Datasets:

jhonalevc1995

/

political_bias_train

like 0

This joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment prohibiting a person from serving more than two consecutive terms as a Senator or six consecutive terms as a Representative. Terms beginning before the ratification of this amendment do not count towards consecutive term limits.

right

joint resolution propose constitutional amendment prohibit person serve consecutive term senator consecutive term representative term begin ratification amendment count consecutive term limit

Speeches, etc. Mr. Speaker Business Statement—Mrs. Thatcher. Mrs. Thatcher May I ask Michael Footthe Leader of the House to state the business for the first week after the recess? The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot) The business for the first week after the Adjournment will be as follows: [column 2124] Monday 11th October—Debate on the Green Paper on a proposed new high-way code. Motion on the Counter-Inflation (Price Code) Order. The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed Private Business for consideration at seven o'clock. Tuesday 12th October and Wednesday 13th October—Remaining stages of the Health Services Bill. Thursday 14th October—Report and Third Reading of the Electricity (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill and of the Maplin Development Authority (Dissolution) Bill [Lords]. Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Armed Forces Bill. Resumed debate on Second Reading of the Public Lending Right Bill [Lords]. Remaining stages of the Road Traffic (Seat Belts) Bill. Friday 15th October—Remaining stages of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill. Second Reading of the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Bill [Lords]. Mrs. Thatcher The Leader of the House must be aware that the number of Government Bills and Orders on the Order Paper at this stage of the Session is unprecedented and that we have not had time to debate a host of things such as foreign affairs. There are also seven official Opposition Prayers which we have not had time to take. Would the Leader of the House say what he has in mind in respect of these matters when we return? Mr. Foot We shall certainly do our best to accomodate as many of these matters as we can, as we always do. We have made very good progress with the business of the House, despite the prophecies that things would go wrong. I am sure that we shall make further good progress when we return in October. Mr. Jay Has my right hon. Friend noticed that a Prayer has been placed on the Order Paper against the Government's Poultry Meat Order, and may we have an assurance that there will be adequate time for this order to be debated as soon as we return from the recess? Mr. Foot I am sure that is a matter that the House will wish to discuss. Mr. Tebbit Will the Leader of the House say why a Private Member's Bill, namely, the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill, has been given Government backing and priority over another Private Member's Bill—the Licensing (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill? Is this not a breach of the long-established custom of this House? Might I add that I am not particularly in favour of either of these two Bills and that I am not therefore making a case in respect of either but merely drawing attention to the way in which the Government behave towards Private Members' legislation. Mr. Foot I am sure the hon. Gentleman was raising the matter with his usual objectivity and impartiality. I would only say to him that there have been precedents in the not so distant past when a Government have given assistance to a Private Member's Bill. Many representations have been made to me that we should assist with this Bill and we are providing time for the House to discuss it on the Friday when we return. The Government have not given preference over some other Bill but an opportunity has been given for the Bill to be discussed. Mr. Speaker Mr. Clement Freud. Mr. Andrew Faulds. Mr. Faulds May I simply pay the Leader of the House—— Mr. Speaker Order. I apologise to both hon. Gentlemen. Mr. Faulds I take that in the spirit in which it was not given. May I simply thank the Leader of the House for having kept his word about bringing back the Public Lending Right Bill in the hangover part of our Session at the end of the holidays? Mr. Ronald Bell Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the Road Traffic (Seat Belts) Bill is a controversial measure and to put it on at the end of a long stream of Bills, which means that it must be discussed in the early morning, is most inappropriate? Mr. Foot I hope that we shall reach the Bill earlier than that. We certainly think that the other items which have [column 2126]been put down for that Thursday need not take a great deal of time. I hope that there will be adequate time to discuss the Bill and, indeed, that the House will be prepared to reach a decision that night. Mr. Dalyell On Monday 11th October does the opposed Private Business relate to the consideration of the Cromarty Petroleum Order Confirmation Bill? If it does, will the Leader of the House recognise that besides the Scottish Office it is important that we have a Treasury Minister to explain precisely what the Treasury obligations are if the Bill is passed, and particularly whether there will be an automatic grant of between £30 million and £40 million of public money? May we have an opinion from an energy Minister whether it is true that refining capacity in this country is working at 60 per cent. and is likely to do so until the 1980s? In the absence of that kind of information it will be very difficult to reach a sensible judgement inn respect of the Bill. Mr. Foot I am quite sure that many of my hon. Friends will be required to deal with my hon. Friend and others, but I will certainly see that the information is passed to them so that they will take it into account. Sir David Renton With regard to the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill on 15th October, are we to understand that the Government themselves are taking on this Bill and, in effect, making it a Government Bill and putting on the Whips on that occasion? Mr. Foot We are giving an opportunity for the House to decide upon this matter and I would have thought, in view of the history of the Bill, and what has been said about it by hon. Members in all parts of the House, that this is a civilised way in which to proceed. Mr. Hugh Jenkins Would my right hon. Friend consult his right hon. Friend the Chief Whip, and everyone else whom it may be desirable to consult, with a view to ensuring that when the Public Lending Right Bill comes back for its completion of the Second Reading there are enough hon. Members in the House to make sure that the debate reaches its conclusion on that occasion? Mr. Foot I think that my hon. Friend, having been given due notice of the continuance of the Bill, would agree that [column 2127]we have made quite a lot of progress with the Bill already. There has been a lot of time for discussion and I hope that we shall reach a conclusion and that there will be enough hon. Members to ensure that it goes through. Mr. Marten May I raise a question about today's business and relate it to the first week when we come back? On the Order Paper, items Nos. 3 and 4 are two instruments to be “decided forth-with” . Should they not normally be taken immediately after this point of time in our proceedings and not at the end of the day? Should they not therefore be moved to October and then taken immediately, because we do not want to decide these things forthwith perhaps very late at night? Mr. Foot I think they are down on the Order Paper in the normal way and we must proceed with them on the basis that they are there. Mr. Christopher Price Has my right hon. Friend seen the Government's rather tendentious reply to the Select Committee on Cyprus yesterday? During the hangover period could he find just a little time in which this important matter, on which there are differences of opinion—70 hon. Members have signed an Early-Day Motion supporting the Select Committee—could be debated by the House? [That this House gives a general welcome to the report of the Select Commitee on Cyprus; considers it has highlighted some major failings in foreign policy; and believes that Great Britain, as a guarantor power and fellow member of the Commonwealth, has a special responsibility to work for a free and independent Cyprus.] Mr. Foot I would not call it a hangover period. I would rather call it a spillover period—and there may be other names applied to it. There may be an opportunity for a discussion of foreign affairs during that period. I am not certain yet, but I should have thought that, if so, that would be the opportunity for this matter to be raised. Mr. Carlisle Following on the question of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit),[column 2128] the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the principle of selecting one Private Member's Bill and giving it preference and Government time over others is a thoroughly bad principle, even if it is one which has been adopted in the past? For example, the Licensing (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill is the first Order of Private Member's Bills at the moment. Why should not that be given time rather than the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill? Mr. Foot I understand the concern which some hon. Members have expressed on this question. As a general rule, the Government should not intervene in this way. But when hon. Members consider the discussions which had taken place on the Bill and when they hear the representations which have been made about it, I believe that they will agree that it is a perfectly proper thing to do. It has been done before. Some of the Bills which have later become fully accepted by the country and have contributed to the general welfare of our society have been subject to this procedure, and we are applying the same principle again. Mrs. Wise Will my right hon. Friend accept that the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill affects the safety of women, a matter which has been inadequately discussed, whereas the Licensing (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill has already been discussed for a very long time? I am sure that women will applaud my right hon. Friend for his action in this matter. Mr. Foot I am grateful to my hon. Friend, naturally enough, but I also hope that hon. Members, whatever criticism they may make of the Government or of me in making this arrangement, will judge the Bill itself on its merits. I believe that the more the House applies its mind to the Bill and its merits, the speedier will be its passage. Mr. Raison Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that there will be early debates on three important reports or consultative documents to do with the Department of the Environment—namely, on water, transport and local government finance? Is he aware that there is particular resentment about the delay in having a debate on transport? Mr. Foot I am sure that no one is more eager to have those debates than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.