Tag: Speeches

  • Alistair Burt – 2016 Speech on Mental Health Services for Young People

    alistairburt

    Below is the text of the speech made by Alistair Burt, the Minister for Community and Social Care, on 16 March 2016.

    I want to offer my sincere thanks and congratulations to everyone in the audience today.

    When I first came to the Department of Health, I wanted my priority to focus on the steady improvement of children’s mental health care, support the sector and bring in new and innovative ways of working – to improve care, to improve the way we work. It is down to your creativity, passion and drive that this priority was not only met but exceeded. So thank you.

    Today, we’re at one of our most recognised sporting landmarks, one of the homes of English cricket. I would say ‘the home’ of English cricket, but I think my local club – Blunham Cricket Club – might snatch that title, holding the Guinness World Record for the longest continuous game of cricket; 105 hours, day and night. More impressive than 171 years of cricket play, I’m sure you’ll agree.

    But the Oval is also home to one of Historic England’s newest Grade 2 buildings – the Victorian gasworks which overlooks the playing ground. It’s over 160 years old and will now stay intact – a part of the London skyline.

    It’s worth thinking about what life was like for a child when the gasworks was built in 1847. Child labour was the norm – children as young as 10 would be sent up chimneys and sent down mines. Put simply, they were denied a childhood. It was only just before the 1900s that children’s mental health was considered a priority by society; young people’s mental health had always existed but it was a 20th century ‘invention’.

    Fast forward to 2015: now children have access to education, they are protected from labour, they have their health needs met – children have a childhood. And yet their services still continue to improve.

    Almost to the day, we saw the publication of ‘Future in Mind’. It called for a fundamental shift in culture for children and young people’s services, a whole system approach focusing on preventing mental ill health, early intervention and recovery.

    You are a large part of this – perhaps the largest part of the solution. You make sure that, if a young person feels insecure, anxious, depressed or feels like they have nowhere to turn, they have a system that they can access, one that gives them the emotional support and mental wellbeing to get through their problems in the right place and the right time.

    You’re all enthusiastic, dedicated and passionate people. This enthusiasm has been so important, because even with all of our advancements in care, your job has, often, not been the easiest.

    Traditionally, you have been underfunded, under resourced, undervalued. There has been a huge data gap. You have had to deal with old prevalence data and, what’s more, there was no uniform detailed data about services. And the service has been difficult to improve – out of the 1 in 10 young people who have a diagnosable mental health condition, previous estimates state that only 1 in 4 are receiving treatment. Just more of the same is not an option available to us.

    We are radically improving all of these aspects of your work, which is what I’m here to talk about today. Since ‘Future in Mind’, we’ve had the all-age Mental Health Taskforce report, which brought this image in to further focus.

    It showed us that care needs to be more widely available and people struggle to get the help they need at the right time. Also, despite all our efforts, stigma still is a stain we cannot yet wash off; many people still experience discrimination for the mental ill-health they experience through no fault of their own.

    The recent Taskforce’s report put in place, for the first time, a national strategy designed in partnership across the health arm’s length bodies, for work across the system. This wasn’t a case of government deciding among itself what is best then setting the report loose among the sector. Not only does it draw on the experiences of sector leaders, it also focuses on the experiences of over 20,000 people who described the changes they wanted to see, so they could fulfil their ambitions and take their place as equal citizens in society.

    And, of course, a huge part of this improvement lies in how we treat children’s mental health. When I met with the Youth Parliament’s Select Committee, they were concerned about this, too. They consulted hundreds of young people across the country and made 17 recommendations on how we could improve care. They wanted doctors to engage more with them and they also wanted to be a part of the solution.

    I’m pleased that we have involved children and young people throughout our plans – they need to be included in the development of policy. And in many of the local transformation plans you delivered at the end of last year, it is clear that young people are being involved more than ever before.

    Through the plans, every area has committed to working collaboratively to make radical improvements in children and young people’s mental health. Like in Lambeth, they are helping young people with eating disorders. They’re teaching young children about healthy lifestyles as they enter secondary school, they are giving parents more support to understand what their child with an eating disorder might be going through and they’re putting more support in schools, with specially trained nurses to help young people cope.

    In Airedale, they are helping young women explain their experience in self-harming to the service through a theatre group. It helps the young people to share their experience in an empowering way, it helps often isolated young women to build friendships and it helps the local service improve the support they offer.

    And in North Lincolnshire, they are helping some of the most marginalised children in society get the support they need. There is a unique service helping children in care, working alongside social workers and foster care, to make sure that they get access to the high-quality mental health care they had previously missed. Now, almost two-thirds of children in care have support from CAMHS.

    This is exceptional, and shows not only the flexibility and ingenuity of the service but, also, that we continue to progress and improve care.

    I am committed to making sure children and young people are given the opportunity to participate at every stage of the transformation programme and, of course, in every aspect of their own individual care. What I am concerned with is making sure that we continue that stride towards progress and we need to approach this in 2 distinct ways. We need to support the workforce and we need to support young people.

    So, first, the workforce. Like I said, it’s no secret to anyone in this room that we have a high quality workforce. Through Children and Young People’s Improving Access to Psychological Therapies Programme, we have spread the use of evidence-based practice.

    However, despite the evident skills of each member of staff, young people are sometimes slow to come and seek you out. There are lots of reasons for this, but a large part of the trepidation comes from young people feeling like their needs won’t be understood. Perhaps they see the clinical setting at odds with their world, which is so focused on current culture and technology.

    Increasingly, the world they live in is a digital one. On average, young people spend 27 hours a week online – a full extra day – so they are as much a part of their digital world as they are the physical one. Increasingly, their concerns are founded in this digital world – online bullying, self-confidence issues, feelings of isolation. Some of you may have seen the story recently of a boy of 14 who sent an indecent photo of himself to a girl over Snapchat. He was added to a police database and was warned that the information might be disclosed when he applies for jobs.

    Even though that image only exists for a few second on the app, it will stay with him for a long time and there is no telling how this action would affect his mental health. Anyone admitting to something like this to their parents would be difficult, but admitting how that makes you feel to a relative stranger may fill him with great anxiety.

    The opposite would be true, though. Many practitioners are well versed in popular culture and current technology. But we need to make sure that all staff have the right tools to keep up to date with young people.

    Last year, I announced we were developing an expansion to the MindEd online learning resources, exploring the effect of the digital world on young people’s mental health. This was important to young people, as well as a main concern of the Youth Parliament and the Health Select Committee from 2014, who told us professionals do not always understand their digital world and that is was something we really need to do something about.

    Today, we are launching that MindEd module. It includes information about digital risks to mental health, such as the effect of cyberbullying, online gaming, and the creation of online identities. It also helps professionals build digital resilience, by referring to relevant services and helping young people identify where the digital world ends and the real world begins. It’s designed – by the MindEd consortium and by Xenzone – for people who work with children.

    But we also want to make sure that the service stays creative and cutting-edge. And how do we do this aside from new investment and improved training? We have said that just more of the same is not enough – and how do we get there?

    We get there through innovation, which is why we worked with Health Education England to set up an innovation fund especially for the children and young people’s workforce. We were overwhelmed by both the number and quality of applications and are investing over £3 million in over 30 exciting projects that have local, regional or national reach.

    The projects vary in size – but they are all unified by the fact they all will have an impact on young people’s lives. Like the Charlie Waller Memorial Trust in Reading, which supports young people with depression and their families. The award they received will help them increase its service to local schools, and provide early intervention and support for young people with mental health issues.

    Or the Hearing Services department of Sheffield Children’s Hospital, who will use the award to transform early intervention for mental health and wellbeing for children and young people with difficulties such as hearing loss. Or the Hampshire Children and Adult Mental Health Services, who will launch a new campaign called ‘Mind Your Head’, which involves taking health services out into the community, providing easy access for young people via a mobile health clinic.

    These are impressive innovations, and I look forward to seeing how they impact people’s lives. But I also want to make the very mechanics of your job easier. There are still large parts of mental health care that, if explained to the general public, would shock them – of very basic things you need but are managing to work around.

    Data is, perhaps, one of the biggest issues. I find it astonishing that you are able to do the good work you do with mental health prevalence data from a time before Facebook. So much in our society has changed since 2004.

    But the lack of this basic information means that most planning you do around the level of need of your services is, at best, guess work. I want to put a stop to that, and make sure you have the data you need to work effectively.

    We have commissioned a new national prevalence survey of children and young people’s mental health, the first since 2004. It will address that information gap extending to cover conditions and issues that have become more prominent since 2004, like eating disorders, self-harm and the impact of social media and cyberbullying.

    The new survey will deliver much-needed information about children and young people’s current mental health – and about their need for mental health services – by summer 2018.

    Which brings me on to my second and final point: giving more support directly to children and young people.

    It’s been clear to me ever since starting this role, talking to more and more children and young people about their care, is that they want to be involved but, also, they want more control. I am pleased to say that we are now giving them that control.

    Through a new online platform, called CO-OP, backed by £1 million of government funding, young people will be able to tell their story about their mental health history and host notes from the clinicians they encounter. This will mean that whenever they meet a new health professional, young people can give them individual access to their mental health history and the professional will be able to continue that person’s care in the most effective way.

    Young people will be in control of their data at every stage, and can agree exactly what to share, and with whom. Not only will young people give information to the platform, they will also have access to information about local mental health services and useful self-help apps.

    This is an important point – about being in control of their story. When I met with the Youth Select Committee, they wanted to feel more supported to tell their story, a way of making young people more comfortable to be open and honest.

    In light of this, the British Youth Council, the Association for Young People’s Health and Youth in Focus are working with us, PHE and NHS England to review the ‘You’re Welcome’ accreditation process and improve the standards. This was also something that the Youth Select Committee made clear to me, too, so we know it means a lot to young people.

    Our review is seeking the views of young people and professionals about how services can best support conversations about mental health and other health concerns. I would encourage you all to be a part of this review – your opinions on this matter greatly.

    By making our services more accessible and more friendly, we will go some way to tackling one of the biggest problems facing young people’s mental health – stigma.

    All of us are striving towards a society where mental health disorders are understood and people can live without stigma. But, in spite of the 91,000 people who have signed up, through Time to Change, to end mental health stigma, it is still far too common.

    We, too, are doing our best to tackle this. Last November we funded the largest ever anti stigma campaign for teenagers and the first for parents. Our initial evaluation indicated that the campaign exceeded reach targets and delivered evidence of intended and actual behaviour change.

    Teenagers were more likely to talk to their friends about mental health and these attitudes improvements were seen in young men too – who are perhaps the hardest group to reach. This is really encouraging.

    Parents, too, said they were more likely to talk to their children about mental health, especially dads. Winning this battle is so important; it is the biggest battle of them all.

    We hope that we can continue this important work to change attitudes in a younger age group, so that for the next generation, the taboo of mental ill health is removed.

    And, of course, all of you are a huge part of this fight. I have seen the value of your work, not only as a health minister, but as a local MP, too. You have achieved great things through the wide range of services you all represent in a relatively short space of time.

    The future of our children and young people’s mental health service is down to you – your work, your dedication, your ingenuity and, of course, your passion for the job, for helping people.

    I look forward to working alongside you to not only improve services for young people, to not only bring new and innovative ways of improving children and young people’s mental health and wellbeing, but to also make generations of young people secure and happy.

  • George Osborne – 2016 Budget Speech

    gosborne

    Below is the text of the Budget Speech made by George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the House of Commons on 16 March 2016.

    Mr Deputy Speaker,

    Today I report on an economy set to grow faster than any other major advanced economy in the world.

    I report on a labour market delivering the highest employment in our history.

    And I report on a deficit down by two thirds, falling each year and – I can confirm today – on course for a budget surplus.

    The British economy is stronger because we confronted our country’s problems and took the difficult decisions.

    The British economy is growing because we didn’t seek short term fixes but pursued a long term economic plan.

    The British economy is resilient because whatever the challenge, however strong the headwinds, we have held to the course we set out.

    I must tell the House that we face such a challenge now.

    Financial markets are turbulent.

    Productivity growth across the west is too low.

    And the outlook for the global economy is weak.

    It makes for a dangerous cocktail of risks.

    But one that Britain is well-prepared to handle, if we act now so we don’t pay later.

    Mr Deputy Speaker,

    Britain has learnt to its cost what happens when you base your economic policy on the assumption you have abolished boom and bust.

    Britain is not immune to slowdowns and shocks.

    Nor as a nation are we powerless.

    We have a choice.

    We can choose to add to the risk and uncertainty, or we can be a force for stability.

    In this Budget we choose to put stability first.

    Britain can choose, as others are, short term fixes and more stimulus.

    Or we can lead the world with long term solutions to long term problems.

    In this Budget we choose the long term.

    We choose to put the next generation first.

    Sound public finances to deliver security,

    Lower taxes on business and enterprise to create jobs,

    Reform to improve schools, investment to build homes and infrastructure – because we know that’s the only way to deliver real opportunity and social mobility.

    And we know that the best way we can help working people is to help them to save and let them keep more of the money they earn.

    That is the path we followed over the past five years.

    And it’s given us one of the strongest economies in the world.

    And that is the path we will follow in the years ahead.

    In this Budget we redouble our efforts to make Britain fit for the future.

    Mr Deputy Speaker, let me turn to the economic forecasts.

    I want to thank Robert Chote and his team at the Office for Budget Responsibility.

    To make sure they have available to them the best statistics in the world I am today accepting all of the recommendations of Sir Charlie Bean’s excellent report.

    I also want to take this moment to thank another great public servant, Sir Nicholas Macpherson.

    He has served as Permanent Secretary to the Treasury for ten years, under three very different Chancellors, and throughout he has always demonstrated the great British civil service values of integrity and impartiality.

    He’s here today to watch the last of 34 Budgets he’s worked on, and on behalf of the House and the dedicated officials in the Treasury, I thank him for his service.

    Mr Deputy Speaker,

    The OBR tell us today that in every year of the forecast our economy grows and so too does our productivity.

    But they have revised down growth in the world economy and in world trade.

    In their words, the outlook is “materially weaker”.

    They point to the turbulence in financial markets, slower growth in emerging economies like China, and weak growth across the developed world.

    Around the globe, they note that monetary policy – instead of normalising this year as expected – has been further loosened.

    We’ve seen the Bank of Japan join Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland and the European Central Bank with unprecedented negative interest rates.

    The OBR also note that this reflects concerns across the West about low productivity growth.

    The Secretary General of the OECD said last month that “productivity growth… has been decelerating in a vast majority of countries”.

    As a result, the most significant change the OBR have made since their November forecast is their decision to revise down potential UK productivity growth.

    The OBR had thought that what they describe as the “drag from the financial crisis” on our productivity would have eased by now, but the latest data shows it has not.

    The OBR acknowledge today that this revision is, in their words, a “highly uncertain” judgement call.

    But I back them 100%.

    We saw under the last government what happened when a Chancellor of the Exchequer revised up the trend growth rate, spent money the country didn’t have, and left it to the next generation to pick up the bill.

    I’m not going to let that happen on my watch.

    These days, thanks to the fact we have established independent forecasts, our country is confronted with the truth as economic challenges emerge, and can act on them before it’s too late.

    We fix our plans to fit the figures; we don’t fix the figures to fit the plans.

    The IMF have warned us this month that the global economy is “at a delicate juncture” and faces a growing “risk of economic derailment”.

    Eight years ago, Britain was the worst prepared of any of the major economies for the crisis we then faced.

    Today, Britain is among the best prepared for whatever challenges may lie ahead.

    That is what our long term economic plan has been all about.

    When I became Chancellor we borrowed £1 in every £4 we spent. Next year it will be £1 in every £14. Our banks have doubled their capital ratios.

    And we have doubled our foreign exchange reserves.

    And we have a clear, consistent and accountable monetary policy framework, admired around the world.

    The hard work of fixing our economy is paying off.

    In 2014, we were the fastest growing major advanced economy in the world.

    In 2015, we were ahead of everyone but America.

    So let me give the OBR’s latest forecasts for our economic growth – in the face of the new assessment of productivity and the slowing global economy.

    Last year, GDP grew by 2.2%.

    The OBR now forecast it will grow by 2% this year, then 2.2% again in 2017, and then 2.1% in each of the three years after that.

    The House will want to know how this compares to other countries.

    I can confirm that, in these turbulent times, the latest international forecast expects Britain to grow faster this year than any other major advanced economy in the world.

    Mr Deputy Speaker, the OBR are explicit today that their forecasts are predicated on Britain remaining in the European Union.

    Over the next few months this country is going to debate the merits of leaving or remaining in the European Union, and I have many colleagues whom I respect greatly on both sides of this argument.

    The OBR correctly stay out of the political debate and do not assess the long term costs and benefits of EU membership.

    But they do say this, and I quote them directly: “a vote to leave in the forthcoming referendum could usher in an extended period of uncertainty regarding the precise terms of the UK’s future relationship with the EU.

    This could have negative implications for activity via business and consumer confidence and might result in greater volatility in financial and other asset markets”.

    Citing a number of external reports, the OBR say this:

    “There appears to be a greater consensus that a vote to leave would result in a period of potentially disruptive uncertainty while the precise details of the UK’s new relationship with the EU were negotiated.”

    Mr Deputy Speaker, the House knows my view.

    Britain will be stronger, safer and better off inside a reformed European Union.

    I believe we should not put at risk all the hard work that the British people have done to make our country strong again.

    Mr Deputy Speaker,

    Let me turn to the OBR forecast for the labour market.

    Since the Autumn Statement just four months ago, the businesses in our economy have created over 150,000 more jobs than the OBR expected.

    That’s 150,000 extra families with the security of work.

    That’s 150,000 reasons to support our long term economic plan.

