Tag: Speeches

  • Michael Fallon – 2014 Speech on Middle East and North Africa Energy

    michaelfallon

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Fallon, the Energy Minister, at Chatham House in London on 27th January 2014.

    Good morning. It’s a pleasure to be here with you all today. I’d like to thank Chatham House for providing this forum. The focus of today’s discussions – the future of oil and gas supplies from the Middle East and North Africa – is certainly of critical importance to us all.

    Future role of oil and gas in meeting global energy demand

    The world will continue to rely on oil and gas for the foreseeable future, making the security of competitively priced oil and gas supplies of vital importance to the world’s economy.

    Oil and gas consumption is expected to rise significantly for some time, even as we move towards a low carbon economy. In particular demand for transport fuel is projected to continue to grow outside the OECD, while gas is increasingly replacing coal as a fuel for power generation around the world.

    The latest predictions from the IEA are that that under its central scenario the world will be consuming over 100 million barrels of oil a day in 2035, up from 89 million barrels a day in 2012.

    However over the same time the IEA expects that conventional crude oil output from existing fields is set to fall by around 40 million barrels per day by 2035. This means that new sources of oil will need to be developed to make up the difference.

    The development of unconventional oil will clearly have an important role in the coming years. And the same is true for gas – with unconventional gas expected to account for almost 50% of the increase in global gas production to 2035. Further work is required on how to safely and sustainably exploit these resources.

    But this is not the whole answer. Indeed, the IEA emphasises the Middle East as being at the centre of the longer term oil outlook. Even with projections that domestic consumption in the region will increase significantly, exports from the region will continue to be integral to global supply.

    This requires huge investment in production – an estimated $660bn per year will need to be invested in existing and new oil and gas fields to meet global demand. British companies are well placed to make this investment and are already active in many places around the world, including the Gulf. BP and Shell, for example, are already present in Iraq, while Shell is a partner in the Qatargas 4 LNG and Pearl GTL projects in Qatar.

    The IEA highlights Iraq – with its huge oil reserves – as the country that could be the single largest contributor to global production growth. That requires investment now, in infrastructure, sustainable water management, and the strong legal and financial frameworks that investors need.

    The IEA also projects increasing gas production from the Middle East and North Africa from both conventional and unconventional sources. When I visited Qatar in November, I was struck at how important Qatar is and will continue to be as a gas supplier to the wider MENA region and beyond. Qatar is of course a significant supplier of LNG to the UK. I also met the Algerian energy Minister last year, and was interested to learn more about the potential scale of Algeria’s unconventional gas resources. Of course there remain uncertainties as to the extent to which these resources will prove to be economically recoverable. In global gas markets, MENA gas producers are likely to be faced with growing competition from new sources of LNG from suppliers in the US, Canada, Australia and East Africa.

    International Cooperation

    I mentioned the significant investment required. Key to supporting this is helping to ensure that we have well-functioning oil and gas markets. This is a shared challenge, which transcends national boundaries, and we value international collaboration on this agenda.

    We saw in 2008 how damaging severe price fluctuations can be, when a mid-year spike of $145/barrel was followed by a fall to $30/barrel by year end.

    These swings severely damaged the confidence of consumers and producers alike: the price rise led to consumers sharply reducing demand for oil and goods and services in the wider economy; and the price drop created major challenges and uncertainties for many producing countries, both in terms of meeting the wider needs of their populations and in deciding the investment needed for future production.

    When the world met in Jeddah and London that year to discuss how to avoid such sharp fluctuations happening in the future, the central conclusion that emerged was the need to improve the functioning of the global oil market. Participants agreed that delivering such reform required significant improvement in the dialogue between consuming and producing countries facilitated by the International Energy Forum.

    This led to the re-launch of the IEF in 2011. Since then the Forum has done important work with the IEA, OPEC and others to improve market transparency through the development of Joint Organisation Data Initiative, it has investigated the links between physical and financial oil markets and has worked to improve energy outlook data.