[column 2129] The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Shore) Hear, hear. Mr. Foot Of course we should like to have debates on all those matters. Whether we can have them during the period in October I cannot be sure. Transport is certainly a very strong candidate for a debate, and I know that we are committed to debates at some stage on the other matters as well. Mr. Ioan Evans Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the early hours of this morning, in the debate on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, a request was made by both Front Bench spokesmen for an early debate on the Lonrho Report? Since this affair was once referred to by the former Conservative Prime Minister as the unacceptable face of capitalism, and since the mask has been removed, should not the House soon debate this subject so that it may fully understand the implications? Mr. Foot Although I was not present, I understand that there was a very interesting debate on this subject a few hours ago. Whether everyone who took part in that debate would wish to have a further debate on the matter I am not sure, but certainly we should be happy that there should be some further opportunity eventually to discuss the matter. However, I certainly cannot promise that it will happen immediately we come back. Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg Would the right hon. Gentleman look again at what he has three times said today about the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill? Would he not at least agree that it would be fair, as the Licensing (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill is down as first on the list, that he should put the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill second on the list, as it was not a named Bill for that day? In this way he might succeed in having the Bill judged on its merits, whereas if he tried to foist the Bill on the House in advance of the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who had the courtesy to name a date, it might not be judged on its merits. Mr. Foot I hope that no hon. Member will say in advance of discussion of that Bill on that Friday that he is not prepared to discuss it on its merits. That [column 2130]would be disrespectful to the House of Commons. I therefore hope that the matter will be discussed on its merits, whatever the criticisms may be about the way in which we have arranged it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise) said, I thought that what we were doing was meeting the wishes certainly of most of my hon. Friends and, I should have thought, of many hon. Members opposite for another such arrangement. Mr. Cryer I think that you will recall, Mr. Speaker, that when I raised the subject earlier, you said that the subject of International News Services and its representations on behalf of Bristol Channel Ship Repairers were to be referred to an appropriate Committee. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has considered the matter and whether he would care to make a comment about it, particularly as the Bill involved is going through the House of Lords. We would all hope that the scenes of intimidation and pressure that we witnessed before hand will not be repeated in the Upper House. Mr. Foot Following my hon. Friend's question, I have made inquiries. We now consider that the most appropriate Committee to consider this matter is the Services Committee, which was one of the suggestions made. I will take steps to ensure that it is considered at a very early date, particularly in view of my hon. Friend's suggestion about the menace to the incorruptibility of the other place. Mr. Kenneth Lewis When we come back would the right hon. Gentleman look at this problem and make a statement on it. It arose during Prime Minister's Questions today. It has on a number of occasions been said that Oppositions and Back Benchers are dissatisfied with the answers of Ministers and Prime Ministers, but today is the first time that a Prime Minister has said that he is dissatisfied with his own Question Time and that he did not take it seriously. The difficulty, which has risen many times in the past, is that Back Benchers just cannot put straightforward Questions to the Prime Minister. Will he now discuss with the Prime Minister the possibility of improving the kind of Questions that we put to his right hon. Friend so [column 2131]as to prevent this practice and the putting of secondary questions afterwards? Mr. Foot I am sure that the Prime Minister would be grateful for any improvement in the Questions put to him but the form in which those Questions are put has been discussed a number of times by the Select Committee on Procedure. If the present Committee would wish to look at the matter afresh and devise some other way in which we might avoid the kind of all-embracing Questions which have to be put down so as to enable certain matters to be raised, it might be helpful. But the Committee has looked at this on previous occasions and has not been able to propose any better arrangement than we have now. Several Hon. Members rose—— Mr. Speaker I propose to allow three more questions from each side and then there is a statement. Mr. Raphael Tuck Has my right hon. Friend seen Early-Day Motion No. 563 entitled “Cars for the Disabled” in my name and the names of 70 of my hon. Friends and one Liberal Member? Is he aware of the grave concern of the disabled about these matters and can he give us any hope that in the not-too-distant future we can have a debate? [That this House whilst appreciating what the Under-Secretary of State for Social Services has done for disabled people, is concerned at the Government's decision to phase out invalid tricycles without replacing them with another vehicle, as this may compel disabled drivers to give up their jobs; and requests the Government seriously to consider the continued supply of cars to the physically handicapped, thus providing them with assistance which is realistic.] Mr. Foot I cannot promise a debate in the week we come back, but I will consider the representations of my hon. Friend and of my hon. Friends who signed that motion. Mr. Watt Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there is considerable disquite in the fishing industry that he has not yet found time to have a debate on that matter? Is he aware that by the time we come back it is likely that the [column 2132]fishing limits will have been decided by our EEC partners? Can he assure the House that there will be an early opportunity to debate those decisions? Mr. Foot If any agreements are reached on the subject in the negotiations, there will obviously be a report to the House and the possibility of discussion. Many representations have already been made to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, and many deputations have visited him to present views on the subject, so I am sure that he is aware of the opinions held in many parts of the House. Mr. Greville Janner Does my right hon. Friend expect the ACAS codes on disciplinary procedures and the disclosure of information to be laid before the House, if not in the first week, before the end of this Session? Mr. Foot I hope before the end of the Session, but I prefer to verify the matter. Mr. McCrindle If we are to squeeze in debates on various White Papers and other topics as well as the tail end of various Bills during the spillover of the Session, is the Leader of the House yet in a position to estimate when the Session will end? Mr. Foot I should not like to give an exact date, but, as I have said, we are making reasonable progress. We have quite a lot of work to do when we come back on 11th October. We have some of the matters which I have already mentioned for the first week, and we have some Bills to conclude, but we have already made better progress than some people forecast, and I am sure that that happy progress will continue. Mr. Corbett As the promoter of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill, I thank my right hon. Friend for providing time to enable the House to come to a conclusion on it. Is he aware that the Bill has all-party support in the House, and would it not be in the best traditions of the House if we were to consider it on its merits, not on the basis of bias? Mr. Foot I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I believe that when the Bill comes forward on that Friday the whole House will discuss it on its merits. Mr. Cormack Will the Leader of the House arrange for the report by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on financing the arts to be printed and debated in the spillover period? Mr. Foot I shall have to look at that. I cannot make any promises. Copyright © Margaret Thatcher Foundation 2024. All Rights Reserved.

