country to make a decision about this. The last bunch of people who were able to vote on this were people back in 1975. And so I think you can’t hold a country in an organisation against its will. So what I decided was the right thing to do is not have a simple in-out referendum but to go and negotiate a better deal for Britain, sort out some of these problems that we have and then fulfil our manifesto commitment to let people choose in a referendum. I have great faith in the common sense and rationality and good sense of the British people that I think that being offered a choice of maintaining and enhancing our special status or leaving altogether, we’ll choose to stay in.

But at the end of the day, these decisions are actually too important simply for your government to take on your behalf. This is about our relationship with Europe, our trade with Europe, our place in the world, the way we’re governed, the sort of country we are. We should determine all sorts of things in Parliament, representing you on your behalf. But when it comes to a question as fundamental as this, I think it’s right to hold this referendum and I’m very happy to accept the verdict and the judgement passed down by the British people.

Question

Andrew Sinclair BBC East. Welcome to Peterborough. The Leave campaign’s been talking today a lot about cost of EU red tape, most businesses in this region are small businesses. Do you accept that for them that EU regulation can be an expensive business?

Prime Minister

I accept that all regulation can cost money and we should be trying to reduce unnecessary regulation where possible. But I’d simply make 2 points: first of all, if you are a business that trades with Europe, or if you are a business that trades with a business that trades with a business that trades with Europe, you have to meet the regulations. And if we were to leave, you have to meet the regulations when you sell into Europe even though you have no say as to what those regulations are. And I fear, let’s take this great plant and great business and the small suppliers that supply into it, if we’re not there and you’ve got the Germans and the Italians and the French writing the rules about diesel engines and emissions and environmental constraints and all the rest of it. Wouldn’t they write those rules thinking let’s support our own manufacturers rather than British manufacturers? I fear they might. We need to be round that table. So, if you’re a small business in any way connected to Europe, you need to make sure we have a say over those rules.

Second thing I’d say, is actually within Europe, because of my renegotiation, we are now setting targets for taking unnecessary regulations away from business. If we’re not there, I’ll tell you it wouldn’t be happening. This is very much a British initiative that we drove through because of our negotiations. And I was quite struck this morning when one of the people wanting us to leave the Europe Union was on the radio and asked, ‘Well which regulations is it you want to get rid of in Europe?’ He actually couldn’t come up with a good example. Sometimes we over-regulate in this country. So, I’m in favour of getting rid of unnecessary regulations whether it’s done by Britain, whether it’s done by the government, whether it’s done by the council, or whether it’s done by the European Union. That’s the right approach.

Question

Mr Prime Minister, you’ve mentioned on 2 occasions today about taking out the pot – you know, you can’t take out the pot what you don’t put in. How does that go on for the smaller member states of the EU because to the man on the street and to myself, we read in the papers, we hear on television it’s costing us X, Y, Z to be a member of the European Union, these smaller states are now coming in after we’ve joined, so the goalposts have moved, but we don’t see a lot coming in from them but we see a lot allegedly being taken out. For example, Greece, only this morning. It’s there for all to see, I’ve got news for you, you’re not going to get your money back. Nobody’s going to get their money back. That was on the television this morning, now let’s be honest about it –

Prime Minister

Luckily we never gave them any money so we don’t have to expect any back. That’s the good news.

Speaker

You never gave them any money but the debt could be written off.

Prime Minister

Those are very fair points, so let me answer, a very fair point. First of all, with bailing out the eurozone, one of the first things I did as Prime Minister was get us out of those eurozone bailout funds. So we are not bailing out other eurozone countries we’re not owed money by that. So we don’t have to worry about that and in my renegotiation I put that beyond doubt. It is now written into the rules, written into the law as it were, that we don’t bail out other countries.

But you are right sir, we do pay into the European Union. We get money back for farming. We get money back for science and research. We get money back for regional development. But yes, we do put in more than we get out. I would argue that we benefit though because of the single market making our economy bigger, creating jobs, creating a bigger economy and more tax revenues, we get back much more overall than we put in. I think our membership fee is worthwhile, and the good news is that in a budget negotiation I have made sure that the European Union budget is on a downward trajectory, not an upward trajectory, so we know if we stay in what we have to pay and what we get out.

But let me just say this, the fact that yes, some of these smaller, much poorer countries get much more out of the European Union than they put in, I don’t actually think that’s bad thing. Look at our continent and remember how recently it was that Balkan countries were fighting each other. Remember how recently it was that Spain and Portugal were dictatorships rather than democracies. Remember how recently Greece wasn’t a democracy. Remember how poor those counties were behind the Iron Curtain after decades of communism.

And the point is this, the single market of 500 million people, it’s a single market that enables us to trade, to move, to work, to provide our services, but it’s also a single market in which we have agreed to help each other and to help these poorer countries raise their living standards. Now I would argue that is obviously good for them, but actually it’s good for us. If we can create a new middle class of customers in Poland or the Czech Republic or Slovakia, if we can see their housing industries grow, they are going to buy more Caterpillars, they are going to buy more of our goods. Our single market gets richer.

So yes we pay in more than we get out and some others get more out than they pay in, but is this market of 500 million people in our interests? Yes. Is this organisation that has helped to keep the peace in Europe worthwhile for us to be a part of? Yes. Has joining the European Union for some of these former communist countries that don’t have our history of democracy been good for their societies, their democracies and their economies? Yes. Does that make all of us stronger as result on the continent that we share? Yes. Winston Churchill said, “We are not of Europe, but we are with Europe.” Britain is special. We are an amazing country. The fifth largest economy in the world. A country that’s given so much to the world. And my view is we will not be smaller by staying in, we will be bigger, and that is the patriotic big Britain case that I believe in and I hope you’ll back on June 23rd.

Thank you very much indeed.

April 30, 2016