    Maintaining this dialogue and work is essential if we are to ensure the world economy has the secure and competitively priced energy supplies it needs. In a period of relative price stability such as we have recently had, it would be all too easy for complacency to set in and for the world to downgrade the importance of such discussions. We should not, and I look forward to the IEF Ministerial meeting this May.

    The UK also supports international efforts aimed at removing inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. The IEA estimates that $544bn was spent globally on consumption subsidies in 2012. The G20 and APEC have committed to action on this issue, and I would encourage all those with such subsidies to consider their long term impact.

    A well-functioning and integrated European energy market in electricity and gas will be a critical part of ensuring security of our energy supplies and keeping energy costs down.

    The European Council has already agreed that the internal energy market should be completed by 2014. This is something the UK strongly supports. This means full and effective implementation of the Third Package of energy legislation in every Member State.

    We will need to effectively implement rules to allow energy to flow properly across markets. And Europe will need significant investment in interconnection to better link markets together.

    And international efforts are – of course – crucial to facilitating the shift to low carbon energy. I welcome the role being taken by many countries in the Middle East and North Africa to support this transition, for example the World Future Energy Summit hosted by the UAE last week.

    The draft 2030 package the European Commission adopted last week will set the long term perspective on this low carbon shift for the EU, and I welcome both the ambitious approach to a greenhouse gas emissions target of 40% for the EU but hopefully going higher in the case of a global deal, but also the acceptance by the Commission on the need for Member States to decarbonise in the most flexible and cost-effective way for each of them, moving away from binding national technology specific targets.

    UK energy policy

    I’d like to turn now to reflect on UK energy policy. We are seeking to achieve three key aims – energy security, emissions reduction to meet our ambitious climate changes targets, and maintaining affordability for consumers.

    The North Sea continues to be hugely important for the UK. We are determined to maximise production of these oil and gas reserves and are currently conducting a review – the Wood Review – to ensure our regulatory regime is as business friendly as possible.

    Unconventional oil and gas is an exciting prospect for us, and we have recently announced changes to our tax regime which will make the UK the most attractive location for investment in shale gas.

    And we are working hard to put the policies in place to enable the shift to a low carbon energy system. We are committed to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050. Our energy policies include a number of flagship programmes to achieve this, including our far-reaching Electricity Market Reforms, the ambitious energy efficiency programme through the Green Deal.

    Nevertheless, UK import dependency for oil and gas is set to rise over coming years.

    We became a net importer of oil in 2005. In 2012 our oil import dependence increased to 36%, and is expected to rise to 47% by 2020.

    For gas, we became a net importer in 2004; and in 2012 our gas import dependency stood at 50% – with Qatar one of our key suppliers. By 2020 imports are likely to rise to 58% and it is clear that gas will remain an important element of our energy mix for decades to come.

    And as we increasingly look to international markets for our energy supplies, we also welcome the interest from international investors in the UK energy sector.

    It is estimated that replacing and upgrading our electricity infrastructure alone will require up to £110 billion of capital investment between now and 2020. I recognise that policy certainty is key to this – and the Energy Act and our electricity market reforms deliver this.

    I have been delighted to see investments in the UK energy sector ramping up. For example I welcome Masdar’s investment of £500m in the London Array, the world’s largest offshore wind farm. And the decision of the Abu Dhabi National Energy Company to lead in the development of the Morrone field in the North Sea.

    Conclusion

    Perhaps I can end by noting that common challenges face us all. We need to ensure that energy markets can provide the supplies consumers need at affordable prices while providing the necessary long term incentives for producers and investors. Achieving this is no mean feat, but dialogue and cooperation has a central role to play.

    Thank you.

  • Michael Fallon – 2008 Budget Response

    michaelfallon

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Fallon in the House of Commons on 13th March 2008.