    This morning unemployment fell again, employment reached the highest level ever, and the data confirms that we have the lowest proportion of people claiming out-of-work benefits since November 1974.

    Now the OBR are forecasting a million more jobs over this Parliament.

    Mr Deputy Speaker, in the last Parliament:

    They claimed a million jobs would be lost.

    Instead two million were created.

    When the jobs started coming we were told they’d be low skilled.

    But today we know almost 90% of the new jobs are in skilled occupations.

    We were told the jobs would be part time.

    But three quarters are full time.

    We were told the jobs would all be in London.

    But the unemployment rate is falling fastest in the North East.

    Youth unemployment is falling fastest in the West Midlands.

    Employment is growing fastest in the North West.

    And in today’s forecast real wages continue to grow and outstrip inflation in each and every year.

    The OBR forecasts lower inflation, at 0.7% this year and 1.6% next year.

    I am today confirming in a letter to the Governor of the Bank of England that the remit for the Monetary Policy Committee remains the symmetric CPI inflation target of 2%.

    I am also publishing the new remit for the Financial Policy Committee, the body we created to keep an eye on emerging long term risks in our financial system, asking them to be particularly vigilant in the face of current market turbulence.

    Because in this Budget we act now so we don’t pay later.

    Mr Deputy Speaker, that brings me to our approach to public spending and the OBR forecasts for our public finances.

    In every year since 2010, I have been told that now is not the right time to cut government spending.

    When the economy is growing, I’m told we can afford to spend more.

    When the economy isn’t growing, I’m told we can’t afford not to.

    Today, I’m publishing new analysis that shows that if we hadn’t taken the action we did in 2010, then cumulative borrowing would have been £930 billion more by the end of the decade than it is now forecast to be.

    If we’d taken the advice, Britain would not have been one of the best prepared economies for the current global uncertainties; we would have been one of the worst prepared.

    Now the very same people are saying to us we should spend more again.

    I reject that dangerous advice.

    The security of families and businesses depends on Britain living within its means.

    Last autumn’s Spending Review delivers a reduction in government consumption that is judged by the OBR to be the most sustained undertaken in the last hundred years of British history – barring the periods of demobilisation after the first and second world wars.

    My spending plans in the last parliament reduced the share of national income taken by the state from the unsustainable 45% we inherited, to 40% today.

    My spending plans in this Parliament will see it fall to 36.9% by the end of this decade.

    In other words, the country will be spending no more than the country raises in taxes.

    And we are achieving this while at the same time increasing resources for our NHS and schools, building new infrastructure and increasing our security at home and abroad.

    The OBR now tells us that the world has become more uncertain.

    So we have two options.

    We can ignore the latest information, and spend more than the country can afford.

    That’s precisely the mistake that was made a decade ago.

    Or we can live in the world as it is, and cut our cloth accordingly.

    I say we act now, so we don’t pay later.

    So I am asking my RHFs the Chief Secretary and the Paymaster General to undertake a further drive for efficiency and value for money.

    The aim is to save a further £3.5 billion in the year 2019-20.

    At less than half a percent of government spending in four years’ time, that is more than achievable while maintaining the protections we have set out.

    At the same time we will continue to deliver sensible reforms to keep Britain living within its means.

    On welfare, last week my RHF the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions set out changes that will ensure that within the rising disability budget, support is better targeted at those who need it most.

    Let me confirm that this means the disability budget will still rise by more than £1 billion, and we’ll be spending more in real terms supporting disabled people than at any point under the last government.

    On international aid, I am proud to be part of the government that was the first to honour Britain’s commitment to spend 0.7% of national income on development.

    We won’t spend more than that, so the budget will be readjusted, saving £650 million in 2019-20.

    We’re also going to keep public sector pensions sustainable.

    We reformed them in the last Parliament which will save over £400 billion in the long term.

    To ensure those pensions remain sustainable, we have carried out the regular revaluation of the discount rate and public sector employer contributions will rise as a result.

    This will not affect anyone’s pension, and will be affordable within spending plans that are benefitting from the fiscal windfall of lower inflation.

    Each of these decisions are a demonstration of our determination that the British economy will stay on course.

    We will not burden our children and grandchildren. This is a Budget for the next generation.

    Mr Deputy Speaker, let me now give the OBR’s forecasts for the debt and the deficit.

    The combination of our action to reduce borrowing this year, along with the revisions to our nominal GDP driven by lower inflation, have produced this paradoxical result.

    In cash terms the national debt is lower than it was forecast to be in the autumn, but so too is the nominal size of our economy.

    We measure the fiscal target against debt to GDP.

    So while debt as a percentage of GDP is above target and set to be higher in 2015-16 than the year before;

    Compared to the forecast, the actual level of our national debt in cash is £9 billion lower.

    In the future, debt falls to 82.6% next year, then 81.3% in 2017-18, then 79.9% the year after.

    In 2019-20, it falls again to 77.2%, then down again the year after to 74.7%.

    Let me turn to the forecast for the deficit.

    When I became Chancellor, the deficit was forecast to reach 11.1% of national income – the highest level in the peacetime history of Britain.

    Thanks to our sustained action, the deficit is forecast to fall next year to just over a quarter of that – at 2.9%. In 2017-18, it falls to 1.9%. Then it falls again to 1.0% in 2018-19.

    In cash terms, in 2010, Britain was borrowing a totally unsustainable £150 billion a year.

    This year we are expected to borrow less than half that, at £72.2 billion.

    Indeed our borrowing this year is actually lower than the OBR forecast at the Autumn Statement.

    Borrowing continues to fall – but not by as much as before – to £55.5 billion next year, £38.8 billion the year after that and £21.4 billion in 2018-19.

    I know there has been concern that the challenging economic times mean we would lose our surplus the following year.

    And that would have been the case if we had not taken further action today to control spending and make savings.

    But because we have acted decisively, in 2019-20 Britain is set to have a surplus of £10.4 billion.

    The surplus is then set to rise to £11.0 billion the year after. That’s 0.5% of GDP in both years.

    We said we would take the action necessary to give Britain’s families economic security.

    We said our country would not repeat the mistakes of the past – and instead live within its means.

    Today we maintain that commitment to long term stability in challenging times.

    Decisive action. To achieve a £10billion surplus.

    We act now, so we don’t pay later.

    We put the next generation first.

    Mr Deputy Speaker,

    In every Budget I’ve given, action against tax avoidance and evasion has contributed to the repair of our public finances.

    And this Budget is no different.

    In the Budget book we set out in detail the action we will take to:

    Shut down disguised remuneration schemes;

    Ensure that UK tax will be paid on UK property development;

    Change the treatment of freeplays for remote gaming providers;

    Limit capital gains tax treatment on performance rewards; and

    Cap exempt gains in the Employee Shareholder Status.

    Public sector organisations will have a new duty to ensure that those working for them pay the correct tax rather than giving a tax advantage to those who choose to contract their work through personal service companies.

    Loans to participators will be taxed at 32.5% to prevent tax avoidance.

    And we’ll tighten rules around the use of termination payments.

    Termination payments over £30,000 are already subject to income tax. From 2018, they will also attract employer national insurance.

    Taken altogether, the further steps in this Budget to stop tax evasion, prevent tax avoidance and tackle imbalances in the system will raise £12 billion for our country over this Parliament.

    People talked about social justice but left enormous loopholes in our tax system for the very richest to exploit.

    While the independent statistics confirm that since 2010:

    Child poverty is down;

    Pensioner poverty is down;

    Inequality is down;

    And the gender pay gap has never been smaller.

    The distributional analysis published today shows that the proportion of welfare and public services going to the poorest has been protected.

    And I can report that the latest figures confirm the richest 1% paid 28% of all income tax revenue. Proof that we are all in this together.

    So Mr Deputy Speaker

    I can report solid steady growth.

    More jobs.

    Lower inflation.

    An economy on course for a surplus.

    And all done in a fair way.

    A Britain prepared for whatever the world throws at us.

    Because we’ve stuck to our long term economic plan.

    Credible fiscal policy and effective monetary policy has only ever been part of our plan.

    A crucial ingredient has always been the lasting structural reforms needed to make our economy fit for the future.

    And with new risks on the horizon, and with all Western countries looking for ways to increase living standards, now is not the time to go easy on our structural reforms.

    It’s time to redouble our efforts.

    My Budgets last year delivered key improvements to productivity like the Apprenticeship Levy, lower corporation tax and the National Living Wage.

    My Budget this year sets out these further bold steps we need to take.

    One. Fundamental reform of the business tax system. Loopholes closed. Reliefs reduced but so too are rates. And the result: a huge boost for small business and enterprise.

    Two. A radical devolution of power so more of the responsibility and the rewards of economic growth are in the hands of local communities.

    Three. Major new commitments to the national infrastructure projects of the future.

    Four. Confronting the obstacles that stand in the way of important improvements to education and our children’s future.

    And five. Backing people who work hard and save.

    In short this Budget puts the next generation first.

    Let me take each step in turn.

    Mr Deputy Speaker,

    In the last Parliament I cut corporation tax dramatically. But I also introduced the Diverted Profits Tax, to catch those trying to shift profits overseas.

    As a result Britain went from one of the least competitive business tax regimes to the most competitive – and we raised much more money for public services.

    Today the Financial Secretary and I are publishing a roadmap to make Britain’s business tax system fit for the future.

    It will deliver a low tax regime that will attract the multinational businesses we want to see in Britain, but ensure that they pay taxes here too.

    And it will level the playing field, which has been tilted against our small firms.

    The approach we take is guided by the best practice set out by the OECD, work which Britain called for, Britain paid for and Britain will be among the very first to implement.

    First, some multinationals deliberately over-borrow in the UK to fund activities abroad, and then deduct the interest bills against their UK profits.

    So from April next year we will restrict interest deductibility for the largest companies at 30% of UK earnings, while making sure firms whose activities justify higher borrowing are protected with a group ratio rule.

    Next, we’re setting new hybrid mismatch rules to stop the complex structures that allow some multinationals to avoid paying any tax anywhere, or to deduct the same expenses in more than one country.

    Then, we’re going to strengthen our withholding tax on the royalty payments that allow some firms to shift money to tax havens.

    And lastly we’re going to modernise the way we treat losses. We’re going to allow firms to use losses more flexibly in a way that will help over 70,000 mostly British companies.

    But with these new flexibilities in place, we’ll do what other countries do and restrict the maximum amount of profits that can be offset using past losses to 50%.

    This will only apply to the less than 1% of firms making profits over £5m – and the existing rules for historic losses in the banking sector will be tightened to 25%.

    We’ll maintain our plans to align tax payment dates for the largest companies more closely to when profits are earned, but we will give firms longer to adjust to these changes which will now come into effect in April 2019.

    All of these reforms to corporation tax will help create a modern tax code that better reflects the reality of the global economy.

    Together, they raise £9 billion in extra revenue for the Exchequer.

    But our policy is not to raise taxes on business.

    Our policy is to lower taxes on business.

    So everything we collect from the largest firms who are trying to pay no tax will be used to help millions of firms who pay their fair share of tax.

    I can confirm today we’re going to reduce the rate of Corporation Tax even further.

    That’s the rate Britain’s profit-making companies – large and small – have to pay.

    And all the evidence shows it’s one of the most distortive and unproductive taxes there is.

    Corporation Tax was 28% at the start of the last Parliament and we reduced it so that it’s 20% at the start of this one.

    Last summer I set out a plan to cut it to 18% in coming years.

    Today I am going further. By April 2020 it will fall to 17%

    Britain is blazing a trail.

    Let the rest of the world catch up.

    Mr Deputy Speaker,

    Cutting corporation tax is only part of our plan for the future.

    I also want to address the great unfairness that many small businessmen and women feel when they compete against companies on the internet.

    Sites like Ebay and Amazon have provided an incredible platform for many new small British start-ups to reach large numbers of customers.

    But there’s been a big rise in overseas suppliers storing goods in Britain and selling them online without paying VAT.

    That unfairly undercuts British businesses both on the internet and on the high street, and today I can announce that we are taking action to stop it.

    That’s the first thing we do to help our small firms.

    Second, we’re going to help the new world of micro-entrepreneurs who sell services online or rent out their homes through the internet.

    Our tax system should be helping these people so I’m introducing two new tax-free allowances each worth £1,000 a year, for both trading and property income.

    There will be no forms to fill in, no tax to pay – it’s a tax break for the digital age and at least half a million people will benefit.

    On top of these two measures comes the biggest tax cut for business in this Budget.

    Business rates are the fixed cost that weigh down on many small enterprises.

    At present small business rate relief is only permanently available to firms with a rateable value of less than £6,000.

    In the past I’ve been able to double it for one year only.

    Today I am more than doubling it, and I’m more than doubling it permanently.

    The new threshold for small business rate relief will raise from £6,000 to a maximum threshold of £15,000.

    I’m also going to raise the threshold for the higher rate from £18,000 to £51,000.

    Let me explain to the House what this means.

    From April next year, 600,000 small businesses will pay no business rates at all.

    That’s an annual saving for them of up to nearly £6,000 – forever.

    A further quarter of a million businesses will see their rates cut.

    In total, half of all British properties will see their business rates fall or be abolished altogether.

    And to support all ratepayers, including larger stores who face tough competition and who employ so many people: we will radically simplify the administration of business rates, and from 2020, switch the uprating from the higher RPI to the lower CPI.

    That’s a permanent long term saving for all businesses in Britain.

    A typical corner shop in Barnstaple will pay no business rates.

    A typical hairdressers in Leeds will pay no business rates.

    A typical newsagents in Nuneaton will pay no business rates.

    Mr Deputy Speaker,

    This is a Budget which gets rid of loopholes for multinationals.

    And gets rid of tax for small businesses.

    A £7 billion tax cut, for our nation of shopkeepers.

    A tax system that says to the world: we’re open for business.

    A government that’s on your side.

    Mr Deputy Speaker,

    Just over a year ago, I reformed residential stamp duty. We moved from a distortive slab system to a much simpler slice system.

    And as a result 98% of homebuyers are paying the same or less, and revenues from the expensive properties have risen.

    The IMF welcomed the changes and suggest we do the same to commercial property.

    So that’s what we’re going to do – and in a way that helps our small firms.

    At the moment, a small firm can pay just £1 more for a property and face a tax bill three times as large. That makes no sense.

    So from now on, commercial stamp duty will have a zero rate band on purchases up to £150,000; a 2% rate on the next £100,000; and a 5% top rate above £250,000.

    There will also be a new 2% rate for those high value leases with a net present value above £5 million.

    This new tax regime comes into effect from midnight tonight. There are transitional rules for purchasers who have exchanged, but not completed contracts before midnight.

    These reforms raise £500 million a year. And while 9% will pay more; over 90% will see their tax bills cut or stay the same.

    So, if you buy a pub in the Midlands worth, say, £270,000, you would today pay over £8,000 in stamp duty.
    From tomorrow you will pay just £3,000.

    It’s a big tax cut for small firms. All in a Budget that backs small business.

    Mr Deputy Speaker,

    Businesses also want a simpler tax system.

    I’ve asked Angela Knight and John Whiting at the Office of Tax Simplification to look at what more we can do to make the tax system work better for small firms.

    And I’m funding a dramatic improvement in the service that HMRC offers.

    Many retailers have complained bitterly to me about the complexity of the Carbon Reduction Commitment. It’s not a commitment; it’s a tax.

    So I can tell the House: we’re not going to reform it.

    Instead I have decided to abolish it altogether.

    And to make good the lost revenue – the Climate Change Levy will rise from 2019.

    The most energy intensive industries like steel remain completely protected, and I’m extending the climate change agreements that help many others.

    The Energy Secretary and I are announcing £730 million in further auctions to back renewable technologies. And we’re now inviting bids to help develop the next generation of small modular reactors.

    We’re also going to help one of the most important and valued industries in our United Kingdom that has been severely affected by global events.

    The Oil and Gas sector employs hundreds of thousands of people in Scotland and across our country.

    In my Budget a year ago, I made major reductions to their taxes.

    But the oil price has continued to fall. So we need to act now for the long term.

    I am today cutting in half the Supplementary Charge on oil and gas from 20% to 10%.

    And I’m effectively abolishing Petroleum Revenue Tax too.

    Backing this key Scottish industry and supporting jobs right across Britain.

    Both of these major tax cuts will be backdated so they are effective from the 1st of January this year, and my HF the Exchequer Secretary will work with the industry to give them our full support.

    Mr Deputy Speaker,

    We are only able to provide this kind of support to our oil and gas industry because of the broad shoulders of the United Kingdom.

    None of this support would have been remotely affordable if, in just eight days’ time, Scotland had broken away from the rest of the UK, as the nationalists wanted.

    Their own audit of Scotland’s public finances confirms they would have struggled from the start with a fiscal crisis under the burden of the highest budget deficit in the western world.

    Thankfully, the Scottish people decided that we are better together in one United Kingdom.

    Mr Deputy Speaker, believing in our United Kingdom is not the same as believing that every decision should be taken here in London.

    That’s the next step in this Budget’s plan to make Britain fit for the future.

    Because we know that if you want local communities to take responsibility for local growth, they have to be able to reap the rewards.

    The government is delivering the most radical devolution of power in modern British history.

    We’re devolving power to our nations.

    The Scottish Secretary and I have agreed the new fiscal framework with Scotland.

    We’re also opening negotiations on a city deal with Edinburgh; we back the new V&A in Dundee.

    And in response to the powerful case made to me by Ruth Davidson we’re providing new community facilities for local people in Helensburgh and the Royal Navy personnel nearby at Faslane, paid for by LIBOR fines.

    In Wales, we’re committed to devolving new powers to the Assembly and yesterday my RHF the Welsh Secretary signed a new billion pound deal for the Cardiff region.