right

speech etc mr speaker business statement mrs thatcher mrs thatcher ask michael footthe leader house state business week recess lord president council leader house commons mr michael foot business week adjournment follow column monday october debate green paper propose new highway code motion counterinflation price code order chairman way mean name oppose private business consideration seven oclock tuesday october wednesday october remain stage health service bill thursday october report reading electricity financial provision scotland bill maplin development authority dissolution bill lord consideration lord amendment armed force bill resume debate second reading public lending right bill lord remain stage road traffic seat belt bill friday october remain stage sexual offence amendment bill second reading endangered species import export bill lord mrs thatcher leader house aware number government bill order order paper stage session unprecedented time debate host thing foreign affair seven official opposition prayer time leader house mind respect matter return mr foot shall certainly good accomodate matter good progress business house despite prophecy thing wrong sure shall good progress return october mr jay right hon friend notice prayer place order paper government poultry meat order assurance adequate time order debate soon return recess mr foot sure matter house wish discuss mr tebbit leader house private member bill sexual offence amendment bill give government backing priority private member bill licensing amendment bill breach longestablished custom house add particularly favour bill make case respect merely draw attention way government behave private member legislation mr foot sure hon gentleman raise matter usual objectivity impartiality precedent distant past government give assistance private member bill representation assist bill provide time house discuss friday return government give preference bill opportunity give bill discuss mr speaker mr clement freud mr andrew fauld mr fauld simply pay leader house mr speaker order apologise hon gentleman mr fauld spirit give simply thank leader house having keep word bring public lending right bill hangover session end holiday mr ronald bell right hon gentleman realise road traffic seat belt bill controversial measure end long stream bill mean discuss early morning inappropriate mr foot hope shall reach bill early certainly think item column thursday need great deal time hope adequate time discuss bill house prepare reach decision night mr dalyell monday october opposed private business relate consideration cromarty petroleum order confirmation bill leader house recognise scottish office important treasury minister explain precisely treasury obligation bill pass particularly automatic grant million million public money opinion energy minister true refining capacity country work cent likely absence kind information difficult reach sensible judgement inn respect bill mr foot sure hon friend require deal hon friend certainly information pass account sir david renton regard sexual offence amendment bill october understand government take bill effect make government bill put whip occasion mr foot give opportunity house decide matter think view history bill say hon member part house civilised way proceed mr hugh jenkin right hon friend consult right hon friend chief whip desirable consult view ensure public lending right bill come completion second reading hon member house sure debate reach conclusion occasion mr foot think hon friend having give notice continuance bill agree column lot progress bill lot time discussion hope shall reach conclusion hon member ensure go mr marten raise question today business relate week come order paper item nos instrument decide forthwith normally take immediately point time proceeding end day move october take immediately want decide thing forthwith late night mr foot think order paper normal way proceed basis mr christopher price right hon friend see government tendentious reply select committee cyprus yesterday hangover period find little time important matter difference hon member sign earlyday motion support select committee debate house house give general welcome report select commitee cyprus consider highlight major failing foreign policy believe great britain guarantor power fellow member commonwealth special responsibility work free independent cyprus mr foot hangover period spillover period name apply opportunity discussion foreign affair period certain think opportunity matter raise mr carlisle follow question right hon learn friend member huntingdonshire sir d renton hon friend member chingford mr tebbitcolumn right hon gentleman agree principle select private member bill give preference government time thoroughly bad principle adopt past example licensing amendment bill order private member bill moment give time sexual offence amendment bill mr foot understand concern hon member express question general rule government intervene way hon member consider discussion take place bill hear representation believe agree perfectly proper thing bill later fully accept country contribute general welfare society subject procedure apply principle mrs wise right hon friend accept sexual offence amendment bill affect safety woman matter inadequately discuss licensing amendment bill discuss long time sure woman applaud right hon friend action matter mr foot grateful hon friend naturally hope hon member criticism government make arrangement judge bill merit believe house apply mind bill merit speedy passage mr raison right hon gentleman assure house early debate important report consultative document department environment water transport local government finance aware particular resentment delay have debate transport mr foot sure eager debate right hon friend secretary statecolumn secretary state environment mr peter shore hear hear mr foot course like debate matter period october sure transport certainly strong candidate debate know committed debate stage matter mr ioan evans right hon friend aware early hour morning debate consolidated fund appropriation bill request bench spokesman early debate lonrho report affair refer conservative prime minister unacceptable face capitalism mask remove house soon debate subject fully understand implication mr foot present understand interesting debate subject hour ago take debate wish debate matter sure certainly happy opportunity eventually discuss matter certainly promise happen immediately come mr geoffrey finsberg right hon gentleman look time say today sexual offence amendment bill agree fair licensing amendment bill list sexual offence amendment bill second list name bill day way succeed have bill judge merit try foist bill house advance bill hon friend member rushcliffe mr clarke courtesy date judge merit mr foot hope hon member advance discussion bill friday prepared discuss merit column disrespectful house common hope matter discuss merit criticism way arrange hon friend member coventry southwest mrs wise say think meet wish certainly hon friend think hon member opposite arrangement mr cryer think recall mr speaker raise subject early say subject international news service representation behalf bristol channel ship repairer refer appropriate committee wonder right hon friend consider matter care comment particularly bill involve go house lord hope scene intimidation pressure witness hand repeat upper house mr foot follow hon friend question inquiry consider appropriate committee consider matter service committee suggestion step ensure consider early date particularly view hon friend suggestion menace incorruptibility place mr kenneth lewis come right hon gentleman look problem statement arise prime minister question today number occasion say opposition bencher dissatisfied answer minister prime minister today time prime minister say dissatisfied question time seriously difficulty rise time past bencher straightforward question prime minister discuss prime minister possibility improve kind question right hon friend column prevent practice putting secondary question mr foot sure prime minister grateful improvement question form question discuss number time select committee procedure present committee wish look matter afresh devise way avoid kind allembrace question enable certain matter raise helpful committee look previous occasion able propose well arrangement hon member rise mr speaker propose allow question statement mr raphael tuck right hon friend see earlyday motion entitle car disabled name hon friend liberal member aware grave concern disabled matter hope nottoodistant future debate house whilst appreciate undersecretary state social service disabled people concern government decision phase invalid tricycle replace vehicle compel disabled driver job request government seriously consider continue supply car physically handicapped provide assistance realistic mr foot promise debate week come consider representation hon friend hon friend sign motion mr watt right hon gentleman recognise considerable disquite fishing industry find time debate matter aware time come likely column limit decide eec partner assure house early opportunity debate decision mr foot agreement reach subject negotiation obviously report house possibility discussion representation right hon friend minister agriculture deputation visit present view subject sure aware opinion hold part house mr greville janner right hon friend expect acas code disciplinary procedure disclosure information lay house week end session mr foot hope end session prefer verify matter mr mccrindle squeeze debate white paper topic tail end bill spillover session leader house position estimate session end mr foot like exact date say make reasonable progress lot work come october matter mention week bill conclude well progress people forecast sure happy progress continue mr corbett promoter sexual offence amendment bill thank right hon friend provide time enable house come conclusion aware bill allparty support house good tradition house consider merit basis bias mr foot grateful hon friend believe bill come forward friday house discuss merit mr cormack leader house arrange report chancellor duchy lancaster finance art print debate spillover period mr foot shall look promise copyright margaret thatcher foundation right reserve

This bill requires the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to regulate in vitro clinical tests (IVCTs). Currently, the FDA and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services have authority to regulate in vitro diagnostic devices. The bill defines IVCTs, which includes in vitro diagnostic devices, as tests intended for the collection, preparation, analysis, or in vitro clinical examination of specimens from the human body to provide information about a disease, condition, or treatment. An IVCT may not be introduced into interstate commerce unless it has received FDA premarket approval or is covered by certain exemptions, such as an exemption for a test that (1) was developed and introduced before this bill's enactment and meets certain requirements, (2) is a low-risk test, (3) is solely for public health surveillance, (4) is covered by a technology certification issued under this bill, or (5) has received a humanitarian exemption or emergency use authorization. The FDA may grant upon application a technology certification. Generally, such a certification covers a group of tests that use a single technology and may be evaluated using a representative test. While such a certification is valid, a qualifying IVCT that falls within the scope of the certification shall be cleared for interstate commerce. The bill also imposes various requirements related to IVCTs, including those related to quality control, labeling, and reporting adverse events. The FDA shall have various enforcement authority, including authority to order the recall of an IVCT with a reasonable probability of causing serious adverse health consequences.

right

bill require food drug administration fda regulate vitro clinical test ivct currently fda center medicare medicaid service authority regulate vitro diagnostic device bill define ivct include vitro diagnostic device test intend collection preparation analysis vitro clinical examination specimen human body provide information disease condition treatment ivct introduce interstate commerce receive fda premarket approval cover certain exemption exemption test develop introduce bill enactment meet certain requirement lowrisk test solely public health surveillance cover technology certification issue bill receive humanitarian exemption emergency use authorization fda grant application technology certification generally certification cover group test use single technology evaluate representative test certification valid qualifying ivct fall scope certification shall clear interstate commerce bill impose requirement relate ivct include relate quality control labeling report adverse event fda shall enforcement authority include authority order recall ivct reasonable probability cause adverse health consequence