    What a disappointing Budget. I thought that the new Chancellor would emerge from the shadows as his own man through the Budget, but we ended up with a Chancellor who dithered over Northern Rock and capital gains tax and cannot even decide whether the plastic bags levy should be voluntary or compulsory.

    Let me begin with the public finances and our problems. Five years ago, in the Budget of March 2003, we were promised that we would be in surplus by March 2006. Each subsequent Budget and pre-Budget report postponed that. Yesterday, we were told that we would not be in surplus until 2010-11, exactly five years later than originally planned.

    Let me put it another way. In the financial year that we are completing, we were supposed to have a surplus of £9 billion. Instead, we have a deficit of £7.9 billion. That is a turnaround of £17 billion—half the defence budget—because the Government failed to keep to their original plans.

    Alternatively, let us look at net borrowing. Five years ago, we were told that net borrowing in the year that we are about to start would be £24 billion; yesterday, it was admitted that it would be £43 billion, almost twice as much. Worse still, for the first time that I can see in 11 consecutive Budgets and pre-Budget reports, the borrowing figures will be higher in the next two years than they were in the last two. The figures will increase to £43 billion and £38 billion, both of which are higher than the figure for borrowing in the year just ended. Not until 2012-13 will we get back to the borrowing level of £23 billion that we last saw as an outturn in 2002-03—a decade of binge borrowing.

    Finally, there is overall public sector net debt. That will rise, according to the Red Book figures, to £731 billion in 2012-13, which is almost double what it was 10 years earlier. This comes at a time when we are already paying almost as much in debt interest, at £31 billion, as we are on the entire defence budget, at £33 billion, as we can see in chart 1.1 of the Red Book. Indeed, debt interest is now our fourth biggest spending programme. We on the Conservative Benches do not need to take any more lessons about unfunded tax promises, because that scale of collapse in the public finances is simply unfunded Government spending.

    To put it another way, the Treasury got the growth that it expected from the economy last year, so why does public sector borrowing need to jump from £36 billion to £43 billion? Why do we need to force the motorist, the drinker and the small business to pay more taxes? Growth was around 3 per cent., as forecast and above its historic trend, but we are spending 45 per cent. of our national income while tax receipts account for only 41 per cent. Why? Because the then Chancellor failed to prepare during the stronger years. The Government failed to control spending or pay down debt. That is not just sloppy forecasting; rather it shows clearly and conclusively that the Government, and especially the former Chancellor, cannot plan their public finances properly. Therefore, we cannot trust the current Chancellor when he tells us that everything else will be okay. That is the failure in our public finances.

    Secondly, I want to address the question of who really pays for that failure. It is not the public sector, which now faces relatively smaller increases in its growth. There will of course be fewer additional police community support officers and fewer additional NHS physiotherapists. However, we know that public sector pensions are still protected and that some pay restraint in the public sector is already being breached by the more and more widespread use of bonuses. For instance, one third of HM Revenue and Customs staff received bonuses last year.

    It is not the public sector that will pay. The real losers from the collapse in our public finances are the people at the bottom. The first group are the lowest- paid of all. An unmarried person without children who earns only £11,500 year, on the minimum wage or just above it, pays tax and national insurance at 16 per cent. of their earnings. Someone in Ireland in exactly the same position would have to earn almost twice that amount—more than £22,000 a year—before they paid tax at 15 per cent. Why should single people starting their working lives be hit the hardest? Why should they be discriminated against by the myriad rules against part-time working, which make it less worth while to work between four and 16 hours a week, for example, because of the interaction of income support, working tax credit and child tax credit? The tax credit system is fine in itself, as we on the Conservative Benches have accepted. However, because it goes so far up the income scale, it simply does not give enough help to those who need it at the very bottom.