    We’re opening discussions on a city deal for Swansea and a growth deal for North Wales, so it’s better connected to our Northern Powerhouse.

    I’ve listened to the case made by Welsh colleagues and I can announce today that from 2018 we are going to halve the price of the tolls on the Severn Crossings.

    My RHF the Northern Ireland Secretary and I are working towards the devolution of corporation tax.

    I am also extending enhanced capital allowances to the enterprise zone in Coleraine and we will use over £4 million from LIBOR fines to help establish the first Air Ambulance service for Northern Ireland.

    Mr Deputy Speaker, in this Budget we make major further advances in the devolution of power within England too.

    It was less than two years ago that I called for the creation of strong elected mayors to help us build a Northern Powerhouse.

    Since then, powerful elected mayors have been agreed for Manchester, Liverpool, Tees Valley, the North East and Sheffield.

    Over half of the population of the Northern Powerhouse will be able to elect a mayor accountable to them next year.

    We will have an elected mayor for the West Midlands too.

    These new devolution arrangements evolve and grow stronger.

    Today I can tell the House that my RHF the Justice Secretary and I are transferring new powers over the criminal justice system to Greater Manchester.

    This is the kind of progressive social policy that this Government is proud to pioneer.

    And I can also announce to the House that today, for the first time, we have reached agreement to establish new elected mayors in our English counties and southern cities too.

    I want to thank my RHF the Communities Secretary and my Treasury colleague Jim O’Neill for their superhuman efforts.

    We’ve agreed a single powerful East Anglia combined authority, headed up by an elected Mayor and almost a billion pounds of new investment.

    We’ve also agreed a new West of England mayoral authority – and they too will see almost a billion pounds invested locally.

    And the authorities of Greater Lincolnshire will have new powers, new funding and a new mayor.

    North, South, East and West – the devolution revolution is taking hold.

    Mr Deputy Speaker

    When I became Chancellor, 80% of local government funding came in largely ring-fenced grants from central government. It was the illusion of local democracy.

    By the end of this Parliament, 100% of local government resources will come from local government – raised locally, spent locally, invested locally.

    Our great capital city wants to lead the way.

    The Mayor of London, and my HF for Richmond Park passionately argue for the devolution of business rates.

    I can confirm today that the Greater London Authority will move towards full retention of its business rates from next April, three years early.

    Michael Heseltine has accepted my invitation to lead a Thames Estuary Growth Commission and he will report to me with its ideas next year.

    Mr Deputy Speaker,

    In every international survey of our country, our failure for a generation to build new housing and new transport has been identified as a major problem.

    But we are the builders.

    Today we’re setting out measures to speed up our planning system, zone housing development and prepare the country for the arrival of 5G technology.

    My RHF the Business Secretary will be bringing forward our innovation proposals.

    And because we make savings in day to day spending we can accelerate capital investment and increase it as a share of GDP.

    All exactly the things that a country focussed on its long term future should be doing.

    Our new stamp duty rates on additional properties will come into effect next month. I’ve listened to colleagues and the rates will apply to large investors too.

    We’re going to use receipts to support community housing trusts, including £20 million to help young families onto the housing ladder in the South West of England.

    This is a brilliant idea from my HF for Truro and Falmouth, and other colleagues.

    And it’s proof that when the South West votes blue, their voice is heard loud in Westminster.

    And because under this government we’re not prepared to let people be left behind, I am also announcing a major new package of support worth over £115 million to support those who are homeless and reduce rough sleeping.

    Last year, Mr Deputy Speaker, I established a new National Infrastructure Commission to advise us all on the big long-term decisions we need to boost our productivity.

    I want to thank Andrew Adonis and his fellow Commissioners for getting off to such a strong start.

    They’ve already produced three impressive reports.

    They recommend much stronger links across northern England.

    So we are giving the green light to High Speed 3 between Manchester and Leeds; finding new money to create a 4-lane M62; and will develop the case for a new tunnelled road from Manchester to Sheffield.

    My HFs for Carlisle, Penrith and Hexham have told us not to neglect the North Pennines. So we’ll upgrade the A66 and A69 too.

    I said we would build the Northern Powerhouse

    We’ve put in place the mayors.

    We’re building the roads.

    We’re laying the track.

    We’re making the Northern Powerhouse a reality and rebalancing our country.

    I am also accepting the Infrastructure Commission’s recommendations on energy and on London transport.

    The Government that is delivering Crossrail 1 will now commission Crossrail 2.

    Mr Deputy Speaker,

    Across Britain this Budget invests in infrastructure – from a more resilient train line in the South West, to crossings at Ipswich and Lowestoft in the East – we are making our country stronger.

    To respond to the increasing extreme weather events our country is facing I am today proposing a further substantial increase in flood defences.

    That would not be affordable within existing budgets.

    So I am going to increase the standard rate of Insurance Premium Tax by just half a percentage point – and commit all the extra money we raise to flood defence spending.

    That’s a £700 million boost to our resilience and flood defences.

    The urgent review already underway by my RHFs the Environment Secretary and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will determine how the money is best spent.

    But we can get started now. I have had many representations from colleagues across the House.

    So we are giving the go ahead to the schemes for York, Leeds, Calder Valley, Carlisle and across Cumbria.

    In this Budget we invest in our physical infrastructure and we invest in our cultural infrastructure too.

    I am supporting specific projects from the Hall for Cornwall in Truro, to £13 million for Hull to make a success as the City of Culture.

    Our Cathedral Repairs Fund has been enormously successful so I am extending it with an extra £20 million.

    And in the four hundredth anniversary of the great playwright’s death, I have heard the sonnets from the RHM for Knowsley and we commit to a new Shakespeare North theatre, there on the site of the first indoor theatre outside of our capital.

    While my HF for Newark has proposed that we introduce a new tax break for museums that develop exhibitions and take those exhibitions on tour.

    It’s a great idea and we add that to our collection today.

    Mr Deputy Speaker,

    We cut taxes for business.

    We devolve power.

    We develop our infrastructure.

    The next part of our plan to make Britain fit for the future is to improve the quality of our children’s’ education.

    Providing great schooling is the single most important thing we can do to help any child from a disadvantaged background succeed.

    It’s also the single most important thing we can do to boost the long-term productivity of our economy.

    Because our nation’s productivity is no more and no less than the combined talents and efforts of the people of these islands.

    That is why education reform has been so central to our mission.

    Today we take these further steps.

    First, I can announce that we are going to complete the task of setting schools free from local education bureaucracy, and we’re going to do it in this Parliament.

    I am today providing extra funding so that by 2020 every primary and secondary school in England will be, or be in the process of becoming, an academy.

    Second, we’re going to focus on the performance of schools in the north, where results have not been as strong as we’d like.

    London’s school system has been turned around; we can do the same in the Northern Powerhouse and I’ve asked outstanding Bradford head teacher Sir Nick Weller to provide us with a plan.

    Third, we are going to look at teaching maths to 18 for all pupils.

    And fourth, we are going to introduce a fair National Funding Formula – and I’m today committing half a billion pounds to speed up its introduction.

    We will consult, and our objective is to get over 90% of the schools that will benefit onto the new formula by the end of this parliament.

    The Government delivering on its promise of fair funding for our schools.

    Tomorrow my RHF the Education Secretary will publish a White Paper setting out further improvements we will make to the quality of education.

    We will put the next generation first.

    Doing the right thing for the next generation is what the government and this Budget is about, no matter how difficult and controversial it is.

    Mr Deputy Speaker,

    You cannot have a long term plan for the country unless you have a long term plan for our children’s healthcare. Here are the facts we know.

    5 year old children are consuming their body weight in sugar every year.

    Experts predict that within a generation over half of all boys, and 70% of girls could be overweight or obese.

    Here’s another fact that we all know.

    Obesity drives disease.

    It increases the risk of cancer, diabetes and heart disease – and it costs our economy £27 billion a year; that’s more than half the entire NHS paybill.

    And here’s another truth we all know.

    One of the biggest contributors to childhood obesity is sugary drinks.

    A can of cola typically has nine teaspoons of sugar in it. Some popular drinks have as many as 13.

    That can be more than double a child’s recommended added sugar intake.

    Let me give credit where credit is due.

    Many in the soft drinks industry recognise there’s a problem and have started to reformulate their products.

    Robinsons recently removed added sugar from many of their cordials and squashes.

    Sainsbury’s, Tesco and the Co-op have all committed to reduce sugar across their ranges.

    So industry can act, and with the right incentives I’m sure it will.

    Mr Deputy Speaker,

    I am not prepared to look back at my time here in this Parliament, doing this job and say to my children’s generation:

    I’m sorry. We knew there was a problem with sugary drinks. We knew it caused disease. But we ducked the difficult decisions and we did nothing.

    So today I can announce that we will introduce a new sugar levy on the soft drinks industry.

    Let me explain how it will work.

    It will be levied on the companies.

    It will be introduced in two years’ time to give companies plenty of space to change their product mix.

    It will be assessed on the volume of the sugar-sweetened drinks they produce or import.

    There will be two bands – one for total sugar content above 5 grams per 100 millilitres; a second, higher band for the most sugary drinks with more than 8 grams per 100 millilitres.

    Pure fruit juices and milk-based drinks will be excluded, and we’ll ensure the smallest producers are kept out of scope.

    We will of course consult on implementation.

    We’re introducing the levy on the industry which means they can reduce the sugar content of their products – as many already do.

    It means they can promote low-sugar or no sugar brands – as many already are.

    They can take these perfectly reasonable steps to help with children’s health.

    Of course, some may choose to pass the price onto consumers and that will be their decision, and this would have an impact on consumption too.

    We understand that tax affects behaviour. So let’s tax the things we want to reduce, not the things we want to encourage.

    The OBR estimate that this levy will raise £520 million.

    And this is tied directly to the second thing we’re going to do today to help children’s health and wellbeing.

    We’re going to use the money from this new levy to double the amount of funding we dedicate to sport in every primary school.

    And for secondary schools we’re going to fund longer school days for those that want to offer their pupils a wider range of activities, including extra sport.

    It will be voluntary for schools. Compulsory for the pupils.

    There will be enough resources for a quarter of secondary schools to take part – but that’s just a start.

    The devolved administrations will receive equivalent funding through the Barnett formula – and I hope they spend it on the next generation too.

    I’m also using the LIBOR funds specifically to help with children’s’ hospital services.

    Members across the House have asked for resources for children’s’ care in Manchester, Sheffield, Birmingham and Southampton and we provide those funds today.

    A determination to improve the health of our children.

    A new levy on excessive sugar in soft drinks.

    The money used to double sport in our schools.

    A Britain fit for the future.

    We’re not afraid to put the next generation first.

    Mr Deputy Speaker, let me now turn to indirect taxes.

    Last autumn I said that I would use all the VAT we collect from sanitary products to support women’s charities.

    I want to thank many Members here on all sides, for the impressive proposals they have put forward.

    Today we allocate £12 million from the Tampon Tax to these charities across the UK, from Breast Cancer Care to the White Ribbon Campaign.

    And we will make substantial donations to the Rosa Fund and to Comic Relief so we reach many more grassroots causes.

    Mr Deputy Speaker, I now turn excise duties.

    In 2010 plans would have seen fuel duty rise above inflation every year – and cost motorists 18 pence extra a litre.

    We wholeheartedly rejected those plans – and instead we took action to help working people.

    We froze fuel duty throughout the last Parliament – a tax cut worth nearly £7 billion a year.

    In the last twelve months, petrol prices have plummeted. That is why we pencilled in an inflation rise.

    But I know that fuel costs still make up a significant part of household budgets and weigh heavily on small firms.

    Families paid the cost when oil prices rocketed; they shouldn’t be penalised when oil prices fall.

    So I can announce that fuel duty will be frozen for the sixth year in a row.

    That’s a saving of £75 a year to the average driver; £270 a year to a small business with a van. It’s the tax boost that keeps Britain on the move.

    Mr Deputy Speaker,

    Tobacco duty will continue to rise as set out in previous Budgets, by 2% above inflation from 6pm tonight – while hand rolling tobacco will rise by an additional 3%.

    And to continue our drive to improve public health we will reform our tobacco regime to introduce an effective floor on the price of cigarettes and consult on increased sanctions for fraud.

    Mr Deputy Speaker,

    I’ve always been clear that I want to support responsible drinkers and our nation’s pubs.

    5 years ago we inherited tax plans that would have ruined that industry.

    Instead, the action we took in the last Parliament on beer duty saved hundreds of pubs and thousands of jobs.

    Today I back our pubs again. I am freezing beer duty and cider duty too.

    Scotch Whisky accounts for a fifth of all of the UK’s food and drink exports.

    So we back Scotland and back that vital industry too, with a freeze on whisky and other spirits duty this year.

    All other alcohol duties will rise by inflation as planned.

    Mr Deputy Speaker,

    There are some final measures we need to take to boost enterprise, back the next generation, and help working people keep more of the money they earn.

    All these have been the themes of this Budget.

    Let me start with Enterprise.

    We know that when it comes to growing the economy, alongside good infrastructure and great education we need to light the fires of enterprise.

    And our tax system can do more.

    To help the self-employed I’m going to fulfil the manifesto commitment we made, and from 2018 abolish Class 2 National Insurance Contributions altogether.

    That’s a simpler tax system and a tax cut of over £130 for each of Britain’s 3 million strong army of the self-employed.

    Next, we want people to invest in our businesses, and help them create jobs.

    The best way to encourage that is to let them keep more of the rewards when that investment is successful.

    Our Capital Gains Tax is now one of the highest in the developed world, when we want our taxes to be among the lowest.

    The headline rate of Capital Gains Tax currently stands at 28%

    Today I am cutting it to 20%.

    And I am cutting the Capital Gains Tax paid by basic rate taxpayers from 18% to just 10%.

    The rates will come into effect in three weeks’ time. The old rates will be kept in place for gains on residential property and carried interest.

    I am also introducing a brand new 10% rate on long term external investment in unlisted companies, up to a separate maximum of £10 million of lifetime gains.

    In this Budget we’re putting rocket boosters on the backs of enterprise and productive investment.

    Mr Deputy Speaker,

    In this Budget I also want to help the next generation build up assets and save.

    The fundamental problem is that far too many young people in their 20s and 30s have no pension and few savings.

    Ask them and they will tell you why.

    It’s because they find pensions too complicated and inflexible, and most young people face an agonising choice of either saving to buy a home or saving for their retirement.

    We can help by providing people with more information about the multiple pensions many have; and by providing more tax relief on financial advice and the Economic Secretary and I do both today.

    We can also help those on the lowest incomes save, and the Prime Minister announced our Help to Save plan on Monday.

    Over the past year we’ve consulted widely on whether we should make compulsory changes to the pension tax system.

    But it was clear there is no consensus.

    Mr Deputy Speaker,

    My pension reforms have always been about giving people more freedom and more choice.

    So faced with the truth that young people aren’t saving enough, I am today providing a different answer to the same problem.

    We know people like ISAs – because they are simple.

    You save out of taxed income; everything you earn on your savings is tax-free; then it’s tax-free when you withdraw it too.

    From April next year I am going to increase the ISA limit from just over £15,000 to £20,000 a year for everyone.

    And for those under 40, many of whom haven’t had such a good deal from the pension system, I am introducing a completely new flexible way for the next generation to save.

    It’s called the Lifetime ISA.

    Young people can put money in, get a government bonus, and use it either to buy their first home or save for their retirement.

    Here’s how it will work.

    From April 2017, anyone under the age of 40 will be able to open a Lifetime ISA and save up to £4,000 each year.

    And for every £4 you save, the government will give you £1.

    So put in £4,000 and the government will give you £1,000. Every year. Until you’re 50.

    You don’t have to choose between saving for your first home, or saving for your retirement.

    With the new Lifetime ISA the government is giving you money to do both.

    For the basic rate taxpayer, that is the equivalent of tax-free savings into a pension, and unlike a pension you won’t pay tax when you come to take your money out in retirement.

    For the self-employed, it’s the kind of support they simply cannot get from the pensions system today.

    Unlike a pension you can access your money anytime without the bonus and with a small charge.

    And we’re going to consult with the industry on whether, like the American 401K, you can return money to the account to reclaim the bonus – so it is both generous and completely flexible.

    Those who have already taken out our enormously popular Help to Buy ISAs will be able to roll it into the new Lifetime ISA – and keep the government match.

    Mr Deputy Speaker,

    A £20,000 ISA limit for everyone.

    A new Lifetime ISA.

    A Budget that puts the next generation first.

    Mr Deputy Speaker,

    I turn now to my final measures.

    The government was elected to back working people.

    And the best way to help working people is to let them keep more of the money they earn.

    When I became Chancellor, the tax-free personal allowance was less than £6,500.

    In two weeks’ time it will rise to £11,000.

    We committed that it would reach £12,500 by the end of this Parliament.

    And today we take a major step towards that goal.

    From April next year, I am raising the tax-free personal allowance to £11,500.

    That’s a tax cut for 31 million people.

    It means a typical basic rate taxpayer will be paying over £1,000 less income tax than five years ago.

    And it means another 1.3 million of the lowest paid taken out of tax altogether.

    Mr Deputy Speaker,

    We made another commitment in our manifesto and that was to increase the threshold at which people pay the higher rate of tax.

    That threshold stands at £42,385.

    I can tell the House that from April next year I’m going to increase the Higher Rate threshold to £45,000.

    That’s a tax cut of over £400 a year.

    It is going to lift over half a million people who should never have been paying the higher rate out of that higher tax band altogether.

    And it’s the biggest above inflation cash increase since Nigel Lawson introduced the 40p rate almost thirty years ago.