Speeches, etc. Mrs Margaret Thatcher, MP for Finchley and Friern Barnet and former Education Minister, made an informal visit to Woodhouse School, North Finchley, last Thursday. She was greeted by the headmaster, Mr D. Whitaker, and the head boy and head girl, Denis Chatterton and Otwen Hughes, who are with her in the picture above. Before looking around the school, Mrs Thatcher explained: “This is just an informal visit. I was unable to present the prizes at the school prize-giving, recently, and I am making this visit as a substitute.” The visit came at a time when the future of Woodhouse School is again the subject of controversy. Plans for a merger with Friern Barnet County School and Christ Church School are in the pipeline, with Woodhouse School planned as a sixth-form college. But Mrs Thatcher refused to discuss the situation. “I am no longer Minister for Education,” she said. Copyright © Margaret Thatcher Foundation 2024. All Rights Reserved.

right

speech etc mrs margaret thatcher mp finchley friern barnet education minister informal visit woodhouse school north finchley thursday greet headmaster mr d whitaker head boy head girl deni chatterton otwen hughe picture look school mrs thatcher explain informal visit unable present prize school prizegiving recently make visit substitute visit come time future woodhouse school subject controversy plan merger friern barnet county school christ church school pipeline woodhouse school plan sixthform college mrs thatcher refuse discuss situation long minister education say copyright margaret thatcher foundation right reserve

Speeches, etc. Heavy demands have been made on the time of Finchley's ex-Education Minister and Shadow Environment Minister Mrs. Margaret Thatcher. In the next few days she will be playing a key role in the Tories' campaign assault: speaking in East Anglia and North London and being led into endless television and radio debates. But she will not ignore Finchley: the constituency which has returned her to Westminster for the last 15 years. She stressed this during a Press conference at the Finchley and Friern and Barnet Conservative Party headquarters in Ballards Lane, North Finchley, on Tuesday morning. This week she will spend a day in Norfolk and a day in North London where she will give support to other Tory candidates. But the demands of the media could be greater as election coverage grows. Already she has to record a party political broadcast and comments for the BBC Radio 4 programme, “Election Call.” She will also appear on the London Weekend programme, “Weekend World.” this Sunday. But she says she still has the energy to meet such demands and repeat her vigorous campaign of last February. Canvassing sessions will be carried out when she is in the district and she will still be able to meet the people. “People do talk,” she said. “There are always questions as people are aware of what is being said from the television and the newspapers. “The real strain is on the voice,” said Mrs. Thatcher. “You spend the whole day talking and then there is probably a speech to do in the evening.” Although she has not been a Cabinet Minister for six months, life is still hectic. “There has always been the likelihood of an election and the feeling that everything would have to be done again.” she said. Mrs. Thatcher believed that the minority Government would last out 18 months. However, the election, she said, had been called because the Left Wing were in command. The work of the “extremists” was stressed in her adoption speech on Monday evening and will be repeated in her public meetings and High Road shopping area walkabouts. “Basically,” she said, “it will be the same kind of campaign as we ran last time.” For the record, Mrs. Thatcher had the lowest majority in her career in February's crisis General Election but this was due to changes in the constituency border rather than a loss in support. That majority may be cut or increased on October 10—but the mood of her adoption meeting on Monday evening was that she would be returned to Westminster. However, she was preaching to the converted. [end p1] (2) Finchley Times, 27 September 1974 Ask Mrs Margaret Thatcher whether she believes she will be the first woman at Number 10, and she dismisses the idea as “too airy-fairy.” But the fact is that the Conservative candidate for Finchley and Friern Barnet, a past Secretary of State for Education and Science and Shadow spokesman on the Environment, is one of the foremost British politicians. She has been returned as Finchley's Member of Parliament since 1959—and despite her protests many still believe she will be our first woman Prime Minister. Mrs Thatcher makes no apologies for keeping her campaign in Finchley almost entirely on national rather than local issues. “In the end this must be the right thing to do. I always run the same kind of campaign, centred on policies. If you avoid the issues, they catch up on you.” Even so, she is spending all but two days in the run-up to the election inside the Finchley constituency, and she is concerned with the lack of open space in the area. “As a spokesman on the environment. I know it is just not enough to provide people with housing without leaving them facilities for recreation.” She added: “I have tried to get to meet people in every centre of the constituency, but we have no plans to have additional speakers at my public meetings. “The people of Finchley are entitled to see their candidate, and we always enjoy very constructive and positive meetings with at least half an hour of questions at the close.” When asked whether she thought the second election in a year was really necessary, she said: “I thought at first the administration would run for about 18 months, but only if the Labour Party were prepared to accept the restrictions imposed on them by the electorate. Now there is no doubt in my mind that they are being dominated by their Left Wing.” She says that she has not come against much apathy among the voters of Finchley, because there has been an acceptance of a second election for several months now. “The electorate won't want a third one, though you have to consider the possibility that nobody will get a clear majority. You cannot avoid the issue.” Mrs Thatcher said she valued the results of canvassing in the High Streets. “They ask you questions on all the political developments from the latest news bulletin.” Mrs Thatcher, speaking on the possibility of a coalition. said: “If the Conservatives were the largest party, but without a majority, we should actively seek the cooperation of those who believe in a free society and are prepared to work and put Britain first.” Copyright © Margaret Thatcher Foundation 2024. All Rights Reserved.

right

speech etc heavy demand time finchley exeducation minister shadow environment minister mrs margaret thatcher day play key role tory campaign assault speak east anglia north london lead endless television radio debate ignore finchley constituency return westminster year stress press conference finchley friern barnet conservative party headquarters ballards lane north finchley tuesday morning week spend day norfolk day north london support tory candidate demand medium great election coverage grow record party political broadcast comment bbc radio programme election appear london weekend programme weekend world sunday say energy meet demand repeat vigorous campaign february canvass session carry district able meet people people talk say question people aware say television newspaper real strain voice say mrs thatcher spend day talk probably speech evening cabinet minister month life hectic likelihood election feeling say mrs thatcher believe minority government month election say call left wing command work extremist stress adoption speech monday evening repeat public meeting high road shopping area walkabout basically say kind campaign run time record mrs thatcher low majority career februarys crisis general election change constituency border loss support majority cut increase october mood adoption meeting monday evening return westminster preach converted end finchley time september ask mrs margaret thatcher believe woman number dismiss idea airyfairy fact conservative candidate finchley friern barnet past secretary state education science shadow spokesman environment foremost british politician return finchley member parliament despite protest believe woman prime minister mrs thatcher make apology keep campaign finchley entirely national local issue end right thing run kind campaign centre policy avoid issue catch spend day runup election inside finchley constituency concerned lack open space area spokesman environment know provide people housing leave facility recreation add try meet people centre constituency plan additional speaker public meeting people finchley entitle candidate enjoy constructive positive meeting half hour question close ask think second election year necessary say think administration run month labour party prepared accept restriction impose electorate doubt mind dominate left wing say come apathy voter finchley acceptance second election month electorate will not want consider possibility clear majority avoid issue mrs thatcher say value result canvass high street ask question political development late news bulletin mrs thatcher speak possibility coalition say conservative large party majority actively seek cooperation believe free society prepared work britain copyright margaret thatcher foundation right reserve