    The second category having to pay for all the mistakes is our pensioners, particularly those on fixed incomes and those facing year-on-year real increases in council tax of around 4 or 5 per cent. Let me give an example from Sevenoaks district council, which is one of the southern district councils that has been worst treated by this Government. My constituent, Ms Earnshaw-Whittles, keeps a careful record, going all the way back, of the exact amount that she pays. In 1998-99, the first year for which the Government made the allocation, she paid £90 a month in a band G house. Had that amount been increased with inflation, she would now be paying £115.63. In fact, she has to pay £171, which is 48 per cent. higher. We are talking about people on fixed incomes paying half as much again in council tax they would as if the figures had been indexed. They are the people paying for the Government’s mistakes.

    We know, too, that every council has had to plug the gap in its pension funds caused by the then Chancellor’s disastrous raid on pensions in 1997. Every local authority has had to cope with all the extra legislation passed through the House and the multitude of directives issued by Whitehall, but on a reduced grant.

    Finally, small businesses are paying the price for the failure to control our public finances. Not only are they over-regulated, as Conservative Members have pointed out time and again, but they are constantly forced to act as the Government’s agents, by operating the tax credit system, checking on immigrant status and sorting out graduate loan repayments. As thanks for that, this year of all years, corporation tax will be increased by 2 per cent. We have been asking why since the last Budget, but we have not received an explanation. Rather than putting the burden of their mistakes on to those who simply cannot pay, the Government should look much harder at putting their own house in order.

    I want to conclude with some remarks about the waste and inefficiency in central Government. There was not much in the Chancellor’s speech yesterday about the efficiency savings programme. We have had the Gershon savings and it is claimed that the £30 billion is on course to be realised. However, we know from the work of the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee what a small proportion of those savings have been fully realised, fully audited and cashable. I understand that the NAO has endorsed only about a quarter of the current savings as real, in terms that the private sector would understand.

    Secondly, there is the period after the Gershon review, post 2010-11. We were told yesterday that we would have to wait until the 2009 Budget before we saw the details of those savings, although yesterday we were promised something called the “public value programme”. It is not immediately clear to me how the public value programme differs from the current value-for-money delivery agreements. We have learned from bitter experience that changing the labels does not mean that we will get real cost-cutting in the administration of government, better ways of working, a reduced rate of absenteeism and an improvement in the efficiency of the back office systems. Those are all things that the private sector has had to cope with and implement over the past 10 years, but which still seem so difficult in the public sector.

    Then there is pay, of course. I welcome the suggestion in the Red Book that Whitehall wants an increasing number of multi-year agreements, but I have warned before, including earlier in my speech, about the ever-widening use of bonuses to circumvent pay ceilings instead of adopting the performance-related pay measures that are now common in the private sector.

    There are also asset sales. The Government have another £12 billion to go before they realise their 2010-11 target, and only two years left to get on with it. It seems to be taking them an awful lot of time even to sell the things that they have said for years that they wished to sell, such as the Tote. They have been playing around with that for years. A couple of weeks ago, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport announced that it intended to appoint financial advisers. If the Government are to realise their intended gains from asset sales, they must get on with it.

    As I said on Monday, this country is in a financial crisis. We see that in the lack of confidence in commercial banking, the deep-rooted problems in the bond markets and the serious downturn in the United States. I suspect that we are nowhere near the end of that crisis. Just because this business cycle has run twice as long as previous cycles, that does not excuse the Government for not having prepared properly for its end. That is what Governments are for. Instead, just as our constituents face rising food and fuel prices, we find the Government being caught out. They have unfunded spending commitments, which are being met each year only through higher taxes and increased borrowing. They failed to prepare and have now been found out. Next year, they must prepare to fail.

  • Cecil Parkinson – 1971 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Cecil Parkinson in the House of Commons on 4th February 1971.

    I had wondered, as all new Members wonder, I am sure, just what my experiences in my by-election had to do with the very strange life I have found myself leading since my election. Tonight I realise that one of my experiences was very relevant. Night after night in my by-election campaign I listened to the star speaker from London make my speech. All of a sudden, the chairman called on me and with the tatters of my brilliant speech I then had to entertain an audience for 25 minutes. My experience tonight has brought those memories very vividly back to me.