    Mr Deputy Speaker,

    A personal tax free allowance of £11,500.

    No one paying the 40p rate under £45,000.

    And we have delivered a budget for working people.

    Mr Deputy Speaker,

    Five years ago we set out on a long term plan.

    Because we wanted to make sure that Britain never again was powerless in the face of global storms.

    We said then that we would do the hard work to take control of our destiny and put our own house in order.

    5 years later our economy is strong, but the storm clouds are gathering again.

    Our response to this new challenge is clear.

    We act now so we don’t pay later.

    This is our Budget.

    One that reaches a surplus so the next generation doesn’t have to pay our debts.

    One that reforms our tax system so that the next generation inherits a strong economy.

    One that takes the imaginative steps so that the next generation is better educated.

    One that takes bold decisions so that our children grow up fit and healthy.

    This is a Budget that gets investors investing, savers saving, businesses doing business; so that we build for working people a low tax, enterprise Britain; secure at home, strong in the world.

    I commend to the House a Budget that puts the next generation first.

  • Theresa Villiers – 2016 Speech in Washington

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa Villiers, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in Washington, United States on 16 March 2016.

    It’s a great pleasure for me to be back here in Washington and to participate in my fourth St Patrick’s celebrations since becoming Secretary of State in 2012.

    And on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government I’d like to wish you all a very happy St Patrick’s Day tomorrow.

    I’m delighted to be addressing you in happier political circumstances for Northern Ireland than I was this time last year.

    When I spoke here to this reception twelve months ago, the implementation of the Stormont House Agreement was stalling.

    Matters deteriorated over the summer.

    The impasse over the Northern Ireland Executive’s budget and welfare reform seemed intractable.

    This was putting increasing pressure on funding for public services and was also preventing other aspects of the Stormont House Agreement from going ahead.

    Political relationships within the Executive became increasingly strained and by early autumn the position looked perilous.

    There was a real danger of ministerial resignations and early elections.

    That could have led to the collapse of the devolved institutions and a return to direct rule from Westminster.

    I need hardly point out that after everything that’s been achieved what a serious setback this would have been … and I was determined to do everything I could to avoid it.

    Around the same time two murders in Belfast raised the spectre of continuing paramilitary activity and its malign influence on society.

    Against this difficult backdrop we acted decisively.

    First I made it clear that if the budget issues remained unresolved, Westminster would be left with no option but to legislate for welfare reform, even without Assembly consent.

    We could not stand by indefinitely and see the finances of the Executive become increasing dysfunctional with the corresponding damage to public services and political relationships that would have involved.

    Secondly, we called a fresh round of cross party talks with the five main Northern Ireland parties and the Irish Government.

    Two objectives were set; implementation of the Stormont House Agreement and dealing with continuing paramilitary activity.

    Those talks lasted ten week, with hundreds of meetings, countless hours of negotiations, and some late nights.

    Finally, on 17 November we were able to announce the Fresh Start – Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan.

    And I’d like to thank all those who contributed to a successful outcome; including Senator Gary Hart and US Consul General in Belfast, Dan Lawton.

    The Agreement makes real progress on both our two objectives, including taking the Northern Ireland political parties further before in their determination to see a complete end to paramilitary activity.

    The Fresh Start Agreement was underpinned by up to half a billion pounds of extra spending power on top of the £2 billion in the Stormont House Agreement.

    I’m happy to report that implementation is going well.

    At the Executive’s request, primary legislation was passed at Westminster on welfare reform within 10 days of the Agreement being reached. And intensive work is underway on the package of secondary legislation needed to bring the changes into operation.

    Last week, a further Bill went through the House of Commons on other key parts of the Agreement … including measures to tackle paramilitary activity.

    The Executive is taking steps to cut the number of government departments and reduce the size of the Assembly.

    The Commission on Flags and Identity is being established.

    In December the UK and Irish Governments, along with the Executive, established a Joint Agency Task Force to tackle cross jurisdictional organised crime.

    And of course the Agreement takes us a big step closer to the final stage of the devolution of corporation tax powers, with the Executive committed to a date and a rate of 12.5 per cent by 2018.

    I’m delighted that it was the Conservatives who put this issue back on the agenda, convinced Whitehall that it was the right thing for Northern Ireland and legislated for it this time last year.

    Northern Ireland is already a great place to invest and do business, as many US companies know to their advantage, but I believe that further reductions in corporation tax can provide a major boost to Northern Ireland economy.

    And that in turn will help us tackle other long-term problems of economic and social disadvantage, underpinning our efforts to embed security and political stability through prosperity.

    So the Fresh Start Agreement was a really positive step forward.

    I’m very conscious, of course, that some important issues are not covered by the Agreement. In particular the new bodies designed to deal with the legacy of the past.

    We came very close – the differences really were down to a few quite narrow areas – but in the end there just wasn’t quite enough consensus to bring forward the legislation.

    But the UK Government remains determined to resolve the outstanding differences. Not least because we believe these new institutions would deliver better outcomes for victims and survivors of the Troubles than existing mechanisms.

    So working with Northern Ireland’s leaders and with victims groups that is what we’ll continue striving to achieve.

    Amongst the other challenges we face in the weeks and months to come are further commemorations in this decade of centenaries now well underway

    Events such as the Somme and the Easter Rising will always have contrasting meaning and significance for different people, shaped in many cases by their community background.

    But I believe that handled with good sense and mutual respect, these centenaries can be marked in a way which promotes greater shared understanding and reconciliation, rather than division.

    I know that’s what the Irish Government are seeking to do as we get closer to the centenary of the Easter Rising next week, and I also welcome that same constructive approach from groups organising events north of the border as well.

    We also know there’s more to do to build a genuinely shared society and I look forward to working with the Executive to deliver our respective commitments towards achieving that goal.

    And we never forget the continuing lethal threat from terrorism, an illustration of which took place just days ago with the attack on prison officer Adrian Ismay.

    I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate my sympathy and condolences to the family of Mr Ismay.

    He had a long and distinguished record of public service in a role which is crucial to protecting the whole community.

    His loss is a tragedy and I know that the attack will only strengthen the resolve of the people of Northern Ireland to ensure their future is only ever determined by peaceful and democratic means, and never by violence.

    I pay tribute to the Chief Constable, George Hamilton, and the brave men and women of the PSNI.

    Working with partners like An Garda Siochana – they do an incredible job in keeping people safe.

    As they set out last week, they foil plots to murder by Dissident Republicans on a regular basis.

    But despite this, I believe that the outlook for Northern Ireland looks bright.

    As a result of the Fresh Start and Stormont House Agreements politics in Northern Ireland is now on a more stable footing than since before the flag protests of just over three years ago.

    And the working relationship between the new First Minister, Arlene Foster and the deputy First Minister, Martin McGuinness, has begun very positively.

    In May Northern Ireland will go to the polls giving us a third Assembly term since devolution was restored in 2007 … and the longest period of continuous devolved government since the 60s.

    In this political climate, there is a real chance for the new Executive to make significant progress on their priority issues such as health and schools and the economy, without being held back by disputes over identity, culture and the past.

    On the economy too things are looking up – with 51,000 more people in work than in 2010 and the unemployment register down by over 40 per cent since its peak.

    And Northern Ireland will continue to benefit from the UK Government’s long term economic plan which in 2015 helped make the UK along with the United States, one of the two fastest growing major advanced economies.

    At the end of the Fresh Start talks I reflected with my team that we’d spent five of the previous twelve months in political negotiations.

    It certainly wasn’t an easy process, but I believe that collectively with the parties and the Irish Government we have managed to move things on, avoiding possible collapse of devolution and helping to make the institutions stronger and more stable.

    I welcome your continuing support for our efforts and for your determination to see the political process in Northern Ireland work for the benefit of the whole community.

    And for our part be assured that as a One Nation Government we will continue to play our full role in delivering our manifesto commitments to build a brighter, more secure future for everyone in Northern Ireland.

    Thank you.

  • Michael Martin – 2009 Statement on MP Expenses

    Below is the text of the statement made by Michael Martin, the then Speaker of the House of Commons, in the House of Commons on 19 May 2009.

    I should like to make a statement, for the second time today.

    This afternoon I convened a meeting of party leaders—both major and minor parties—and members of the House of Commons Commission to make decisions on the operation of parliamentary allowances pending the recommendations of Sir Christopher Kelly’s Committee on Standards in Public Life. The Chairman of the Committee on Members’ Allowances was also present to advise us.

    The Committee on Standards in Public Life will come forward with long-term reforms to the current allowances system. All parties are now committed to implementing its recommendations as a whole, subject to the formal agreement of this House, provided that these reforms meet the tests of increased transparency and accountability and reduced cost for the taxpayer. We have today agreed a robust set of interim measures which will take effect at once and do not pre-empt any more substantial changes to be put forward by the Kelly committee.

    Second homes: there will be no more claims for such items as furniture, household goods, capital improvements, gardening, cleaning and stamp duty. The following only should be claimable: rent, including ground rent; hotel accommodation; overnight subsistence; mortgage interest; council tax; service charges; utility bills, including gas, water, electricity, oil, telephone calls and line rental; and insurance—buildings and contents.

    Designation of second homes: no changes to be made to designation of second homes in the years 2009-10, with a transparent appeal procedure for exceptional cases.

    Capital gains tax: Members selling any property must be completely open with the tax authorities about whether they have claimed additional costs allowance on that property as a second home and are liable for capital gains tax. Members should make a declaration in respect of any property on which they claim for expenditure that it is not—and will never be—their main residence for capital gains tax purposes. Whether such a declaration has been made will be made public.

    Couples: Members who are married or living together as partners must nominate the same main home, and will be limited to claiming a maximum of one person’s accommodation allowance between them.

    Mortgages: all those Members claiming reimbursement must confirm that the mortgage continues, that the payments are for interest only, and the amount claimed is accurate. Mortgage interest claims will be capped at £1,250 per month. In the view of the meeting—and subject to the recommendations of the Kelly committee—this maximum figure should be reduced in the longer term. The same cap will apply to rent and hotel accommodation. Some of these measures I am announcing will require a resolution by the House in the near future; others will be put into effect by administrative action.

    Staffing: we confirmed the enforcement of deposit of staff contracts and the registration of any relatives employed.

    While the Kelly committee recommendations are awaited, there will be no specific changes to other allowances. The Department of Resources is instructed to tighten the administration of all claims and apply a clear test of “reasonableness”. If there is any doubt about the eligibility of a claim, it will be refused and there will be no appeal. In future, all authorised payments will be published online at transaction level on a quarterly basis by the Department of Resources.

    All past claims under the former additional costs allowance over the past four years will be examined. This will be carried out by a team with external management; the external manager will be appointed after consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General. All necessary resources will be made available. The team will look at claims in relation to the rules which existed at that time, and will take account of any issues which arise from that examination which cause them to question the original judgment.

    The meeting also received a paper from the Prime Minister, which was endorsed by the other party leaders, calling for a fundamental reform of allowances—moving from self-regulation to regulation by an independent body. The Government will consult widely on this proposal. Further to this, the Leader of the House will be making a statement tomorrow, which will allow the House a full opportunity to ask questions, and Members to air their views on the decisions we have made and the proposals for the future.

  • Nick Boles – 2016 Statement on Apprenticeships

    CBI Conference

    Below is the text of the statement made by Nick Boles, the Minister of State for Skills, in the House of Commons on 10 March 2016.

    With permission Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about apprenticeships. As you know, Mr Speaker, I am evangelical about apprenticeships. We do not always agree with each other on every question, but I know that to a woman and to a man, all my right hon. and hon. Friends share this passion.

    We believe in apprenticeships, because they are one of most powerful motors of social mobility and productivity growth. An apprenticeship represents opportunity, aspiration, ambition—things that we Conservatives cherish. Apprenticeships make our companies more competitive. Some 70% of employers report that apprentices help to improve the quality of their product or service. They offer people a ladder to climb, with both higher pay and a sense of personal fulfilment at the end of it. A level 2 apprenticeship raises people’s incomes by an average of 11% three to five years later. A level 3 apprenticeship delivers a 16% boost.

    Apprenticeships improve the diversity of the workplace: 53% of the people starting an apprenticeship in 2014-15 were women; 10.6% were from a black or other minority ethnic background, up from 8% in 2009-10; and 8.8% had a disability or learning difficulty. An apprenticeship can take you anywhere. Sir Alex Ferguson did one. So did Jamie Oliver. And Karen Millen. And Sir Ian McKellen. So, too, did the chairmen of great businesses such as Crossrail, WS Atkins and Fujitsu.

    The Government have great ambitions for our apprenticeships programme. In the previous Parliament, 2.4 million people started an apprenticeship; by 2020, we want a further 3 million to have that opportunity. We do not just want to see more apprenticeships; we want better apprenticeships in more sectors, covering more roles. The first thing we need to do is persuade more employers to offer apprenticeships. At the moment, only about 15% of employers in England do. In Germany, the figure is 24% and in Australia 30%.

    We are therefore introducing a new apprenticeship levy that will be paid by all larger employers—those with an annual payroll bill of £3 million or more. This will help us to increase our spending on apprenticeships in England from £1.5 billion last year to £2.5 billion in 2019-20. Employers who pay the levy will see the money they have paid for English apprenticeships appear in their digital account. They will be able to spend it on apprenticeship training—but only on apprenticeship training—and as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has emphasised, employers will be able to get out more than they put in.

    We are also making sure the public sector pulls its weight and follows the fantastic example of our armed forces, which, between them, employ 20,000 apprentices at any one time. We plan to introduce a new target for public sector organisations employing over 250 people in England. They will be expected to ensure that at least 2.3% of their staff are apprentices. We are using the Government’s power as a customer too. Procurement rules now stipulate that bidders for central Government contracts worth more than £10 million and lasting over 12 months must demonstrate their commitment to apprentices.

    We are not only committed to greater quantity; we want to see better quality too. We have already stopped the short-term, low-quality, programme-led apprenticeships developed by the last Labour Government. They made a mockery of the concept and tarnished the brand. We are now asking groups of employers to develop new apprenticeship standards that will help them fill the skills needs created by new jobs and new industries. Some 1,300 employers are involved in this process, and we have published 210 new standards so far. A further 150 are in development. We are also establishing a new employer-led institute for apprenticeships to approve these new standards and ensure that quality is maintained.

    Sixty of these new standards are higher and degree apprenticeships. We want everyone making a choice about their next steps after the age of 16 or 18 to know that the decision to do an apprenticeship is not a decision to cap their ambition or turn down the chance of a degree. It is simply a decision to progress in a different way—to learn while they earn and to take a bit more time, to bring home a wage and avoid large student loans. Next week is National Apprenticeship Week. I hope that the House of Commons will today speak with one voice. Apprenticeships are for everyone and can take you anywhere. I commend this statement to the House.

  • David Cameron – 2016 Speech at Vauxhall on EU

    davidcameron

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, at Vauxhall on 10 March 2016.

    Introduction

    There is going to be lots of debate about Europe over the next 3 and a half months.

    But the biggest issue on the ballot paper on June 23rd is this: our economic future.

    And as I’ve said before, the question isn’t whether Britain could still be a great country outside Europe. Of course we could.

    The question is: where will our economy be stronger; where will our children have more opportunities; where will families have the most security; where will Britain be better off – in or out of a reformed Europe?

    I know that as people make up their minds, what they want – more than anything – are the facts and arguments.

    But I know people also want to understand more about Europe, and in particular the single market.

    So today, I want to explain what this market is, how it works, and what its advantages are – and crucially how it should change in the future, under the agreement I negotiated and what that means for you, in terms of jobs, prices, investment in our economy, and your family’s financial security.

    At the same time, I want to challenge those who advocate leaving to be equally clear about the alternatives that they propose for our relationship with this single market.

    Because if there’s one thing lacking in all they have said so far, it is specifics, particularly about this issue.

    What trade relationship would Britain have with Europe? What deals would we sign with the rest of the world? What tariffs would British business have to pay?

    There are so many people in this country who need answers.

    The farmer wondering if his beef will be subject to duties.

    The factory worker wondering if his company will cut investment.

    The young graduate wondering whether she’ll be able to get a job.

    That to me is the difference in this referendum.

    On the one side, we have facts about how a single market in a reformed Europe makes Britain better off, all drawn from experts’ projections, and other countries’ experiences.

    On the other side, we have unanswered questions.

    So as you make what will be the most important decision for this country in a generation, let me take you through the three big advantages of the single market:

    First, how it allows businesses, like this one, to trade tariff-free with the European Union.

    Second, how it removes the barriers that not even the best free trade agreements can completely tackle.

    And third, how it enables the European Union to strike the most ambitious and comprehensive trade deals with the world.

    And as I do this, I want to turn to the big questions that leave campaigners need to answer.

    Remain: Tariffs

    So first, selling to a continent full of customers – 500 million people – tariff-free.

    Before we joined, we faced extremely high tariffs:

    14 per cent on cars.

    17 per cent on bicycles.

    32 per cent on salt.

    37 per cent on china.

    Even, oddly, 20 per cent on gloves – but only 13 per cent on socks.

    This all meant higher costs for businesses and for consumers – and less choice on our supermarket shelves.

    Today, there is one tariff in the single market: and it is zero per cent.

    And what it means is this:

    A British businesswoman can sell her goods in Berlin as easily as she can in Birmingham.

    A lorry that sets off from Sunderland doesn’t have to deal with layers of bureaucracy in every country as it heads towards for instance Salzburg.

    And industries that were once struggling to survive are now thriving.

    Let’s take your industry: cars.

    For every 100 cars we make, 23 stay here in Britain, 33 are sold beyond Europe – but the biggest proportion, 44 of that 100 cars, they go to the continent.