Speeches, etc. Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, Well, you might have called the reception outside just a little warm! Fortunately, there are a great deal of our people as well who have a genuinely warm reception of the kind we Conservatives come to know and experience from meetings largely of Conservative friends. It's said, Mr Chairman, that André Gide once opened a lecture by saying this: ‘All this has been said before, but since nobody listened to it enough, it must be said again.’ Now in a way, that sounds just like an election campaign, because, as you know, we were here in this very hall just about three weeks ago saying, sorting out some of the issues upon which the election will be fought. And here we are tonight within a few hours of making what will be the most crucial decision made in this country for the next quarter of a century. Of course it has been about prices and jobs and standard of living and all the economic things, but this election is about even more than the cost of the shopping basket. It really is about our fundamental freedoms and the future of our whole way of life in this country [applause]. And at the end of it, there will either be a Labour Government or a Conservative Government. And, Mr Chairman, there are three ways of ensuring the return of a Labour Government. One is by voting Labour, another is by voting Liberal, and a third in other parts of the country is by voting Nationalist. There is only one way of ensuring the return of a Conservative Government, a Government that has no Socialism in it, and that is by voting Conservative and that is what we are asking you to do tomorrow [applause]. Do you know, some of those people outside from the extreme left, they won't be advising any of their members to vote Conservative. Oh, no. We stand for the independence of the individual, for the fundamental freedom of the individual. They'll be advising their members to vote Labour, because it's through the Labour movement that they can best achieve their extreme left-wing objectives [applause]. Since we met in this hall about three weeks ago, I've travelled many miles, visiting many constituencies, and we find everywhere we go that there is an overwhelming feeling throughout the country that it's time for a change. People say ‘Look, we can't go on like this. We can't go on as we are. We don't like the decline in Britain. We don't like our neighbours overseas doing very much better than we are. We don't like it that Britain has fallen in the prestige of nations.’ And so frequently they say to me, ‘Give us back our national pride.’ [Hear, hear] That of course is part of the objective of a Conservative Government. Change is coming, because we just must in fact stop the slide and slither and steady downhill which has continually gone on under Labour. I think myself that it's no accident that it has occurred, but just let's look for a moment and see what has in fact happened. And we certainly can't blame it onto world conditions, because other nations have done so much better than we have in the identical world conditions that we have faced. But the slither and slide which is … is the result of, I think, the most disastrous record of five years this country's had in the post-war period, has resulted in doubling [end p1] of prices, and just remember when our opponents say that they have practically got inflation licked and it's just below 10%;, that 10%; today is 10%; of double the prices that existed when we Conservatives were in power and that's a lot more in pounds, in terms of pounds in your pocket. For they have doubled the prices. They talk about jobs, but it's they in fact who have doubled unemployment, not we the Conservatives. We have a very, very good record in the post-war period on unemployment. You know that income taxation has reached record levels, and you know full well that the understanding with the TUC finally collapsed in the most vicious industrial strife which this country's ever seen. They then invite this country to carry on in that downward direction. It's as if, somehow, they're prepared to accept decline as inevitable. Ladies and gentlemen, we are not prepared to accept decline for Britain as inevitable. We wish to change it and we shall change it [applause]. We don't believe that Britain's days of vigour, imagination and courage are over, or that we must simply accept things as we are. How could we say to our old people, ‘Look, I'm sorry, you must look forward to another five years in which the value of your savings are to be halved’? Because that's what's happened under the present regime. How could we say to our young people, ‘Well, things aren't very good, but you can't really expect anything better’? Because at the moment we have over 500,000 of our young people under 25 without a job. So we cannot accept the decline. Nor can we accept that Labour has any of the answers, because if they have had them, isn't it astonishing that they haven't put them into effect in the last five years? [applause] But looking back even further, we must remember that Labour has ruled the country for eleven out of fifteen years, and we really have had a very long time of Socialist philosophy prevailing in this country. It's a philosophy of big government, big battalions, big taxation, big bureaucracy, until the individual says, ‘Goodness me, do I count for anything? Can I make any of my own decisions? Am I entitled to keep the fruits of my own labour in my own pocket to look after my own children?’ And today, people long to be protected from the big battalions, and the world over there is a revolt against heavy taxation by government, there is a revolt against big government, and it is happening too in this country. As a result of that eleven out of fifteen years travelling in a Socialist direction, it seems as if we are often headed for a different destination than the destination of most of the Western democracies. They have increasing prosperity, with far more of their own money in their own pockets and their own decisions to make. We have prosperity that is not increasing and a diminishing number of decisions to make for ourselves and increasing power by the politicians. Well, you know there have been a number of people who used to be in the Labour party who have had something to say about this recently. Because one of the outstanding features of the last few years, and particularly the last year, has been the number of former distinguished Labour politicians who have said virtually this: ‘Look, the Labour party's not what it was in the days when we belonged to it. It doesn't have the same ideals.’ And they, so many of them, from Reg Prentice, Dick Marsh, the latest one Alf Robens, have said, ‘It is the Conservative party now which represents [end p2] the ideals of the idealist man and woman in this country and of those who wish to see everyone better off.’ [applause] In the last few days, Lord Robens joined the increasing number of people who have left the Labour party and are advising people next time to vote Conservative. He came out with a very telling statement. He said things which I couldn't say, because I don't know quite as well as he does what goes on inside that party. But I don't think his statement has seen quite enough publicity. I am just going to quote one or two parts of it, because it's extremely telling. He said he'd been asked several times about the difference between the Labour Government under Attlee in which he was proud to serve and the Labour Government at present. And he said this. He said, ‘In the Attlee days, the leaders were giants. Today they are pygmies.’ [applause] His words, not mine. He went on to say. ‘Ernest Bevin was Foreign Secretary and Herbert Morrison, Leader of the House. Compare these with David Owen and Michael Foot.’ [laughter and applause] He went on to say the comparison was odious. I thought you signalled that from your applause. He went on to say, ‘No wonder there are defections from the Labour party by people who have served for upwards of fifty years.’ They know that if Labour wins this election, we are heading for the corporate state. And with the abolition of the second chamber, the House of Lords, we are heading for the possibility of a Marxist-dominated Parliament prolonging its life from year to year [applause]. Just two more bits which are worth repeating. He said, ‘The dominant Communist aim is and has been all my political life,’ that was his political life, ‘to secure power. The Communists have failed miserably in free democratic elections but they can get their way by the back door.’ He went on to say, ‘Ernest Bevin, Deakin, et cetera, the union leaders around Attlee, fought the Communists and won. The Communists changed their tack. They started to infiltrate the unions, gain power, and bend the policies of the Labour party.’ And he said, ‘They have largely succeeded.’ He went on to speak about the disastrous winter and the strikes we have just lived through, and he said this, ‘This is no coincidence, it is a deliberate policy’. He said, ‘Income tax, food prices, the different way the tax payers' money can be handled are important, but this election is about whether we are putting our own freedom at risk.’ Now that is what he said. And finally he said, ‘If the citizens of Britain prize their freedom and want to conserve it, then they must vote Conservative this time.’ [applause] Now, I must point out that some of that is phrased in far more vigorous language than I could use. I should be accused of all sorts of things if I used such vigorous language as pygmies. I mean, truth is neither here nor there in these matters apparently. I quote that because it came from a person who served the old Labour party and served it well for many, many years, but who now advises to vote Conservative. And I think he did it because he like many, many others appreciates the basis upon which our policies are founded. Because, being Conservative, we found our policies on fundamental individual rights, the rights of families, the rights of men and women and their families, to lead their own lives in their own way with minimum interference by the state, but under a rule of law, under the firm protection of the government and the independence of the judges. So we see the process of recovery in Britain, the recovery of Britain, as the work of individuals. [end p3] Now, we often are asked what sort of things do we believe in, in simple terms, because we Conservatives reckon we are the party of one nation. It doesn't matter what your background is, where you come from. If you want to use your own talents, be responsible for your own families, work jolly hard and be prepared to help your neighbour, we're the party for you. The great majority of us like to do our job well. We feel we are performing a useful service or producing goods other people are glad to pay for. We don't mind hard work, but we expect to be rewarded accordingly. We strive to put a bit by and to see it grow. Our aim is to do the best we can for our families, and, if possible, to ensure that our children have wider opportunities and better prospects than we had ourselves. These, we believe, are the ordinary, healthy ambitions of naturally responsible people and these are precisely the aims the Conservative party is striving for [applause]. Let's just go through them; just rewards for inventiveness, energy, foresight and skills; incentives for saving; the creation of real jobs, paid in real money, not confetti money; a nation safe from foreign attack, which stands resolutely in the world for what it knows to be right. Now, those are our aims and objectives, those are the sort of people whom we think should have more support than they have under Socialism. Now, what are the policies by which we shall seek these ends? They have in fact been spelt out in the campaign. Let me summarise them and then go through a number of them because, you know, throughout this campaign we Conservatives have fought on the positive policies for the future, because elections are about the future of our country and our children and grandchildren. Let me summarise them: reductions in personal tax; simple reforms of trade union law; encouragement to home ownership; the creation of conditions in which new enterprise can grow and small business prosper, in which social services are improved, new and permanent jobs established, the frontiers of state control gradually pushed back, thugs and vandals firmly dealt with [applause]; immigration controlled, yes, but in the best interests of racial harmony, and our national defences rebuilt. Now, let me say a few words about most of those things. I want everyone to be quite clear about the positive policies which we Conservatives stand for. Let's have a look at taxation. Now, over-taxation is really transparently foolish. This Government has over-taxed its people, it's over-taxed the pay packet. Now, most of us are willing to work for our families and neighbours, but we are really not so willing to work for the Chancellor of the Exchequer although a lot of us do a lot of it already [applause]. In a free country, people will work hard if it pays them to do so. Present taxes are so high that for many it is not worthwhile working hard and for some it's not worthwhile working at all. So the first step to recovery therefore is to lower tax on earnings. Now, the rumour has been put about that it's only people on top earnings who will gain. What nonsense! We need to cut the tax on earnings at all levels of earnings, because the characteristic of this Government has been very high taxation on very low earnings and high taxation on comparatively low pensions income. I was in Putney the other day, and I was told of the case of a widowed lady, aged 64, income of £24 a week—not exactly a fortune—made up partly of the national insurance pension, partly [end p4] of a pension which she got from working, in having an occupational pension scheme, £24. I was shown the demand for tax: £1.15 per week. Really that is a disgrace! Really it is a disgrace! She ought not to be paying tax at all. And there are many pensioners on very, very modest incomes, who will come to me and say ‘Look, I've got a bit of my own pension, I've got a bit of my own savings, I've put a bit by. It's already halved in value, but look at the tax I pay on the income I've got.’ Now, these people too will profit from Conservative reductions in taxation. And so they should, because it is they who built Britain to what it is today [applause]. So it is cutting tax on earnings and savings at all levels of income. Now, why do I put such stress on this? There is a number of reasons. First, I believe that people are entitled to more of their own money to spend in their own way. Second, I believe they spend it more economically themselves than it would be spent if it were handed over to government, go through a great big bureaucracy and rather less of it come out the other end. So it's better value for Britain. But thirdly, because unless we have those incentives, we shan't get people to worker harder, we shan't get small businesses to start up and grow and we shan't get the expansion we need, and if we don't get the expansion we need, we shall go on doing exactly what we have been doing, squabbling about how the existing shekels are parcelled out between existing groups, and that's one of the reasons why we have had such strife this last winter. So there are a number of reasons, but there is a fourth one. It is that we Conservatives believe that people are entitled to decide how their own money is spent, and that government should be very slow to go on taking more and more, because to do so means them making the choice of how our money is spent regardless of whether we want it or not. But that, of course, is Socialism, substituting government's choice over your money for your own choice about how to spend your own money yourselves. And that is why, in a way, we have had such a debate on television and radio about whether we should cut tax. About … And they don't like it when we say that you have to cut out waste in the public service. Do you remember we talked about that when I was here last time? And they don't like it when I say we might have to recoup a certain amount by, in fact, putting a little bit on VAT—not a lot, but the point is this: if money goes back into your pocket, you have the choice about how you spend it, or whether you save it, or whether you put it towards buying a house, or repaying the mortgage. If you don't have it in your pocket, you have no choice at all. And I would like to make it absolutely clear for those people who will have more in their own pockets, right across the earnings band. They may choose to spend on things which just don't attract Value Added Tax at all. You've got the money in your pocket and you're a young couple, you can say, ‘Right, that's marvellous. I can repay my mortgage more quickly, pay off the capital sum’—no Value Added Tax. If you're a housewife, you say ‘Thank goodness! I've got more to spend on food, or we can have better quality food this week’—no Value Added Tax on food. Nor will there be under a Conservative Government. Many young mothers are desperately worried about how in the world they're going to find the money to pay for the children's shoes and clothes—no Value Added Tax. And many old people are desperately worried about how in the world they'll find the money to pay for their fuel bills—no Value [end p5] Added Tax. They might want to go on a train journey to see relatives—no Value Added Tax. Some people might even want to save it—no Value Added Tax. All of those things they have a choice to do. With more money in their pocket, they may of course spend it on things which do attract more Value Added Tax, but at least they have got the choice, the choice which is denied you under Socialism, the choice which only a Conservative Government will give you [applause]. And so, of course, our top economic priority is cutting the tax on the pay packet and on savings. But, you know, every small businessman or big businessman or self-employed person who is struggling to run their own business, will start to tell you about something else, about the number of forms which have to be filled up, about the amount of time they have to spend answering requests from government, statistics that have to go in. And, really, one of our people did a very interesting calculation. In our Small Business Bureau at Conservative Central Office a thousand firms have joined, and we calculated that if every one of a thousand firms received just one ounce of government paper in the post every week for a full year, that would amount to one and a half tons of paper in all. There'd be one million pages, which would take you ten years to read [laughter]. The pile would be two hundred feet high, which is roughly thirty five Labour MPs laid end on end [laughter and applause]. And if you calculate those figures for the whole country, there are some 800,000 individual small businesses and the pile would grow to thirty miles high, and that, for the record, is 28,000 Labour MPs, ladies and gentlemen [laughter]. So, you really see, when I just put it in that way, that really I just do that as an illustration, there really is a ridiculous amount of paperwork, and every time we put that burden on our small businesses, you're taking them away from doing the job of serving the public, of going out to fetch in business, of exporting, of designing new products for tomorrow's world and competing with their competitors. That's one reason why they are finding it so difficult to live in the present Socialist world and to expand their business in accordance with their talents and ability. And you will also find that we need to set the man on the shop floor free from the man in Whitehall, because the amount of interference in big business by government has become almost excessive. You know, if you are really doing well in business and really making a good profit, so you've got good prospects for the future, sure as God made little apples—and I understand He did—you'll get the Price Commission coming in to see you. And that, in fact, again takes up all your time and stops you from looking after the subject of your business. And its very, very ironic, Mr Chairman, that during the years when we've had the Price Commission, prices have risen faster than at any other period in our history [applause]. Because the fact is, to keep prices down, you need more competition. Not more Price Commission, but more competition. Just take British Airways as an example. You know, it wasn't government who reduced air fares, it was the competition of Freddy Laker that did it! [applause]. And so, if we're to run our economy properly, if we're to get the expansion, we must start by cutting tax, and we must start, also, by cutting the amount of form filling. Now, one of the most serious problems we face is, how are we going to get jobs for our young people? Now, I do refer to genuine jobs. I know that there is a time when [end p6] they have to have artificial jobs, because to do something is better than to do nothing. But, you know, it isn't really very much prospect for a young person to say, ‘Look, you must do a totally artificial job for a time,’ when what they are longing for is a job with a company with profits with good prospects. How do we get it? Governments can't do it. Governments don't create wealth. It comes back again to these same small businesses. The small business of today is the big business of tomorrow. If you look at the big family names today, they started in a small way forty, fifty years ago, and unless you keep those new small businesses starting, where are tomorrow's big businesses? And so, all of the time, we must do every single thing to encourage today's small businesses to start, to encourage them to expand. There's been a very interesting study recently in the United States. It said that four new jobs in five—four new jobs in five—come from firms less than five years old. Now, that shows you that they are changing the whole time, that that is an enterprise society. We want ours to be an enterprising society so that we have the new jobs for our young people here. You know a party which discourages new business, stops new jobs. That's the central lesson of the five Labour years, and if we hadn't had that stoppage of new jobs, we'd have very many more jobs for our young people now. Well now, those are the policies on prices, on tax, and on jobs, and I must say one final thing about prices. I believe that if we went on as we have been under Labour, then the kind of society that we've known would be in very severe danger in the future. You just think. There would be no purpose in thrift at all or in self reliance, if every five years the value of your savings was halved. And very soon you wouldn't have people being thrifty or self-reliant. Somehow, they'd come to rely on confetti money and then they'd turn to governments for the solution to all their problems. They wouldn't find them, but they would soon become the tools of government, instead of government serving the people. So it is absolutely vital that we return to sound money. Now, can I have a look at the third thing which I mentioned? And that was trade unions, and some of the problems we have to face. Now, Mr Chairman, we spoke about this last time I was here, but quite a lot has been said about it during the course of the election campaign. Now, point number one, you can't just run away from this problem. If you do, the problems we've seen in this last winter will occur again. Now, you know, the first person who tried to tackle it was, to do him justice, Harold Wilson. He saw that during their period of Labour Government, and he had difficulty with the unions, during the 1966/1970 period, that you needed to bring in some changes in the law and he was prepared to, he published them. And who was it who said, ‘No, you can't do it,’ and saw it into the wastepaper basket? It was the present James CallaghanPrime Minister. So they had a go. We had a go between 1970 and 1974, and I think the whole history would have been different had we, in fact, won the 1974 election [applause]. Well, maybe we tried to do too much all at once, and we can't do too much all at once again. But still the problems are going on and they won't go away. Now, as you know, I offered the Prime Minister the chance so that I would support him if he would do some of the fundamental things that needed doing. He didn't. And I must tell you that I think the Labour party would find it extremely difficult to [end p7] make the requisite changes in trade union law. Why? Because 90%; of the funds of the Labour party come from trade union funds; because the trade unions control their conference, they control the National Executive of the Labour party and that is why Labour can't take the steps the country is crying out for to be taken. But we will have to take them, and I don't flinch from it in any way. We talk about this country still being a free country. What freedom is there for the man who's lost his job and his livelihood, because he refused to join a union where a closed shop had been imposed? What freedom is there for him? And under Labour, he gets no compensation for his loss of livelihood whatsoever. That was what Jim Callaghan and Michael Foot did to a chap who had jolly good jobs, done them very well and then because they didn't want to join the union, lost their job. So we, the Conservatives, shall make some changes in closed shop legislation. We shall give a right to compensation. We shall give a right to an appeal to a court of law. We shall say that you can opt out on grounds of personal conviction. We shall say that there is no right to impose a closed shop on a chap who has been employed in a business and done his job well for years. Those things will be done. They must be done if we are, in fact, to preserve the freedom and right to work of a person who wants to work and to do his job well [applause]. And that's not the end of it. You saw the picketing scenes on television. You saw the ports blockaded. You saw factories picketed, supplies unable to go in or get out, even though in that factory there was no dispute between the employer and the employees of any kind whatsoever. And so we must change the law on secondary picketing, the law on picketing. People have a right to go about their lawful business [applause]. People have a right to go about their lawful business without let or hindrance. That too, the law on picketing, we must change. But then, you know, if you go up and down the country, you will get a tremendous number of people coming to you and saying, ‘Well, we didn't want to go on strike, but we weren't consulted, we weren't consulted at all.’ And sometimes when you do see them consulted, they have to go into a great big public meeting in a field and suffer the courage of having to put up their hand to indicate their view when they know it might be unpopular with their mates around them. Ladies and gentlemen, that's once how Members of Parliament were elected, until in fact Parliament said, ‘This isn't fair. People must be able to do it by secret ballot that no-one can get at.’ And so we Conservatives shall offer, for the taxpayer to pay, I will say the taxpayer, but it will be money very well spent, to pay for postal ballots for the election of union officials and for any other vitally important decisions which they have to take, so that those members of trade unions have the same right as we have in parliamentary elections, to make their vote in private, where no-one else can see, and no-one else can know how they have voted, and therefore it cannot affect or influence their own particular personal future in any way. That, too, we shall do. Ladies and gentlemen, in doing it, we shall have the vast majority of trade union members with us, because they too … [applause]. Can I just deal, quickly, with two other areas? We are finding a tremendous response all over the country from many of the municipal housing estates because people there [end p8] are being … We always have rival speeches when the television chaps are here! Now, don't worry! They've got their job to do. It's all right, all right. We'll just have a little bit of competition, that's all. That's all! You don't have to shoot any more if you've got enough! [laughter and applause]. You've just got to get used to it. It's a running commentary in the background. Now, where were we? Housing—a tremendous response from the municipal housing estates. Why? Because we're giving them an opportunity they've never had before, an opportunity to become home owners, the first stage towards being a mini-capitalist [applause]. Very good, first stage towards being a mini-capitalist! And we want more mini-capitalists. They're proud independent people and they can't be shoved around by the government as much as those who have no resources behind them at all. And so they're having an extra opportunity. Ooh, they'll never get it from … they'll never get it from a Labour Government. We find council estate after council estate where people had applied with Conservative local authorities to purchase their houses, and then Peter Shore, the Labour Secretary of State for the Environment, went and stopped it. And I say to them, ‘Well, after you've got a Conservative Government, we will start it again and you shall have the very chance they have denied you.’ [applause] But again, you see, it all stems from a totally different attitude on the part of Labour Governments and Conservative Governments. Labour Governments want people to be dependent upon government for more and more and more, to be dependent on them for subsidies for jobs, to be dependent upon them for houses, to be dependent upon them for which schools their children can go to and they attempt to deny choice by denying variety in schools. Because Labour wants people to be dependent on government, and we believe you get a proud people when you get more and more people independent of government, with their own houses, with their own savings, with their own pensions and able to live in their own way. So we're getting a tremendous response from that and I hope also in this constituency, where we shall have a new generation of home owners because of steps we've taken. Now, Mr Chairman, I'm … we're going on just a little bit, but I haven't had time to talk to you as much as I normally do in an election, which may be a mixed blessing for you, but never mind. Let's just talk about something else that has loomed quite large in the election. There have been a number of suggestions about what Conservatives would do with pensions. Well, let me tell you what Conservatives are going to do with pensions. There are five things straightaway that I can tell you about. First, if prices go up, pensions will go up to protect the value of pensions against price increases. So with any increases in prices our old age pensioners need not worry. It will be picked up in the pension increase, so they are in fact protected against increase in prices. As a matter of fact, we did even better than that when we were in government last time. Sir Keith Joseph, whom they always try to paint as a rather hard-faced person, was in fact one of the best Secretaries of State for Social Security we ever had. He introduced a number of things into pensions, but also he managed to keep the value of retirement pensions abreast not only of the cost of living but actually of average earnings. Now, being a modest man, he didn't boast about it, unlike [end p9] Labour, who are apt to boast about anything which they do, but we in fact have the record of keeping them up with average earnings. As far as the increase in November which has already been announced is concerned, it will of course be carried into effect. So, point number one, if pensions go up … if prices go up, pensions will go up to take it into account, and we'll hope to do better than that and keep it fully abreast with earnings. Point number two: there is something which many of you have been on to me about for some time called the earnings rule. You know what it is. If pensioners earn a little bit after retirement then there comes a time when every extra pound they earn is docked off their pension. That will be abolished over the lifetime of a Parliament so our older folk can go out and earn something if they wish, earn a little more if they wish and keep it in their own pockets without having their pensions docked. That's point number two. Point number three: we shall continue to pay the annual Christmas bonus. We, the Conservatives, introduced it. It's not a Labour measure at all. We Conservatives introduced it. Fourth, we shall exempt the pensions of war widows from tax altogether. That is the least we can do [applause]. And fifth, of course, pensioners would benefit from the reductions in income tax. So that in fact is our policy for pensioners. It is a good policy and I hope that by this time it has got home to everyone. They will of course also benefit, as will everyone else, from the increased emphasis that we shall give to the importance of maintaining law and order through maximum support of the police and the judges in the difficult role which they have to perform [applause]. There was during the election, Mr Chairman, a very interesting incident which some of you might have seen on television. The dialogue went like this: Mum: ‘What about bright youngsters?’ Shirley WilliamsSecretary of State for Education: ‘They don't do any worse in comprehensive schools.’ Mum: ‘In this area, believe you me, they do.’ I may say that we have some very good ones, but she had a problem one. Secretary of State for Education: ‘Believe me, love, I've got the figures, and I know you're wrong.’ Mum: ‘Well, I've got the children.’ [laughter and applause] Now, you see the point. You can't tackle a policy for education by saying, ‘You're going to have one sort of school and nothing else and you've got to go to it. Doesn't matter if it's not the right school for your child, doesn't matter if your child would benefit from going to a smaller school. If they're not available, I'm very sorry, you can't go to them.’ Now, we tackle this first, where the grammar schools still exist, by keeping them, and second, by restoring the direct grant schools which, as you know, are a mixture of free places and places which are paid for according to income, and thirdly by saying, ‘Look, if we've got a child that really is not getting a good education locally, when really it has great gifts, then let's, for heaven's sake see that that child is [end p10] sent to an independent school and find a free place for that child.’ Isn't it better to do justice to the children than to the dogma of Socialist politicians? [applause] Now, those are some of the policy measures by which we shall implement the objectives that we have. I want just finally to have a word on a different aspect. Much of politics is fought about what you might call the economic factors or the material factors, and sometimes too little attention is given to the moral factors. But you know, in the end, it's the moral factors which decide the status and pride of a nation. Sometimes our opponents try to claim that they have the moral case. I've never understood this, because theirs is the case for compulsion, and I've never seen what's moral in compulsion. I've never seen what's moral in claiming and boasting that you can spend other peoples money better than they can. Never. So let me try to prove that the moral case is on the side of the free society, because, you know, it really is. It so happens that the economic success of the Western world, as against the Communist world, comes from freedom, because if people are free to do things for themselves you find they do more. And then the whole standard of living rises, because if you get the benefit from your own efforts, the whole standard of living goes up, and you get … you get the economic results. I was always very amused when one of our very human economists—and they're not all human [laughter]—said, ‘You know, those who've done most for the world have seldom been those whom their neighbours would have picked out as likely for the work.’ Well, it often happens, but in a free society, they in fact come to the top as a result of their own effort. But the fact is [shuffling papers]—we're trying to drop masses and masses and masses of manuscript!—if you have freedom, you have the chance to exercise your abilities. You only become a responsible person by making decisions. You need a society of responsible people and for that you must allow them to make their decisions themselves. Socialism tends … tries to deny that choice. Choice really is the basis of being able to make decisions, and ultimately you'll find that Socialism leads to total coercion, to making decisions for you, instead of being able to make the decisions for yourself. Socialism will impose many, many, many detailed laws, and the more it seeks to impose its authority, the less respect that authority receives, and you can see just exactly what is happening in taxation. The more living standards are squeezed by taxation, the greater is the temptation to evade that taxation. Now, that's what's happening now. The more you've got the coercion on, the more you have to pay more and more in tax, the more people turn to say, ‘All right, I'll take it in cash,’ and then they don't return it. And we that were once an honest nation in tax matters, have lived to see one of the Inland Revenue officials say he thought there was some eight thousand million pounds which was escaping income tax. So you get the coercion, you get people trying to get round it, because they want to profit their families, and so your whole standard of honesty declines because the burden put on you by Socialism was too high and the policy was basically wrong. The more pay and prices are controlled, the more those controls were somehow avoided, because somehow businesses had to run. It was no earthly good people telling them they couldn't pay a certain amount … [end p11] couldn't pay more than a certain amount for a skilled engineer if they needed a skilled engineer. The more controls you put on, the more people try to evade them, the less the state's authority has respect, and the lower and lower become the standard of honesty in your society. And so you really do get the case for … the moral case is the case for the free society. It not only produces better benefits, but it does enable you to do things on your own responsibility, in your own way and it does enable a much higher standard, a moral standard, to be achieved, and so I think we should too proclaim that. Now, as tomorrow approaches, the choice is clear. It really is towards a state which I believe will be totally alien to what Britons want. To a more and more state-controlled state, state-controlled people, more and more controls and I believe a heavier and heavier burden of taxation. Our way is totally different. Our way is towards a much freer state, lesser tax, more decisions made on the spot, more decisions made by people who know the job and the work they're doing, and that is truly the better way, truly the better way [applause]. Our way is the path to freedom. It is also the path to the rule of law, because when I hear the Prime Minister talking about a free for all, I just have gently to remind some of his colleagues of this fact. You cannot have freedom unless you have the law, a rule of law, very, very strongly enforced, and that is the only enforcement government is really entitled to do. You must have the law strongly enforced. You cannot have freedom except under a rule of law. So it's no accident that we're the law and order party, but we're also the freedom party. Both, and both I believe are what our people want. Mr Chairman, you know one of our great former politicians said this. ‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.’ A very telling remark. So everyone must come out and vote tomorrow for the most crucial decision that we shall have to take in the next 25 years. What Edmund Burke said is even more true today. I was just quoting from him, but it was 200 years ago. The price of liberty is always unceasing courage and underlying vigilance. We must keep those liberties, we must keep those liberties under the law, and tomorrow that nation will have its opportunity to demonstrate that courage and that vigilance. And I hope that it will take it by voting Conservative for the future of our children and grandchildren [applause]. Copyright © Margaret Thatcher Foundation 2024. All Rights Reserved.