    I entered the House as the representative of Enfield, West after the by-election in November, and I am the newest Member. The constituency of Enfield, West is comprised of the residential part of Enfield, Hadley Wood, which has some very distinguished-looking hon. Members, who I am sorry to say sit on the benches opposite when they are here, the urban district of Potters Bar and South Mimms. It is comprised of beautiful rolling countryside, some of the loveliest parts of what is left of the green belt in the north of London. One of the great ambitions which I as the Member, kin Macleod as my predecessor, and all my constituents have is to make sure, for our sake and the sake of London, that we work very hard to keep that green belt.

    There is very little industry in my constituency, as the officials of Transport House who came down for the by-election found out. They arrived with a plan to have a series of factory gate meetings and found to their horror that it would not work. We have only one factory in the constituency, with a single gate, and they felt that 21 appearances by my opponent might injure rather than help his case.

    In case hon. Members opposite think that this seems to mean that I am not qualified to speak about anything to do with working people, may I add that I was born and bred in the north of Lancashire, in a very tough part of the country, and I am not talking about things that I have read about when I talk about the plight of pensioners and the working man.

    One of Enfield’s greatest distinctions is that it was represented in this House for 20 years by Iain Macleod, one of the great Parliamentarians of this or any century. He was a great man, a great patriot and a great servant of the people of his constituency. Hon. Members will not be offended if I take this opportunity to pay tribute both to his work and that of his wife Eve. Together they worked for more than 20 years for their constituency. I am very proud to have been chosen to succeed him; I am very sad that the opportunity for me to do so ever arose.

    Iain Macleod had a great interest, which he shared with his wife, in the welfare of the elderly and disabled, and it is partly because of that that I wish to speak in this debate. None of us on either side of the House can fail to be concerned about the plight of the pensioner. I am sure that we all accept that society has a great obligation to do as much as it can for the pensioner.

    This Government, in spite of the rather cavalier way in which the hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) dealt with the things they have done already, have, I claim, demonstrated their real concern for the plight of the pensioners through the actions that they have taken already and the assurance we have had from my right hon. Friend—a man who is known to keep his word and who is determined to carry out our pledge. I think we can rest assured that the Government are aware of and are concerned about the plight of the pensioners.

    It is entirely right that we should accept a special responsibility for this generation of pensioners, the vast majority of whose careers suffered the economic consequences of two world wars and the world depressions of the 1920s and 1930s. Many of these people would have been at their optimum age at the time when there was not an opportunity to use their talents, and I have never heard any Conservative worker or hon. Member reproach any pensioner about the fact that he is poor. In fact, to make a party point—although I know that I am not supposed to—Conservative workers are too busy working with the meals-on-wheels service and other social work to bother to recriminate with the people they spend so much time trying to help. I thought that that was an unworthy remark by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Fred Evans), and I am sure that when he thinks about it he will wish to withdraw it.

    Every day I get letters and receive visits from pensioners who seek help. It is important at this time for the House not to appear to be trying to turn the pensioners into a sort of political football, for neither side to be trying to steal a march on the other in terms of talk about concern, in terms of trying to prove that if only they were in Government they would be doing more and more. I was surprised to hear the hon. Lady refer to the claim, which is often pointed out by hon. Members opposite, that the Labour Government’s first action when they came to power in 1964 was to increase pensions. One of the shabbiest incidents of those early months was the fact that they promised to increase the pensions but when pressed said that administratively it was not possible. It was Lord George-Brown, at the mini-conference the Labour Party held after the 1964 election, who confessed that it was not administrative problems but financial ones which were delaying the increase and who once again, as so often in his parliamentary career, blew the gaff.