    Why? Not just because of our proximity.

    But because those cars – made inside the single market – are around 10 per cent less expensive than if they had been subject to the tariffs that are imposed outside the single market.

    And it’s not just the selling that depends on Europe; it’s also the making.

    Because in the single market, components are tariff-free, too.

    And that is vital to Britain, where 59 per cent of car parts by value are imported.

    So as you look at the cars that are lined up here, ready to be shipped, you’re looking at an industry that is completely integrated with the single market.

    And that’s good for the people of this country – it creates 140,000 jobs in the car industry; supporting an extra 300,000 jobs; and generating £12 billion a year for our economy.

    So many industries benefit from a tariff-free Europe.

    Look at chemicals and pharmaceuticals – nearly 140,000 jobs; worth over £22 billion pounds; selling over 50 per cent of their exports to Europe.

    Look at food industry – 370,000 jobs; worth almost £20 billion; selling over 55 per cent of exports to Europe.

    So when I hear people argue that, by being in this single market, we are “shackled to a corpse”, I say: you won’t find the people in these industries saying that; or the towns whose employment depends on them.

    It’s by being in the single market that so many of our companies are growing.

    And it also helps us attract a huge amount of investment to the United Kingdom.

    Of course, businesses invest in Britain for many reasons – our skilled workforce, our flexible labour market and low taxes.

    They invest because of our effective but low regulation – one of the least restrictive in the OECD, in fact, despite our membership of the European Union.

    And they invest because our economy is strong.

    That’s worth thinking about for a moment.

    When we entered the European Community, back in the 1970s, with high inflation and frankly zero confidence in our economy.

    Today, 40 years later, our country is much stronger and better off – with one of the fastest growth rates and lowest unemployment rates in Europe.

    Now of course, we have turned round our country’s fortunes through our own efforts – not least through fundamental reforms in the 1980s.

    But when you consider the country Britain is today compared to when we joined the EU, it is hard to sustain the argument that being in has hobbled us or crippled our ability to do well.

    Far from holding us back, our membership of the EU is one reason why countries want to invest.

    And every day, foreign companies invest £142 million here in Britain, companies like BMW, Bosch, Ikea, Nissan and Siemens. And of course General Motors.

    That doesn’t just create jobs; it helps us to finance what economists call our current account deficit – meaning we can pay our way in the world.

    And it’s small businesses that are affected as well.

    Nearly a third of Federation of Small Businesses members import or export overseas, and 80 per cent of those who export sell to Europe.

    And it’s not just those trading directly with Europe; it’s those connected to that process – in the jargon, in the supply chain: the factory that makes the components for the car company; the local printer who makes leaflets for the factory; the sandwich shop that caters for the printers.

    So many businesses succeed, directly and indirectly, because of this free-trade system.

    Indeed, 3 million people’s jobs in our country are already linked to it.

    And, because of the changes and reforms I’ve secured in Europe, I’m determined that many more businesses will succeed, too.

    During that renegotiation I got some clear commitments: to complete the single market in services, in digital and in energy.

    This really matters for a country like ours because over three quarters of our economy is made up of the service sector, and we are one of Europe’s leaders in technology and renewable energy.

    So the result is clear: more jobs, more investment, lower prices, greater economic security – and hardworking families better off.

    Leave: Tariffs

    Those who want to leave aren’t clear about what sort of access that we’d have to the single market after we’d left.

    Clearly there would be a strong case for trying to secure full access.

    But as the German finance minister made clear last week, if you want that you must pay into the EU and accept complete the free movement of people – two of the reasons many people cite for wanting to leave the EU in the first place.

    Norway is one example of a country we could follow. They have almost full access to the single market.

    But they pay into the EU; accept nearly double the number of EU migrants per head that we do and still have to put up with tariffs on some of their goods.

    Crucially, they have no say on the rules of the single market, whereas we do.

    Now others will say: let’s sign a free trade agreement like Canada is doing. And yes of course – perhaps we could.

    But their free trade agreement is not anything like being in the single market and it retains a number of tariffs and quotas.

    Will Canadian farmers have unrestricted exports for their produce? No.

    Will Canadian car makers be able to sell their cars in Europe without cumbersome rules on the origin of each part? No.

    Their agreement with the EU is over 1,400 pages long – 700 of which are exemptions from free trade demanded by either side.

    Now that might work for Canada, which sends around a tenth of its exports to Europe.

    But it wouldn’t work for Britain, with around half our exports going to Europe.

    Then there are those who will argue that we could pull out of the EU and fall back on World Trade Organisation rules.

    But that wouldn’t mean tariff-free trade.

    Even with the WTO Most Favoured Nation treatment, we’d be exposed to tariffs of 10 per cent on our cars, 11 per cent on clothes and 36 per cent on average for dairy products. What would happen to jobs in those sectors?

    Of course, each of those three outcomes, access to the Single Market, but accepting fees and migration; a free trade agreement; or WTO rules, all of these are do-able. And people who want to leave the EU should decide which they favour.

    But there is another key question. Would Britain get a good deal?

    Now here I want to cut through some of the rhetoric.

    Because we have the leave campaigners saying any hint that you think Britain may not get a good deal is somehow “talking Britain down”.

    And we have remain campaigners saying it’s all very difficult and all very hard.

    So I just need to present you with the facts, so you can make up your own mind.

    If Britain was to vote to leave, we would have to enter discussions with the EU on what our trade relationship should be like.

    And these will be the negotiating dynamics:

    One nation negotiating with 27 nations.

    Britain’s market of 60 million negotiating with a European market of 440 million.

    Britain, a country which sells 50 per cent of its goods to a European bloc, compared to a European bloc which sells only 7 per cent of its goods to us.

    Those are the facts. I will leave it to you to judge who the balance favours.

    Remain: Non-tariff barriers

    Now the second big advantage of the single market is that it doesn’t just eliminate tariffs, it eliminates other barriers to trade – things that are known as non-tariff barriers.

    These are the often more technical rules but they impose hidden costs on businesses.

    Things like refusing to recognise the professional qualifications of your staff.

    Or saying that your company has to set up a separate legal entity in every single country you want to trade in.

    This is particularly important for Britain, which relies less on goods, which are hindered by tariffs, and more on services, which are hindered by these non-tariff barriers.

    We’ve already demonstrated how effective we can be at bringing down the barriers.

    In the 1980s, a lorry load of goods setting off from Manchester to Milan would be carrying 88 separate documents.

    Today, thanks to this internal market which we drove forward, they have been replaced with just one piece of paper.

    Before the 1990s, airlines could be blocked by other countries from flying where and when they wanted.

    Britain helped end that, and that spawned EasyJet, Ryanair and Jet2.com, and opening up the continent to British businesses, students and holidaymakers, making travel much, much cheaper.

    Of course it’s not always easy.

    There are times when changes to these non-tariff rules can cause us problems. But frankly that’s no surprise when you have an organisation of 28 different members.

    But on the big questions, we have a seat at the table to help shape those rules and promote Britian’s industries.

    One of the biggest non-tariff barriers is the ability of countries to ban your product on the basis of often spurious concerns.

    With a seat at the table and enforceable rules, we are able to challenge those things.

    And that’s what we did in 2001 when the European Court of Justice overturned France’s bogus ban on British beef.

    Without the single market, there are obstacles to selling meat for instance to some of our biggest trading partners – even our friends, like America.

    How much British beef do you think we sell in America? None. All because of restrictions that are nearly 20 years old.

    That shows just how important it is to be able to shape the rules to suit our interests, which the single market in the EU enables us to do.

    Then there’s for instance the financial services, employing 1.1 million people in this country and adding £133 billion pounds to our economy.

    This industry goes way beyond London; two-thirds of financial sector jobs are based outside the capital.

    All have the benefit of being able to trade in the single market of 500 million people without having to set up an office anywhere else other than the UK, because we are in the EU.

    Recently, there was move that could’ve forced UK-based companies that clear euros – a bedrock of our financial services, to move inside the Eurozone.

    That could’ve been deeply economically damaging for our country.

    But we had our seat at the table, and we were able to stop it.

    And through my renegotiation I’ve made sure a proposal like that can never happen again.

    And let me be clear: I am the first to say that there needs to be further reform of the EU.

    My renegotiation isn’t the end of the road for reform.

    It’s another important milestone in our ongoing mission to make sure the EU works for us.

    Leave: Non-tariff barriers

    Now what about the alternatives?

    We need to be clear.

    If we voted to leave, we could sign the best possible free trade agreement in the world with the European Union, but it still would not come close to giving British companies the access they get to the world’s largest free trade area from the single market.

    Why?

    Because – and this is really important point – even the best free trade agreements leave many of these non-tariff barriers in place.

    For British firms like this, it would be a return to the bad old days of endless forms and burdensome bureaucracy and, along with losing out on the benefits of a more complete single market, it could cost Britain over £50 billion, according to the London School of Economics.

    That’s not all. Those who want to leave Europe claim we would be repatriating powers.

    But leaving Europe would in many ways give us less control:

    We’d still be affected by its rules if we wanted access to the single market – we just wouldn’t have any influence over them.

    Just ask Switzerland.

    There’s a reason their banks base substantial operations inside the UK: they have no agreement that guarantees their access to the single market.

    And then there is Norway.

    As their prime minister said only last week: “We lack influence in important decision-making processes in the EU. We have special arrangements on some issues, but basically we have lost our sovereignty.”

    That is what the Norwegian Prime Minister is saying outside of the EU because of the relationships they’ve signed with the EU. Now that’s a really important point.

    Remain: Trade deals

    The third big advantage of the single market is that it actually helps us to trade the world over.

    Those who imply there is some sort of choice, between trading with Europe on the one hand and trading with the rest of the world on the other hand, are wrong.

    It’s not either/or. We’ve got to do both.

    Indeed, the fact that we are part of such a huge market – of 500 million people – means our companies have the platform to grow, scale up quickly and take on the world.

    But on top of that, our membership of the single market means we are able to trade with many more countries beyond Europe, on a preferential basis, because the EU has free trade agreements with them.

    Adding those countries – like Mexico and South Korea – to EU member states means we can trade more easily with a third of the entire world.

    This really matters.

    The EU-South Korea trade deal may not sound like a big deal for Britain, but ask the people who work in this industry.

    Since it was implemented, car exports from Britain to South Korea have nearly quadrupled.

    And this is just the beginning.

    I put at the front and centre of my renegotiation clear commitments to complete more preferential trade and investment deals right across the world.

    There are another 9 on the way – from Japan to India and America.

    Take the EU-US trade deal, known as the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.

    When complete, it will make it easier for one of the world’s richest economies to buy British products.

    But it isn’t just about the big industries that benefit. It’s also the small ones.

    A company like Amtico flooring – they could be free from tariffs of up to 12.5 per cent if they are allowed to send their stock between their Coventry and Atlanta plants.

    Think of Five Point Plus, who make car harnesses for children. They could sell their products to many more people.

    So we should see British business after business break into America – thanks to our deal through the EU…

    …which could make our economy up to £10 billion a year better off.

    Leave: Trade deals

    If we vote to stay in a reformed Europe, we know we get these preferential trade deals.

    But again, a vote to leave is a vote for huge uncertainty.

    Leave campaigners say countries would queue up to sign trade deals with us, and sign them quickly.

    But I believe that is guesswork. And guesswork at a time when we need facts.

    One fact is this: it can take years to strike trade deals. The Canada-EU deal took 7 years and it’s still not implemented.

    And that’s ignoring the fact that many of these countries may not even start negotiations until they know what relationship we have with Europe once we’ve left.

    What would happen to British jobs and business in that time?

    Here’s another fact: if Britain voted to leave, there’s a process under Article 50 of the European Treaty which would give us two years before all the trade deals we have through the EU – with over 50 countries – would fall away.

    Are those who advocate leaving saying they would’ve sorted out individual replacements with each territory and each bloc in that time?

    Fact number 3: countries like America have said they would much rather do regional trade deals like the one we are currently negotiating.

    As the US Trade Representative put it: the United States is “not particularly in the market for free trade agreements with individual countries”.

    Now look what happens to those countries who do such deals.

    When Switzerland signed a trade deal with China, they had to scrap tariffs on nearly all their Chinese imports, while some Chinese tariffs would only be dismantled over 10 or even 15 years.

    So this is the question: if we left Europe, who would we sign trade deals with? How long would that take? What would be the terms? How can we be sure no jobs would go in the meantime?

    We can’t.

    A vote to leave is a leap in the dark.

    Families’ finances

    So that’s what our membership of a reformed Europe offers: certainty.

    Tariffs abolished. Non-tariff barriers eliminated. A deeper single market completed. Trade deals with the rest of the world signed.

    Again, as Mark Carney has said, our continued membership reinforces our economic dynamism and leaving as he put it would be “the biggest domestic risk to financial stability”.

    When it comes to the single market, we can chart the sort of positive gains we will be looking at as it completes the reforms I’ve secured.

    The single market in services could see GDP increase by 2 per cent, action on e-commerce through the digital single market could be worth 1.7 per cent of EU GDP and those forthcoming trade deals could boost our GDP, too.

    These gains cannot be dismissed.

    Every one per cent increase in GDP is equivalent to more than an additional £275 per person.

    And this extra growth could also mean billions more in tax receipts to spend on our schools, our hospitals, our army and our police.

    So this is the bright future we could have in a reformed Europe.

    Let me be clear: this isn’t the whole economic case for membership; it is just the gains we can get from staying in a reformed single market – there will be fuller Treasury analysis in the coming weeks.

    But it does show the sort of gains our membership of a reformed European Union could deliver.

    And compare that to the alternatives.

    We’ve had some of the key leave campaigners admitting various things about leaving Europe in the last few weeks.

    They’ve said it might lead to job losses.

    That there would be dislocation, uncertainties and costs.

    That there would definitely be some problems, even pain.

    That they cannot offer any guarantee that jobs wouldn’t be lost.

    That there could be higher tariffs.

    And that there would be an economic shock.

    It’s worth remembering what a shock really means.

    It means pressure on the pound sterling. It means jobs being lost. It means mortgage rates might rise. It means businesses closing. It means hardworking people losing their livelihoods.

    For those who advocate leaving, lost jobs and a dented economy might be collateral damage, or a price worth paying.

    For me, they’re not. They never are. Because there’s nothing more important that protecting people’s financial security.

    That’s why I believe we are better off in.

    Conclusion

    And it’s not just me. So many who create jobs and growth in this country agree.

    Look back over the past 3 weeks.

    Carmakers, like BMW, Ford, and yes, Vauxhall.

    Telecoms companies, like BT and Vodafone.

    Aerospace manufacturers, like Rolls Royce and Airbus.

    Retailers, like Asda and Mothercare.

    Pharmaceutical companies, like AstraZeneca and GSK.

    Travel firms, like EasyJet and Tui.

    And our biggest investors, like O2 and General Electric.

    Together, along with a whole host of other businesses, all have said we are better off in.

    Now those on the other side may plead it’s all a conspiracy of scaremongering.

    I would ask yourself: is it?

    Because these companies are actually making a positive case – positive arguments about jobs and investment but they also know how fragile the global economy is – and how perilous it would be for Britain to burn bridges with our biggest trading partner.

    So this is the message I want to go out – to the eurosceptic and the agnostic; the floating voter and the first-time voter:

    Taking advantage of the single market is one of the ways this country has made itself great.

    As I’ve said before, I don’t love Brussels; I love Britain – and my mission is to make it greater still.

    Looking at what the experts say and the way the evidence points and viewing it all in the light of our financial security, and what makes our people better off, I believe the best way to do that is by remaining in a reformed Europe.

    And I hope that’s what we’ll do – for the sake of every family in our great nation.

    Thank you.

  • Dan Jarvis – 2016 Speech on Inequality

    ????????????????????????????????????

    Below is the text of the speech made by Dan Jarvis at Demos in London on 10 March 2016.

    Thank you Phil and thank you Demos for inviting me to join you today.

    I recently celebrated – if that’s the right word – five years since I was elected to Parliament in the Barnsley Central by-election.

    I suppose it would be impossible to swap the trenches of Helmand for the green benches in Westminster and not experience a few surprises.

    The working conditions for a start. When you once spent two weeks in which every single meal consisted of the same British Army ration pack – what was described – somewhat optimistically – on the packet as ‘pork casserole’ – you can find it hard to sympathise with complaints about the food in Westminster!

    Or the hours, for that matter.

    Or the cramped offices.

    Trust me, it could be worse…

    But hey – at least in the modern dynamic institution that Parliament is, I still have somewhere to hang my sword!

    But there has been one way in which my civilian life has proved harder than the military life.

    The training in the Army prepares you to deal with the emotional impact of what you see.

    There is a job to be done and you get on and do it.

    I went to war three times in three different places and managed to do it without shedding a tear… other than on the 14th day of being handed pork casserole rations!

    But I don’t mind telling you that when I first heard the Barnsley Youth Choir sing, I struggled to hold it together.

    It wasn’t just the music that got to me, although it was amazing.

    It was the thought of those talented young people, full of the joy of life, full of hope, full of ambition.

    It was the sorry thought that at least some of these young people, or others like them, will be let down.

    It was a sense of shame that we do not do more to secure the future for the kids in Barnsley.

    More than half of the youngsters in my constituency leave school without five good GCSEs. And my constituency is by no means unique.

    All over the country there are people getting little or nothing from the political process.

    It sounds hollow to these people when we talk about how prosperous Britain has become, what a great recovery it has made.

    I do not wish to suggest that it is not true or indeed to begrudge anyone their success.

    But the purpose of my party, the Labour party, is to give a voice to those who have not yet seen their fair share of the rewards.

    Those who feel no one is listening.

    Now, I do not have as good a voice as those in the Barnsley Youth Choir, but I will do my best.

    ROOTING OUR POLITICS

    The Labour party was founded to improve the lot of working people. There is no mystery to what it was about.

    Labour. Work.

    Keir Hardie said that the British are a practical people, not given to chasing bubbles.

    The people I meet, the people I am talking about, don’t attend economic seminars.

    They don’t follow the doctrinal discussions of the Labour party.

    They want to vote for a party that doesn’t just oppose the government. They want a party that beats the government.

    A party that gets into power for a purpose: to work on their behalf.

    Because make no mistake they are working hard themselves.

    I know a woman called Catherine in Barnsley whose story is distressingly common.

    Catherine is a cleaner and housekeeper. She juggles six different jobs in six different locations. She works more than 50 hours a week on the minimum wage.

    Despite working very hard, Catherine struggles to make ends meet.

    When I asked her how she was getting on she said she’d cut down on what she described as “luxuries.”

    But by “luxuries”, what she actually meant was things like new clothes.

    “I just work to exist,” she said.

    I know for a fact that Catherine doesn’t have the time to take much notice of what we do here.

    But the government we choose will shape her life more than most.

    This is why I became an MP. To listen to people like Catherine, to talk her language, and to act on her behalf.

    One of the most painful experiences in the 2015 election campaign was talking to people on the doorstep who didn’t really know what we stood for.

    Work. Family. Community.

    Those are the three ways in which most of us think about our lives.

    What did Labour have to say about those three things?

    What story did we have that combined the three?

    Even when people knew what our policies were they did not trust us to deliver them.

    We were talking a language from another planet.

    So that is why I am rooting my remarks today in a place and an experience 175 miles from here.

    THE ECONOMY UNDER GEORGE OSBORNE

    George Osborne is quick to take credit for economic growth.

    But look behind the headline figures and you see that this growth is a mirage for many people.

    To understand why, you just need to ask two questions.

    First, where is the growth coming from?

    The Chancellor promised an export-led recovery. He talked about the ‘march of the makers’.

    But as Iain Wright, Labour’s Chair of the BIS Select Committee has pointed out, George Osborne’s exports target to hit £1tn by 2020, is simply “pie in the sky”.

    Exports as a share of our national income have actually fallen from 29% to 27%.

    And rather than a regional rebalancing, we remain too dependent on financial services in the south east.

    Second, who is benefiting from the growth?

    Working people are not gaining. Their real wages fell by £1,600 a year in the last parliament.

    Recent research from the Centre for Cities found that only one in four British cities are delivering on Osborne’s plan for a ‘higher wage, lower welfare’ economy.

    And let’s be clear, whilst we welcome any increase, this is not a Living Wage which is being introduced this year; it’s a new Minimum Wage.

    Mr Osborne is fond of telling us he has fixed the roof while the sun is shining.

    Well, it’s not the roof I’m worried about, it’s the foundations.

    People talk about Westminster politics.

    Well this Chancellor gives us Westminster economics.

    Budget gimmicks. Deficit reduction targets missed. Promises broken.

    When you hear George Osborne say ‘long term economic plan’, what he really means is ‘short term political gain’.

    That is why people across the country, regard politics as a trade in illusion and self-interest.

    Cabinet Ministers who want David Cameron’s job are lining up to blame the European Union for every conceivable economic problem.

    But rather than his scare tactics on the EU, Boris Johnson might have a quicker route to No10.

    Because it’s not the EU that is leading the country into an economic mess it’s his leadership rival, George Osborne.

    With the Budget looming, I’m going to give him some advice:

    Stop gazing at the stars and start focusing on the foundations.

    And deliver a budget that’s in the National interest not your own.

    LABOUR AND THE CRISIS

    Now, the Tories have made things worse, no doubt about it. But let’s not pretend that all was well until 2010.

    It wasn’t.

    Labour dealt well with the immediate crisis of 2008 but it did not begin to get to grips with the longer term economic crisis that affects Britain.

    That is why, when we get back into power – we will need to be more radical than anything that went before.

    I became an MP less than a year after the Labour government left office.

    Many in our party felt passionately about defending the record of the last Labour government, others less so.

    And of course the Tories sought to blame that government for everything that was wrong in the country.

    And they did so with a ruthless clarity.

    The 2008 crisis was, in the words of the Treasury Permanent Secretary, Nick Macpherson,

    “a banking crisis pure and simple.”

    Labour did not cause the crash. But the place I represent suffered the consequences.

    A crisis, which began in the Deep South of America had deep effects in every corner of Britain.

    Small businesses found it harder to get credit.

    Employers began laying off workers.

    Homeowners struggled to pay the mortgage.

    The queues at the Jobcentre got longer.

    Families struggled to pay for food or fuel.

    I defy anyone to tell me it was wrong for Labour to step in and help those people.

    Of course it was the right thing to do.

    THE DEEPER CHALLENGE

    But if we keep fighting the battle of the 2008 crash we are in danger of missing the central point.

    To understand where Labour needs to change, I think we need to look more closely at what was going on before the crisis.

    In the good years. When the economy was growing, when inflation was low and when home ownership was up.

    Even in the good years the benefits weren’t being shared equally.

    Because the economy was changing in ways that at the time we didn’t fully understand.

    People in Barnsley saw on the news that Britain was booming but they didn’t notice it in their own lives.

    In too many cases, work didn’t pay – despite the minimum wage.

    For the average worker, their earnings growth was slowing four years before the crisis hit.

    Too often they had to rely on debt to get that car or new kitchen – unaware that more difficult times were round the corner.

    That was for people who were lucky enough to be in work.

    People who previously held steady, often skilled, jobs in manufacturing or mining have struggled to find employment as good since.

    In my part of the world, the Coalfield Regeneration Trust found that there are only 50 jobs for every 100 working age adults in the old coalfield communities.

    And what are the jobs? To many people in Barnsley, it can feel as if the growth industries are call centres or care homes.

    The pay was and is too low. The opportunity to develop skills is too rare.

    MOVING ON FROM NEW LABOUR’S APPROACH

    New Labour didn’t ignore these problems. In government, their approach had three elements.

    The first was flexible labour markets. By keeping regulation as light as possible, it would be easier for jobs to be created in Britain, rather than overseas.

    The second was skills so that workers could compete.

    Just down the road from my constituency in Orgreave where the old coking plant used to sit, there is now an Advanced Manufacturing Park.

    The fruit of partnerships between Boeing, Rolls-Royce, the University of Sheffield and others.

    It is one of the leading hubs for hi-tech manufacturing – trialing new technologies, taking on apprenticeships and training a highly skilled workforce.

    The third was tax credits. Even if people could only find jobs that were low paid, they would benefit from a top-up to their income.

    I am not saying this approach wasn’t without its successes, because it was.

    You will be glad to hear that I am going to spare you the usual litany of statistics setting out the investment the Labour government made in the public realm.

    However, if anyone thinks that government did nothing, I can certainly do it for you.

    But let’s be frank. It wasn’t enough.

    It didn’t get at the root causes.

    New Labour were intensely relaxed about things they shouldn’t have been intensely relaxed about.

    New Labour didn’t see – with sufficient clarity – the downsides of globalization.

    They knew it meant cheap consumer goods. But, they didn’t recognize that too often, it meant cheap labour too.

    Research from the TUC found that although we boosted the incomes of the poorest, the wage gap between the top and the bottom continued to rise in the years before the crisis.

    And today the average income in Barnsley is still over £100 a week less than the average income in Barnes in London.

    I believe this gap matters.

    It’s bad for our economy.

    It’s bad for our communities.

    And it’s bad for our politics too. If people feel the system works against them, they will turn away from us, or from politics altogether.

    To think otherwise reflects a poverty of ambition for a progressive party.

    It’s a false choice to say we must either champion Labour’s record in government or denounce it.

    The truth is we should defend our achievements and learn from our mistakes. To anyone outside Westminster, that’s common sense.

    LABOUR: THE PARTY OF WORK

    But another truth is that insecurity and inequality on the scale we see today do not help our economy.

    If businesses are not prepared to invest, it does not matter how cheap the labour is. If firms can’t raise the capital, even skilled young people will struggle to find work.

    And if businesses want to invest in one industry, but the local workforce is skilled in another, the investment and jobs will go elsewhere.

    And that is why the next Labour government must take a more radical economic approach – more radical than we had under Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband.

    Labour must always be the party of work and jobs, so that nobody is left behind.

    If we do not share the proceeds of growth fairly then the moral foundations of our economy are called into question.

    Put simply, Labour needs to be tough on inequality, tough on the causes of inequality.

    So our challenge now is to turn this into the practical action that people outside Westminster want to see.

    That means many things and I cannot cover all of them today.

    But I do want to make three suggestions to contribute to this debate:

    We need a government that is more active.

    We need businesses that look to the long term.

    And we need trade unions that stand up for our workers.

    ACTIVE GOVERNMENT

    The first change relates to the role of government.

    In 2009, the Labour government of Gordon Brown led the way in coordinating action through the G20 and in a fiscal stimulus at home. The case for a more active government could not have been stronger.

    But there are areas where we weren’t ambitious enough. Take capital investment, which was due to fall as the last Labour government left office.

    At a time when borrowing costs are so low, this is the right time to make productive investments.

    Not least in the Northern Powerhouse, which will struggle to get off the ground without a proper transport infrastructure.

    A worker in the North on average has to work 18 months to generate the same economic growth that a worker in London produces in a year.

    And recent research from Demos found that three in five English towns are falling behind their neighbouring city on socioeconomic indicators.

    Overcoming these regional challenges is not a provincial question – it should be a national priority.

    Part of the answer may lie in greater devolution of both powers and investment.

    That’s why I commend the work our Labour Councillors are doing to fight for devolved power to address this inequality.

    Industrial strategy cannot be limited to, or made purely by people within, the M25.

    Part of the answer undoubtedly lies in greater R&D. The Institution of Mechanical Engineers, where we are today, was founded in Birmingham with the following mission statement:

    ‘To give an impulse to invention likely to be useful to the world’.

    I am not sure we are yet living up to that ambition.

    At the moment, Britain spends less than France, less than Germany, and less than half of what South Korea spends on R&D.

    And part of the answer will be found in supporting and nurturing our home grown talent and industries.

    British businesses and entrepreneurs lead the world in many areas – from the Creative Industries, to car manufacturing, to aerospace.

    These are industries we can be proud of. Industries we should back so that they can compete and win in the global market.

    Industries where we can be proud to say:

    ‘Made. In. Britain.’

    And when it comes to infrastructure, I know that political realities often make big infrastructure decisions extremely difficult.

    Let’s be honest – MPs who represent areas along the HS2 route or in the Heathrow flight path have a tough call about whether to vote for these schemes.

    So let’s take out the politics.

    Let’s look at new powers that allow the government to refer major infrastructure decisions to the National Infrastructure Commission for an independent decision on whether projects should go ahead.

    BUSINESS FOR THE LONG-TERM

    The second change relates to the role of business.

    People in Barnsley know they won’t get a pay rise if the company isn’t doing well.

    So I want businesses to do well. I want them to make profits. I want them to be able to use those profits to pay dividends to their shareholders – including employee owners.

    Where that system works well, we all benefit. As customers, we benefit from the production of new goods that we want to buy.

    As employees we benefit from higher wages. And as savers we benefit from the dividends being paid into our pensions.

    That is how the capitalist system should work.

    As servant, not as master.

    With a deep-rooted moral imperative, supplying goods that people want.

    In Britain today, that is not how the system works. In particular, too many companies are focusing on the short-term buck rather than long-term value.

    Fifty years ago the average share in a British company was held by an investor for 8 years. By the crisis it was down to 8 months. With high frequency trading, it could be just 8 seconds.

    In this environment, shareholders aren’t long-term investors. They’re more like ‘punters at the races’.

    They aren’t putting in patient capital in the hope of a steady income or a long-term reward. They’re looking for a quick rise in the share price.

    And if that is what investors want, that is what CEOs will find themselves pressured to deliver.

    In that situation it’s no surprise what happens. Businesses cut back on long-term investment so they can manage the short-term numbers instead.

    That is why we must act to encourage long termism in business.

    That means considering some radical options – like rebalancing our corporate tax system, which favours risky debt over equity.

    And it might mean looking at the rights of shareholders, so that those who own the shares for longer have greater rights and those who buy in during a takeover bid don’t get an unfair say.

    Rachel Reeves has argued persuasively for these and other measures to be considered to encourage long termism.

    I think she is right and I think we need to make this debate a priority.

    ROLE OF TRADE UNIONS

    The third and final change relates to the role of trade unions.

    At a time when workers feel weak, those who stand up for them must be strong.

    This does not mean a return to the 1970s.

    You only need to look at my constituency, the headquarters of the National Union of Mineworkers, to see that the world has moved on.

    And even the remaining super unions are bound by ever-tighter legislation as a result of successive trade union reforms – not least the undemocratic Trade Union Bill currently going through Parliament.

    A Bill, which if passed under this Tory government, should be repealed by the next Labour government.

    Today the nature of work and the types of jobs available are changing.

    A labour market which has changed beyond recognition in my lifetime, will change again as a result of automation.

    Our Deputy Leader, Tom Watson, is leading important work on how we address the challenges this creates. As he told the EEF last month, 35% of today’s UK jobs have a high chance of being automated.

    Jobs we often take for granted as being there – jobs like checkout assistants, cleaners and truck drivers – may no longer exist.

    That’s where I believe the trade union movement can play a pivotal role. Because since their foundation, trade unions have both protected and educated workers.

    That work continues today across the trade union movement.

    In my own town, Northern College works with Unison, the Bakers, Food & Allied Workers Union, the RMT and UNITE to provide education and training to adults wishing to learn new skills.

    One of the best and most recent examples refers to the steel industry.

    The trade union Community has fought relentlessly in recent years to save Britain’s steel industry and to protect those working in it.

    But with significant job losses now taking place across the country, Community aren’t just shrugging their shoulders and giving up.

    They’re working with the people who have lost their jobs to retrain them so that they can reskill and secure a bright future for themselves and their families.

    And they’ve recently launched The Changing Work Centre in partnership with The Fabian Society.

    Chaired by Yvette Cooper this will look at how we can create a progressive agenda in the modern world of work – one that has the interests of workers at its heart.

    And we must put the interests of workers at the heart of the most important economic decision facing this country in a generation.

    Alan Johnson is brilliantly leading Labour’s campaign. He is making clear that the UK’s continued membership of the European Union is vital to British jobs, investment and exports.

    And the Trade Unions are working hard to defend important workers’ rights that would be at risk if we left the union.

    As Tim Roache, General Secretary to the GMB stated:

    “Does anybody actually believe that the European laws on things like maternity and parental leave, health and safety protections, equal rights for part time workers, TUPE, paid holidays and so much more would be protected by the Conservatives…Dream on if you do.”

    Trade unions can help us make the modern economy work.

    That’s going to involve government working in partnership with trade unions – not punishing them.

    It’s going to mean expanding collaboration between government and unions in the areas of learning, skills and education; adopting a culture of lifelong learning.

    CONCLUSION

    That culture is what I want for the young people in the choir who brought a tear to my eye.

    I want them to go out into the world charged not just with the hope that they can make a difference but the expectation.

    Our country is not set up to receive them at the moment.

    Our task is to make it so.

    To provide the dignity of work.

    Support for the family.

    Prosperity for the community.

    We are a practical people, not given to chasing bubbles.

    We are a party of work. A party of Labour.

    I think about the young voices that moved me and I realize that I have fought many battles in my life, but none so important.

    Thank you very much.

  • Jeremy Hunt – 2016 Speech on a Blame Culture in the NHS

    jeremyhunt

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Hunt, the Secretary of State for Health, at Lancaster House in London on 3 March 2016.

    Every year an estimated million patients die in hospitals across the world because of avoidable clinical mistakes.

    It is difficult to confirm the exact number because of variability in reporting standards, but if it is of this scale it sits alongside hypertensive heart disease and road deaths as one of the top causes of death in the world today.

    In the US they estimate it at up to 100,000 preventable deaths annually and in England the Hogan, Darzi and Black analysis says that 3.6% of hospital deaths have a 50% or more chance of being avoidable – that’s potentially 150 avoidable deaths every week. Holland and New Zealand make similar estimates.

    So today is historic.

    Distinguished guests, health ministers from across the world, Director General Chan from the World Health Organisation thank you for attending this first ever ministerial-level Global Patient Safety Summit. A special welcome to my friend and colleague the German Health Minister Hermann Grohe with whom I am jointly hosting the summit and who will organise a follow up summit in Berlin in a year’s time. And a warm thank you to the many people who have travelled long distances to be here as we aim to make a decisive step towards improving standards of safety in healthcare.

    In 1990 a bright 24-year old medical school graduate started his first job in medicine. He was a pre-registration house officer looking forward to a glowing career in surgery.

    In his first month he was attending to a 16-year old boy undergoing palliative chemotherapy. The boy needed two different injections, one intravenously and a second by lumber puncture into the spine.

    The intravenous drug was highly toxic – indeed fatal – if administered to the spine. But it arrived on the ward in a nearly identical syringe to the other injection. Both syringes were handed to the young doctor for the lumber puncture procedure and both injected into the patient’s spine.

    As soon as the doctor realised what had happened, frantic efforts were made to flush out the toxic drug from the boy’s spine. But it was to no avail and tragically he died a week later.

    So what happened next?

    You might think the most important priority would be to learn from what went wrong and make sure the mistake was never repeated. But instead the doctor was prosecuted and convicted for manslaughter. He and a colleague were given suspended jail terms.