    I share the concern of my hon. Friends about the attempt by certain sectional groups to grab the old-age pensioners, for their own particular ends and who appear to be using them. One man in particular who claims that it is his responsibility to extract the maximum for his workers, seems to spend six days a week—this is the only controversial thing I shall say—stirring up inflation in trying to grab more than his share of what is going and on the seventh day organises rallies for the people who will suffer most from his activities of the previous six days. It is perhaps the eleventh Commandment—”Six days shalt thou labour to stoke inflation and on the seventh thou shalt organise and finance rallies for the victims of inflation and shed crocodile tears at the effect of thy previous six days work.” It is neither convincing nor worthy and I hope that it will be dropped. It is worsening a situation for a section of the community who cannot look after themselves, who are defenceless. The last thing they need is to have their hopes falsely raised to be used by people for any ends other than just getting the best deal they can for pensioners.

    Apart from joining hon. Members on both sides of the House in the hope that, when my right hon. Friend says that an announcement will be soon, he means very, very soon, I want to make two specific points. One has been made by a number of hon. Members and concerns the earnings rule. I think that this must be relaxed so that those who can and wish to help themselves may do so without, as so often happens now, having to be party to bending the law. I think it is undignified and unworthy that pensioners should be paid a bit under the table, as is done in many instances, because people realise that to pay them any more would cause them to lose some of the pension they have richly earned. I urge the Government not to be put off by this temporary crisis and to press on with long-term plans to encourage earnings-related occupational pension schemes.

    I cannot share the sorrow of hon. Members opposite that the Crossman plan was abandoned. I do not think that it was a very sound plan. I think that it had the potential of being highly inflationary. We prefer properly funded diverse occupational schemes. We believe in them for two reasons.

    The first is that they are a better hedge against inflation than a promise by the Government to take inflation into account, because Governments always want to underestimate inflation. Secondly, we believe that, by having this diversity, giving people a choice and having a variety of schemes, we are taking away from the State the ability to interfere with and control a vast number of people’s lives. I view with great distaste the fact that at the moment millions of people are forced to rely on the judgments of this House for the amount of their pensions. I look forward to the day when people are members in very large numbers of occupational schemes, properly handled, properly funded and properly resistant to inflation. I look forward to hearing more from the Government about plans for their fall-back scheme, and I hope that it will be treated as a matter of great urgency.

  • Ian Paisley – 2007 Speech at Stormont

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Remember me! Remember me!

    My sculptured glens where crystal rivers run,

    My purple mountains, misty in the sun,

    My coastlines, little changed since time begun,

    I gave you birth.

    Remember me! Remember me!

    Though battle-scarred and weary I abide.

    When you speak of history say my name with pride.

    I am Ulster.

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

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

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

    The great king Solomon said:

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

    A time to be born and a time to die.

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

    A time to kill and a time to heal.

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

    A time to get and a time to lose.

    A time to keep and a time to cast away.

    A time to love and a time to hate.

    A time of war and a time of peace.’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Jim Paice – 2012 Speech at the Dairy UK Dinner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Dave Prentis – 2013 Speech to UNISON Conference

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Enoch Powell – 1977 Contribution to the Scotland Bill

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

    Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mr. Millan

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

    Mr. Powell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mr. Raison

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

    Mr. Powell

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

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

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

    Mr. Powell

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

    Mr. Foot

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

    Mr. Powell

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

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

    Mr. Norman Buchan (Renfrewshire, West)

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

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

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

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

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

    Mr. Powell

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

  • Enoch Powell – 1968 Rivers of Blood Speech

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • George Osborne – 2015 Budget Speech

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

    Mr Deputy Speaker,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Five years ago, the deficit was out of control.

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

    Five years ago, we were bailing out the banks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    No unfunded spending.

    No irresponsible extra borrowing.

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

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

    For we choose the future.

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

    So we choose economic security.

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

    We choose jobs.

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

    We choose the whole nation.

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

    We choose responsibility.

    This Budget takes further action to support savers and pensioners.

    We choose aspiration.

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

    We choose families.

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

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

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

    Economic forecasts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    And the Eurozone continues to stagnate.