    In this case the convictions were eventually overturned at the Court of Appeal. But the real crime was missed: as the legal process rumbled on, exactly the same error was made in another NHS hospital and another patient died because our system was more interested in blaming than learning.

    The blame culture doesn’t just create fear for doctors. It causes heartbreak for patients and their families as I discovered when I met the parents of 3-year old Jonnie Meek.

    Jonnie tragically died unexpectedly in hospital in 2014. His parents found their grief at losing Jonnie compounded several times over by the immense difficulty in establishing what actually happened. An independent report found: ‘Two different [hospital] trusts… Both responded in the same closed, unhelpful manner…[Jonnie’s parents] on the outside, unable to find a way in to ask simple questions. [NHS employees] blocked by fear…expectation of blame lead[ing] to defensive behaviours.’

    We are now working with Jonnie’s family to seek an order for a second inquest.

    But it shouldn’t need an inquest to find out the truth. Instead we need to ask what is blocking the development of the supportive, learning culture we need to make our hospitals as safe as they should be.

    Too much avoidable harm and death

    In England we have made much progress in improving our safety culture following the Francis Report into the tragedy of what happened at Mid Staffs.

    According to the Heath Foundation the proportion of patients being harmed in the NHS dropped by over a third (34%) in the last 3 years. MRSA bloodstream infections have fallen by over half in the last 5 years. We have introduced a new and much tougher peer-led inspection regime which has led to 27 hospitals being put into special measures, 11 of whom have now come out. The law has changed placing on all hospital trusts a statutory duty of candour to patients and their families when things go wrong. The government was elected on a firm commitment to make NHS care safer across all 7 days of the week and we are making good progress.

    But today I want to talk about the profound culture change necessary if we are to complete this journey: the change from a blame culture to a learning culture.

    A learning culture not a blame culture

    In his book Black Box Thinking, Matthew Syed talks about how that same blame culture used to exist in the airline industry.

    He tells the tragic story of United Airlines flight 173, where 10 people died in a crash that happened in December 1978. The pilot, Captain Malburn McBroom, was trying to rectify a potentially dangerous problem with the landing gear but failed to notice that the plane was dangerously low on fuel. When he was forced to crash land the plane, he did so with extraordinary skill saving the lives of over 150 passengers. But because of his mistake, he got tied up in a 7-year long court case, came close to suicide, lost his pilot’s licence, and ultimately died a broken man.

    But that tragedy had a surprisingly positive ending.

    Because it became the moment the airline industry realised that if it was going to reduce airline fatalities, it needed to change its culture. They realised that ‘human factors’, rather than technical or equipment failure had been at the heart of the problem. Anyone could have failed to notice low fuel levels when they were trying to fix the landing gear. Why didn’t other crew members spot the problem and speak out? The issue was not that particular person, but what could have happened to any person in the same situation.

    As a result the airlines transformed their training programmes. They mandated reforms that required pilots to attend group sessions with engineers and attendants to discuss communication, teamwork and workload management. Captains were required to encourage feedback, and crew members were required to speak up boldly.

    And the result? There were dramatic – and immediate – reductions in the number of airline fatalities. The number of deaths overall halved over 30 years – at the same time as air travel increased nine fold. 10 people died in the United 173 crash, but experts are unanimous that the learning that resulted has saved thousands more.

    Healthcare is of course very different to aviation.

    When someone dies in an airline accident you know there has been a mistake – whereas with over 1,000 deaths every year in the average hospital it is not always so clear. And while modern airplanes are undoubtedly highly complex, they are nowhere near as complex as the human body.

    But the airline industry did change its culture. And so can we.

    How? In my speech to the Kings Fund last June I talked of the 3 stages necessary.

    Intelligent transparency

    The first step is intelligent transparency.

    Intelligent transparency leads to action – and that means we need to understand the scale of the problem not just nationally but where we actually work.

    So following a request to NHS hospitals by Dr Mike Durkin, NHS National Director of Patient Safety, the NHS in England will this month become the first country in the world to publish estimates by every hospital trust of their own annual number of avoidable deaths. Methodologies vary, so the numbers cannot be compared, but it is a major step forward for every hospital trust to make their own estimate of avoidable mortality and be open about what they find.

    What you can compare, however, is the quality of reporting culture. Just how easy is it to speak about things that have gone wrong? Do hospitals listen to doctors raising genuine concerns or do they punish them as we saw happened to Dr Raj Mattu and other whistleblowers? So we yesterday published a table that grades the openness and honesty of reporting cultures in our hospitals. Chief Inspector of Hospitals Sir Mike Richards and NHS Safety Director Mike Durkin have looked at a range of indicators including staff survey measures of how supported frontline staff feel if they raise safety concerns, whether staff feel able to contribute towards improvements at work, and how effectively a trust uses the national reporting and learning system. On the basis of these indicators every trust has been graded as having an outstanding or good reporting culture – or as requiring improvement.

    Once we have validated both sets of data, the CQC will include them in a new annual report on the state of hospital quality which will be published from this year.

    The world’s largest learning organisation

    The second stage in changing culture is to use intelligent transparency to turn the NHS into what I have long wanted it to be: the world’s largest learning organisation.

    There is of course a huge amount of learning that goes on every day in our NHS. One study found doctors take 158 clinical decisions every day and we should never diminish their efforts to extract every possible piece of learning from daily work.

    The government too, has played its part by introducing the new CQC inspection regime; legislating for a statutory duty of candour; making progress – not always smoothly – towards a 7-day NHS; asking every trust to appoint independent freedom to speak up guardians so clinicians can relay concerns to someone other than their line manager; launching the Sign up to Safety campaign and recently the campaign to halve the number of stillbirths and neonatal deaths.

    But if we really are to tackle potentially avoidable deaths, we need culture change from the inside as well as exhortation from the outside. A true learning culture must come from the heart.

    And this means a fundamental rethink of our concept of accountability.

    Time and time again when I responded on behalf of the government to tragedies at Mid Staffs, Morecambe Bay, Winterbourne View, Southern Health and other places I heard relatives who had suffered cry out in frustration that no one had been ‘held accountable.’

    But to blame failures in care on doctors and nurses trying to do their best is to miss the point that bad mistakes can be made by good people. What is often overlooked is proper study of the environment and systems in which mistakes happen and to understand what went wrong and encouragement to spread any lessons learned. Accountability to future patients as well as to the person sitting in front of you.

    The rush to blame may look decisive. It may seem like professionals are being held accountable. In fact, the opposite can happen. By pinning the blame on individuals, we sometimes duck the bigger challenge of identifying the problems that often lurk in complex systems and which are often the true cause of avoidable harm.

    Organisational leadership is vital if we are to change this – and we can see world class organisations inside and outside healthcare have a very different approach. They have the boldness to probe more deeply, thus learning precious lessons. They see a medication error as an opportunity to make labelling clearer, a mistake in an operating theatre as a chance to improve teamwork and communication, just as airlines did after the crash of United 173.

    Which is why we need a new mindset to permeate the entire ethos of the NHS, where blame is never the default option. Justice must never be denied if a professional is malevolent or grossly negligent. But the driving force must be the desire to improve care and reduce harm – fired by an insatiable curiosity to pursue improvement in every sphere of activity. This is what I mean by the world’s largest learning organisation.

    And when we give patients an honest account of what happened alongside an apology, what is the impact? Countless academic studies have shown there is less litigation, less money spent on lawyers and more rapid closure, even when there have been the most terrible tragedies.

    Resources

    Some say that is all very well, but with hospitals in deficit what happens if you can’t afford to implement the lessons you learn about how to improve the standards of care?

    Even after the significant rise in the NHS budget announced at the autumn statement, the resources to tackle these deep-rooted issues are finite. But as Sir Mike Richards and many others have pointed out, it is quite wrong to make out there is a choice between safe care or balanced budgets because the evidence shows that hospitals with better care usually have better balance sheets as well.

    Of course there are times when safer care requires more resources, but unsafe care is even more expensive – in fact we know from the 2014 Frontier Economics report it costs the NHS up to £2.5 billion a year due to longer hospital stays, repeat visits and expensive litigation.

    A compensation culture costs money – £1.4 billion of the NHS budget – but it also costs lives by creating a culture of defensive medicine which means avoidable harm remains stubbornly higher than it should be because we make it so hard for frontline clinicians to speak openly and honestly about how to learn from mistakes.

    Next steps

    That means a profound change in culture.

    The recommendations from Sir Robert Francis’s Freedom to Speak Up review have not yet taken effect and there are still too many stories of whistleblowers being bullied or hounded out of their jobs.

    We must go further.

    Just as the Carter process announced last month will harness the power of transparency to improve our use of resources, so today I want to harness that same power to bring down the rate of avoidable deaths by turning the NHS into a true learning organisation.

    Following the commitment I made to Parliament at the time of the Morecambe Bay investigation, we will from 1 April set up our first ever independent Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch. Modelled on the Air Accident Investigation Branch that has been so successful in the airline industry, it will undertake timely, no-blame investigations.

    Harvard Professor Dr. Lucian Leape has said that ‘the single greatest impediment to error prevention in the medical industry is that we punish people for making mistakes’. So just as the Air Accident Investigation Branch gives a legal ‘safe space’ which protects those cooperating with its inquiries, we will bring forward measures to give similar legal protection to those who speak honestly to HSIB investigators so that the principle of a ‘safe space’ is at the heart of what the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch does.

    Affected patients or their families will need to be involved as part of the safe space protection. And while the findings of investigations will be made public, the details will not be disclosable without a court order or an overriding public interest, with courts being required to take note of the impact on safety of any disclosures they order. This legal change will help start a new era of openness in the NHS’s response to tragic mistakes: families will get the full truth faster; doctors will get support and protection to speak out; and the NHS as a whole will become much better at learning when things go wrong. What patients and families who suffer want more than anything is a guarantee that no-one else will have to re-live their agony. This new legal protection will help us promise them ‘never again’.

    I have asked the new organisation to consider focusing initially on maternity and neonatal mortality investigations to give us time to examine and understand its effect before rolling it out to other areas of clinical activity. It is intended to make a major contribution to our new ambition to halve still births, neonatal injury and death and maternal death rates where we still rank unfavourably to many other high income countries.

    But it will not be limited to maternity. And as we create the legally safe space for learning that has long benefited the airline industry, we will in the words of NHS National Director of Patient Safety Dr Mike Durkin be taking ’the biggest single step in a generation to foster a positive learning culture that will support NHS hospitals to become safer for patients.’

    I can also announce some other important steps to help foster a true learning culture.

    The GMC and NMC guidance is now clear – where doctors, nurses or midwives admit what has gone wrong and apologise, the professional tribunal should give them credit for that, just as failing to do so is likely to incur a serious sanction. As in the airlines, doctors, nurses and other health professionals need to know that they will get credit for being open and honest and the government is committed to legal reform that would allow professional regulators more flexibility to resolve cases without stressful tribunals, where professionals have admitted their mistake.

    NHS Improvement will ask for this to be reflected in all trust disciplinary procedures and ask all trusts to publish a Charter for Openness and Transparency so staff can have clear expectations of how they will be treated if they witness clinical errors.

    From April 2018, we will be introducing the system of medical examiners recommended in the Francis Report. This will bring a profound change in our ability to learn from unexpected or avoidable deaths, with every death either investigated by a coroner or scrutinised by a second independent doctor. Grieving relatives will be at the heart of the process and will have the chance to flag any concerns about the quality of care and cause of death with the independent clinician.

    NHS England is working with the Royal College of Physicians to develop and roll-out across the NHS a standardised method for reviewing the records of patients who have died in hospital.

    The objective of these changes is to make it unnecessary for anyone ever to feel they have to ‘blow the whistle’ on poor care. But as we make this transition, it is vital that we offer whistleblowers protection wherever they are in the NHS so if we discover that there are any gaps in the law protecting whistleblowers, we will act to close them.

    Conclusion

    Karl Popper said true ignorance is not the absence of knowledge but the refusal to acquire it. So now is the time to use the power of intelligent transparency to make sure that we really do turn our healthcare systems into learning organisations – and offer our patients the the safe high quality they deserve.

  • David Cameron – 2013 Statement on the G8

    davidcameron

    Below is the text of the statement made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 19 June 2013.

    With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the G8.

    The government decided to hold the G8 in Northern Ireland to demonstrate the strength of this part of the United Kingdom.

    We wanted to show the success of the peace process, the openness for business and investment, and the potential for tourism and growth.

    I want to thank my Rt Hon Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the First and Deputy First Minister for all they did to help with the conference. To congratulate the PSNI and all those responsible for delivering a safe and successful G8 and to thank everyone in Northern Ireland for giving us such a warm welcome.

    The global economy and the 3 Ts

    Mr Speaker, we set a clear agenda for this summit: to boost jobs and growth, with more open trade, fairer taxes and greater transparency.

    What I have called the 3 Ts.

    I also added a fourth T – terrorism. And we reached important agreements including on support to the Libyan government and ending ransom payments for kidnap by terrorists.

    Despite our fundamental differences, we also made good progress agreeing a way forward on working together to help the Syrian people achieve the change they want.

    Let me take each of these points in turn.

    Growth

    We started with the issue that matters most to our people – jobs, growth, mending our economies.

    First, we agreed that each country needs to press on with sorting out its public finances.

    Dealing with our debts and securing growth are not alternatives.

    The former is an essential step in achieving the latter.

    In fact the Communiqué that we agreed unanimously reflects all three parts of the plan we have for growth in Britain.

    Not just fiscal sustainability but active monetary policy to unlock the finance that businesses and families need and structural reforms to increase our competitiveness so our young people can get into work and succeed in the global race.

    The 3 T’s

    The UK’s G8 also launched a bold new pro-business agenda to drive a dramatic increase in trade and to get to grips with the problems of tax evasion, aggressive tax avoidance and corporate secrecy.

    This was a distinctive British agenda, to shape the way the world economy works for the benefit of everyone.

    We believe in free trade, private enterprise and low taxes as the best route to growth.

    But that is only sustainable if ambitious trade deals are agreed, the taxes owed are paid and companies play by the rules.

    This agenda has now been written into the DNA of G8 and G20 Summits for many years to come.

    On trade, we started the summit with the launch of negotiations on an EU-US trade deal.

    This could add as much as £100 billion to the EU economy, £80 billion to the US and as much as £85 billion for the rest of the world.

    Let’s be clear what these numbers mean.

    2 million more jobs.

    More choice and lower prices in the shops.

    The biggest bi-lateral trade deal in history – launched at the G8.

    On tax, the Lough Erne Declaration that leaders signed yesterday sets out simple, clear commitments.

    Tax authorities across the world should automatically share information – so those who want to evade taxes will have nowhere to hide.

    Companies should know who really owns them and tax collectors and law enforcers should be able to obtain this information easily, for example through central registries, so people can’t escape taxes by using complicated and fake structures.

    And in a world where business has moved from the offline and national to the online and international, but the tax system hasn’t caught up. We are commissioning the OECD to develop a new international tax tool that will expose discrepancies between where multinationals earn their profits and pay their taxes.

    The Declaration also makes clear that all this action has to help developing countries too – by sharing tax information and building their capability to collect taxes.

    Crucially for developing countries, we agreed that oil, gas and mining companies should report what they pay to governments – and that governments should publish what they receive – so natural resources are a blessing not a curse.

    Charities and other NGOs have rightly campaigned for years for action on these issues.

    For the first time they have been raised to the top of the agenda and brought together in one document.

    The agreements on tax made at the summit are significant but it is also worth noting what has happened on this front since I put this issue to the top of the agenda.

    On 1 January there was no single international standard for automatic exchange of information.

    Now there is such a standard – and over 30 jurisdictions have already signed up – with more to follow.

    After years of delay, the European Union has agreed to progress the sharing of tax information between member states.

    The Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies have signed up to the multilateral convention on information exchange, agreed automatic exchange of information with the UK and action plans for beneficial ownership.

    Taken together all the actions agreed with the Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies will provide over £1 billion to the exchequer. Helping to keep taxes down for hardworking families in the UK.

    People around the world also wanted to know if the G8 would take action to tackle malnutrition and ensure there is enough food for everyone.

    The pledges at our Nutrition and Hunger Summit earlier this month will save 20 million children from stunting by 2020.

    But crucially at our G8 we also took action on some of the causes of these problems.

    That’s why the work we did on land, extractive industries, tax and transparency is so important.

    Fighting terrorism and extremism

    Turing to the fourth T – terrorism.

    We agreed a tough, patient and intelligent approach. Confronting the terrorists, defeating the poisonous ideology that sustains them and tackling the weak and failing states in which they thrive.

    The G8 leaders reached a ground-breaking agreement on ransom payments for kidnap by terrorists.

    In the last three years alone these have given Al Qaeda and its allies tens of millions of dollars.

    These payments have to stop and this G8 agreed they will.

    We also discussed plans to begin direct talks with the Taliban.

    Britain has long supported a peace process in Afghanistan to work alongside our tough security response.

    So we welcome this step forward.

    We also discussed support to Libya.

    We should be proud of the role we played to rid Libya of Colonel Gadaffi.

    But we need to help that country secure its future.

    So we held a separate meeting with the Libyan Prime Minister which included President Obama and European nations have offered to train 7,000 troops to help Prime Minister Zeidan disarm and integrate the militias and bring security to the whole country.

    More contributions will follow from others.

    And let me be clear the Libyan government have asked for this – and will pay for it.

    Syria

    Finally, let me turn to Syria.

    Mr Speaker, it is no secret that there are very different views around the G8 table.

    But I was determined that we should use the opportunity of this Summit to overcome some of these differences and agree a way forwards to help the Syrian people achieve the change they want.

    This did not happen during just one night in Lough Erne.

    The talks between Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov have been vital.

    In the weeks before the Summit I flew to Sochi and Washington.

    And I met again with President Putin and President Obama in the hours before the Summit began.

    The conversations were open, honest and frank.

    But we were all agreed on what must be the core principle of the international approach to this crisis.

    There is no military victory to be won – and all our efforts must be focused on the ultimate goal of a political solution.

    Together with our G8 partners, we agreed almost $1.5 billion of new money for humanitarian support.

    This is an unprecedented commitment from Lough Erne for Syria and its neighbours.

    We agreed to back a Geneva II process that delivers a transitional governing body with full executive authority.

    So a core requirement for success that had been called into doubt in recent weeks – has now been reasserted unanimously with the full authority of the G8.

    We pledged to learn the lessons of Iraq by making sure the key institutions of the state are maintained through the transition, and there is no vacuum.

    This sends a clear message to those loyalists looking for an alternative to Assad.

    The G8 also unequivocally condemned any use of chemical weapons and following an extensive debate, we reached for the first time a united position, including Russia, that the Regime must immediately allow unrestricted access for UN inspectors to establish the full facts on use of chemical weapons by Regime forces or anyone else.

    All of these agreements are absolutely fundamental to saving lives and securing the political transition that we all want to see.

    Mr Speaker, let’s be clear on what is happening in Syria and what we are trying to achieve.

    We are faced with a dramatically escalating humanitarian disaster with more than 90,000 dead and almost 6 million having had to flee their homes.

    There is a radicalisation of terrorists and extremists who will pose a direct threat to the security of the region and the world.

    There is a growing risk to the peace and stability of Syria’s neighbours.

    And the long-standing international prohibition on chemical weapons is being breached by a dictator who is brutalising his people.

    None of this constitutes an argument for plunging in recklessly.

    We will not do so. And we will not take any major actions without first coming to this House.

    But we can not simply ignore this continuing slaughter.

    Of course it is right to point out that there are extremists among the Opposition.

    I am clear: they pose a threat not just to Syria but to all of us.

    And the G8 agreed they should be defeated and expelled from their havens in Syria.

    I also understand those who fear that whatever we try to do could make things worse not better.

    Of course, we must think carefully before any course of action: But we mustn’t accept what President Assad wants us to believe – that the only alternative to his brutal action against Syria is extremists and terrorists.

    There are millions of ordinary Syrians who want to take control of their own future – a future without Assad.

    That is why I made sure that the G8 agreed the way through this crisis is to help Syrians forge a new government that is neither Sunni, Allawite nor Shi’a.

    Mr Speaker, we are committed to using diplomacy to end this war with a political solution.

    This is not easy.

    But the essential first step must be to get agreement between the main international powers with influence on Syria.

    That is what we have done at the G8 in Lough Erne.

    We must now work to turn these commitments into action.

    And I commend this Statement to the House.

  • Edward Heath – 1972 Speech to Conservative Party Conference

    tedheath

    Below is the text of the speech made by Edward Heath, the then Prime Minister, in Blackpool in October 1972.

    It is just 25 years, Dame Peggy, since I attended my first Party Conference, and I have been at every one since. There may well be some in this hall today with a longer record than that. But no one else, as I understand it at any rate, has been present for the last eight years as Leader of the Party, or for the last three as Conservative Prime Minister.

    Every Conference has its own character stamped upon it; and so it has been with this one. This Conference has been a triumph for moderation, for decency and for good sense; and we all recognise how great a part the younger members of our Party have played in it. It has been a triumph not confined to this hall. It has been achieved with the whole world watching. The media, with their microphones and cameras – not forgetting their pencils and notebooks – have seen to it that the world outside this hall has watched a Party that knows its own mind is prepared to speak its own mind. What you have said has clearly matched the national mood.

    You are here representing every part of the country and every aspect of our national life. In your debates and by your votes you have decisively shown that moderation, clearly expounded and firmly pursued, meets the need of the nation.

    We have shown this week that we reject the equivocations so prevalent in this hall last week – the equivocations of those trying to make us believe that any problem can be solved just by facing both ways. Equally we reject those who react to one extreme by rushing to another, seeking to persuade us that in this way quick and easy answers can be found to hard and complicated problems.

    We are not a nation of extremists. We are a nation that believes in firmness and fairness; and this week we in this hall have shown that this is where we as a party also stand.

    The people of this country want a fair society. The Conservative Government is in process of creating just that. We are seeking to create it in the talks that we started with the employers and trade unions about curbing inflation – talks that will continue next Monday at Chequers. Throughout this Parliament we have been continuously engaged in the battle against inflation. Let no one say that we have not fought, and fought hard. When we have had setbacks, as we have, they have not been for the lack of will in trying to overcome them.

    We have not always been helped by those who in the past year have constantly made our small majority in Parliament still smaller and led others outside to believe, wrongly, that we could be toppled. But I would like to express my gratitude to all my colleagues in the Cabinet and in the Government for the firm support which they have given in the fight against inflation. It is to all our regrets that Reggie Maudling should not be on this platform with us this morning.

    At all times we have sought co-operation with those concerned in the country’s economic organisation. It was through no fault of ours that sometimes events led to confrontation. We were returned to office with a clear mandate from the electorate – a mandate to reform the law on industrial relations, to reform the system of housing finance, to reform the social services, to reform the tax system and to reduce taxation. That was a clear mandate to enable the weak to be protected, the poor to be helped and others to be encouraged to expand the wealth of the nation. All of this mandate has been carried out. Yes – and we were given a mandate to reduce inflation. That we knew had to include bringing down inflationary wage settlements throughout the economy to something much more in line with production. We have been given all too little credit for the success we achieved.

    Over a wide area of the economy there was co-operation. But in parts there was also confrontation. And so it was that Government, management and unions first met to discuss conciliation. As a result new machinery has been created by the employers and the unions. But that is not enough. We have now, therefore, jointly embarked for the first time in Britain, on the path of working out together how to create and share the nation’s wealth for the benefit of all the people. It is an offer to em­ployers and unions to share fully with the Government the benefits and the obligations involved in running the national economy.

    I have always emphasised my belief in more open Government. For the parties to these talks to be able to work together better, they must tell each other all the facts. It may well be that employers and unions will recognise the need for more skilled and experienced staffs to carry through their part of the opera­tion. For what we are involved in is not just another argy bargy. It is a real attempt, a rational attempt and a sensible attempt to create greater prosperity and to make it more secure. What is more, this should be a continuing process, flexible enough to adapt itself to economic circumstances as they change.

    For the three parties cannot be expected to solve all the problems at once. But neither can the country wait until we have agreed on all the solutions before we act in order to contain inflation. We must act now and we ought to act together speedily, knowing that the machinery we have created at different levels can meet regularly and frequently to deal with the problems that remain, to deal with the new problems as they arise. Knowing that, we can look ahead year by year to consider the means of creating further expansion and look ahead to agree upon the priorities to which the nation wishes to devote its increasing wealth. This, then is our offer as a Government. No one should underestimate its importance. There are two reasons why I believe there is a better chance now of achieving our objectives.

    First, everyone has learnt that the cost of confrontation is high for all concerned, whatever the settlement – in empty pay packets, in lost production, in damage, often permanent, to a firm to an industry. There is another reason why I believe responsible union leaders are now readier to join with the Government and the employers in a co-operative effort to fight inflation. It is that for the first time they are being asked to do so against a background of expansion.

    For years under Labour the unions were being asked to make sacrifices as part of a policy of restriction and deflation. This time they are being asked to make their contribution to a rate of expansion that has not been achieved for more than a decade. As we sat around the table we soon came to realise that we had much more in common than the differences which divided us. In other words, we found a common desire to pursue economic policies for all people – not for one sectional interest, but for all. It is for the social partners, as I would call them, to acknowledge publicly and unequivocally that sometimes wider and common interests will conflict with their own sectional demands. It will be for them to have the courage to override their sectional interests. But in this the Government also has a part to play. It is for the Government to help them towards what we ought to recognise will be for them an act of imagination requiring very great courage.

    All the evidence shows that this approach of the Government has the support of the vast majority of the people in Britain, and to have that it must have included the support of millions of rank-and-file trade unionists, who also see that the offer we have made is fair. They also realise that it contains for every one of them a safeguard for their standard of living if the expectations jointly expressed, of the Government, the employers and the unions, should not materialise.

    On Monday at Chequers we can discuss and assess the statistics. No one partner can dictate to the others, nor insist that only their views can carry the day. But all will have a responsi­bility to ensure that agreements freely negoti­ated and entered into through the procedure we are adopting are fully supported and carried out.

    But the British people now expect us jointly to move to a settlement which will honestly deal with inflation, which will provide them with that improvement in their real standard of living which we have shown to be possible in an expanding economy.

    There will always be some who do not want to achieve a strong economy. There are those who do not want a strong Britain at all. There are those who cannot bear to see Britain strong under a Conservative Government.

    But for the most part I believe that people in this country want to have a fair and reasonable prospect of beating inflation. They have enough in common to override the vested interests; they are sufficiently at one to turn their backs on false sectional loyalty. The people of Britain want to unite in a common purpose.

    When I was given the Queen’s commission to form this Government two and a half years ago, I declared on the steps of 10 Downing Street: ‘Our purpose is not to divide but to unite, and where there are differences to bring about reconciliation.’ It is precisely because we are setting out to do this, precisely because your Government represents all the people, that we have arranged the talks and put forward our plan. We repre­sent all the people, but especially those who have no powerful organisation to speak for them, especially those who are most vulnerable to rising prices, especially those, the weakest in the community, who have most to gain from a strong economy. This is the purpose of the specific proposals which we have put. This, I am convinced, is what the nation needs. It is what the nation expects – nothing less.

    It takes a united country to make a nation strong socially and economically. But to achieve this it is not enough to be united in our economic objectives. We need also to renew and strengthen the bonds within our society – the bonds which, over the years, have given this country a strength and stability that has been the envy of the world: the bonds of family, the bonds between employers and employees, between Parliament and people, between Government and governed.

    We hear a good deal these days of how these bonds have become weakened. It is easy to exaggerate this and talk ourselves into a crisis of self-confidence. Young people insist on having a greater say in the decisions that affect their lives today and tomorrow – and so they should.

    Employees insist on having a greater say in the decisions that affect their jobs and the prosperity of their families – and so they should. And the good employer will increasingly adapt himself to this desire and seek to carry his employees with him in taking management decisions.

    People everywhere want to be more and more involved in the decisions that affect them, and one of our aims in carrying through the reform of local government is to make this participation more real and more meaningful. And yet I know what disturbs so many of you here, so many watching or listening in your own homes. It is the fear that freedom and democracy are being abused by those who seek only to suppress free speech and free action. It is wrong that employers should be tyrannised, wrong that fellow workers should be terrorised by industrial action that erupts into violence. You know it is our determination, and I believe the determination of responsible trade union leaders, to stamp out lawless picketing; and it is wrong that those who themselves claim to be in positions of authority should deliberately set out to defy the law of the land. Hence our decision to warn those local authorities – few in number – in England and Wales who are bent on refusing to imple­ment the fair rents law carried through by a democratically elected Parliament.

    Robert Carr has told you how this Govern­ment will intensify the fight against law­breaking within the principles of law and free­dom of which this country is proud. But the fight against lawlessness is not one for the Government alone; it is one in which every single one of us has a role to play. And it is one where those who lead or aspire to lead must themselves be ready to give a lead. In the past year we have had too much breaking of the law in the name of the law, too many attempts to disrupt the democratic process in the name of democracy. I believe that the people of Britain are tired of this double-talk and fed up to the teeth with this humbug. For you cannot pick and choose which law you want to obey and which to defy. Let those who value the law stand up and repudiate those who defy the law. Let them repudiate those who refuse to accept the verdict of the courts. Let them repudiate the lawless pickets. Let those who value democracy repudiate the fair rent rebels. Let been repudiate those who want to tear down what Parliament has built up.

    A strong Britain. Strong in its economic foundations. Strong in its social fabric. Strong in the bonds that bind us together as a nation and have over the centuries made us the most cohesive and most powerful national force in Europe, if not in the world.

    A strong Britain is a confident Britain, confident in its ability to take on the duties and the obligations which are imposed by history on any nation with a claim to greatness. We have shown ourselves ready to face our responsibility in Northern Ireland, to defeat the forces of terror and violence, to give the people of Northern Ireland – all the people – a chance to choose a system of government that will secure the political and social rights of all the people, irrespective of their religion or their political alliance.

    This is, in terms of human misery, the most terrible problem that we as a Government and as a country have to face. It haunts us every day. It requires patience, imagination and indeed humility to resolve. I promise you in this Conference that they will be forthcoming. How fortunate we are in having Willie Whitelaw as Secretary of State!

    We have shown ourselves ready to face our responsibility over the plight of the Ugandan Asians, to accept this survival of our imperial heritage, to prove that the promise of a British Government is not to be broken, to show that it means what it says, to bring order out of chaos, to confront cruelty with sympathy and with humility.

    In the immediate future we must be confident enough to look ahead. For our future is now about to take on a new dimension. Over years you as a party have always encouraged and supported us in our European policy. You have always by substantial majorities urged us whenever and wherever possible to move towards partnership with the other members of our Continent. We are no longer talking of possibilities; we are talking now of a great achievement. Within a few years how incredibly short-sighted will appear our opponents who urge us to throw our achievement away, particularly when they do so simply because the credit for that achievement belongs to your Conservative Government and not to them.

    At the Summit Meeting next week my aim will be to join with our partners, the other Heads of Government, in settling the lines on which our new Europe will grow and work together in the next few years.

    In this new partnership we have a chance as a great people, as a formidable nation, as a shaper and moulder of the modern world, to get back into action, to take up a part which I believe we have a unique capacity to fill. This contemporary world of ours is, after all, the world which Britain in the last four hundred years has profoundly influenced. When the cockleshell boats set off with a Drake or a Cabot their new commerce united the whole world. Their settlements sprang up in every continent. The new markets stimulated our science and technology to launch a whole new industrial way of life. The institutions we adopted – of enterprise and personal freedom and social responsibility – broke open the ancient world of absolute government.

    For an offshore island of a few million people, it was and remains a staggering achievement. We did not secure it by staying at home. In fact, there is hardly a great movement of post-renaissance man, be it national statehood, scientific endeavour, economic expansion or worldwide discovery that has not been profoundly marked at every stage by British energy and endeavour and backed by the hard slogging dedication of the British people.

    If we realise today how large is the part we have played in moulding the modern world, it is above all because that same world now cries out to us for even more drastic and constructive change. For every one of the colossal achievements of the last four centuries, there are now shadows of danger across us on an equal scale – the problem of keeping the peace and how to break down distrust between East and West without taking risks with our own defences. The economic problems – in Europe, how to transform the grim cities and impoverished countryside which years of uneven development have left behind; in the world, how to bring hope and betterment to the two-thirds of humanity who live in poverty.

    The problems of the environment – and, here again, let us remember that these problems respect no frontiers. This week’s territorial waters in the Baltic are next week’s waters off Aberdeen. The pesticides carried up the Rhine can be washed off down the Thames. The sulphurs and particles in Britain’s air fall in dirty rain on the Continent of Europe.

    This today is the contemporary world of economic imbalance, of environmental insecurity, of national rivalry, and yet at the same time global involvement. It is the world which we have helped to create and which we now inherit. We have all been, as it were, part of these problems. Now we can be part of the solution.

    This is the context of our entry into Europe. This alone makes sense of what we have to do. For these problems do not respect frontiers, and neither should frontiers restrict our efforts to solve them.

    I see in these immense problems, not a block to British action and ambition, but a deep and satisfying challenge to carry on the work of world building in which Britain in the past has played so great a part. As we reach the last quarter of the twentieth century, we are beginning to see so clearly where the paths of renewal lie. They lead us towards a new community with our European neighbours and, through this community, to a new epoch of British service and influence on the whole society of man.

    It is to make a start upon that work that with your support and encouragement I go to Paris as your Prime Minister next week.

    I have spoken of the challenge of change, because that is how we see it. And as with so many things in life it is a question of how you look at it. What some people seem to see as an intolerable burden seems to me an incredible opportunity, an opportunity for every one of us.

    I suppose when you come down to it most things are a question of attitude. You are either on the side of doing things or you are on the side of believing that they just cannot be done. I think we are getting to a point where each of us in this country of ours has got to decide where he stands. I ask our fellow citizens – do you want to say ‘No’ all the time; ‘No, it cannot be done’; ‘No, we never did it this way before’; ‘No, leave it alone and it might just go away’; ‘No, we are scared’? Or are we going to have the courage to say ‘Yes’ – ‘Yes, this is how it should be; yes, this is what I believe in; yes, this is for the good of us all; yes, we are going to have a try’? It is a decision a lot of people still have to make. They are unsure, they are undecided.

    So I say this to all of you as members of our Party. The balance of any future general election lies not with you but with those who are yet undecided. If we cannot give them a lead, then we shall have failed, and we shall have deserved to fail. So let us tell them where we stand, where this Government stands. We are going to build on the past, but we are not going to be strangled by it. We are going forward to take the place which history has reserved for us, and we are going to speak with a voice that has been silent for too long. We are out in the world again. It will take courage. There may be mistakes. But they will not stop is from doing the things that must be done, the things that are going to be done.

    But most of all we are going to stand up and be counted. And when our voice is heard its message will be clear. We shall say ‘Yes’ – ‘Yes’ to decisions that may be hard – so long as they are fair; ‘Yes’ to this country of ours that is finally on the move again; ‘Yes’ to a future brighter than anything in the past. And if ‘Yes’ seems a harder word to say than ‘No,’ well, it could just be be­cause when we know that ‘Yes’ is the right word it is the only word worth saying.