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

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

    I agree with that assessment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    For we are replacing the disastrous economic model we inherited.

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

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

    I can report since 2010:

    Business investment has grown four times faster than household consumption.

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

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

    We are seeing a truly national recovery.

    Employment

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

    This morning we saw the latest jobs numbers.

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

    A record number of people in work.

    More women in work than ever before.

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

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

    Unemployment today has fallen by another 100,000.

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

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

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

    Instead, over 1.9 million new jobs have been gained.

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

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

    The evidence is plain to see – Britain is working.

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

    Nonsense.

    How many of the jobs are full time? 80%

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

    And where is employment growing fastest? The North West.

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

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

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

    Living standards

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Inflation

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

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

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

    But we will remain vigilant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Banks and debt

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

    Lower unemployment means less welfare.

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

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

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

    But they weren’t the only cause.

    It sent the national debt rocketing up by a third.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    But that would be deeply irresponsible.

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

    Racking up borrowing our country couldn’t afford.

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

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

    We put economic security first.

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

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

    Five years ago, national debt was soaring.

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

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

    I can announce this to the House:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Today we bring that record to an end.

    And there’s a consequence for our fiscal plans.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Deficit

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

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

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

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

    With our plan it does.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Unemployment is down.

    Borrowing is down in every year of the forecast.

    We reach a surplus.

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

    Spending

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

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

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

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

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

    Satisfaction with the NHS is rising year on year.

    Crime is down 20%.

    One million more children attend good or outstanding schools.

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

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

    National debt as a share of GDP is now falling.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    £13 billion from government departments.

    £12 billion from welfare savings.

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

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

    Fairness

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

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

    Compared to five years ago:

    Inequality is lower.

    Child poverty is down.

    Youth unemployment is down.

    Pensioner poverty is at its lowest level ever.

    The gender pay gap has never been smaller.

    Payday loans are capped.

    And zero hours contracts regulated.

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

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

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

    Not anymore.

    We stand for opportunity for all.

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

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

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

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

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

    We are delivering a truly national recovery.

    Tax avoidance

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

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

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

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

    This will save around £600 million a year.

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

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

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

    I have examined this proposal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    We will seek a wide range of views.

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

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

    Banks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Libor and charities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    That will benefit over 6,500 small charities.

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

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

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

    National recovery

    Mr Deputy Speaker

    Our country does not rest on its past glories.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I take that action today.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    For we are one United Kingdom.

    Science and innovation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    All these industries depend on fast broadband.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Small business

    Mr Deputy Speaker,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    And today we can bring simpler taxes to many more.

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

    So, today I am announcing this.

    We will abolish the annual tax return altogether.

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

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

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

    A revolutionary simplification of tax collection. Starting next year.

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

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

    Duties

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

    So let me turn now to duties.

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

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

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

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

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

    Wine duty will be frozen.

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

    Fuel

    Mr Deputy Speaker,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Personal Allowance

    Mr Deputy Speaker.

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

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

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

    We have more than delivered on that promise.

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

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

    Today I can announce that we go further.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    So an £11,000 personal allowance.

    An above inflation increase in the higher rate.

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

    An economic plan working for you.

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

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

    Savings

    Mr Deputy Speaker,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    So freedom for five million people with an annuity.

    Second, we will introduce a radically more Flexible ISA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This is a Budget that works for you.

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

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

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

    So Mr Deputy Speaker:

    Access for pensioners to their annuities.

    A new Flexible ISA.

    Backing home ownership with a first time buyer bonus.

    And one other reform.

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

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

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

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

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

    An entire system of tax collection can be scrapped.

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

    And build the economy on savings not debt.

    Conclusion

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

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

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

    We cut the deficit – and confidence is returning.

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

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

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

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

    The deficit down.

    Growth up.

    Jobs up.

    Living standards on the rise.

    Britain on the rise.

    This is the Budget for Britain.

    The Comeback Country.