right

speech etc mr chairman lady gentleman call reception outside little warm fortunately great deal people genuinely warm reception kind conservative come know experience meeting largely conservative friend say mr chairman andré gide open lecture say say listen say way sound like election campaign know hall week ago say sort issue election fight tonight hour make crucial decision country quarter century course price job standard living economic thing election cost shopping basket fundamental freedom future way life country applause end labour government conservative government mr chairman way ensure return labour government vote labour vote liberal part country vote nationalist way ensure return conservative government government socialism vote conservative ask tomorrow applause know people outside extreme left will not advise member vote conservative oh stand independence individual fundamental freedom individual ll advise member vote labour labour movement well achieve extreme leftwe objective applause meet hall week ago ve travel mile visit constituency find overwhelming feeling country time change people look not like not not like decline britain not like neighbour overseas well not like britain fall prestige nation frequently national pride hear hear course objective conservative government change come fact stop slide slither steady downhill continually go labour think accident occur let look moment fact happen certainly not blame world condition nation well identical world condition face slither slide result think disastrous record year country postwar period result double end price remember opponent practically get inflation lick today double price exist conservative power s lot pound term pound pocket double price talk job fact double unemployment conservative good record postwar period unemployment know income taxation reach record level know understanding tuc finally collapse vicious industrial strife country see invite country carry downward direction prepared accept decline inevitable lady gentleman prepared accept decline britain inevitable wish change shall change applause not believe britain day vigour imagination courage simply accept thing old people look m sorry look forward year value saving halve s s happen present regime young people thing not good not expect well moment young people job accept decline accept labour answer not astonishing not effect year applause look remember labour rule country year long time socialist philosophy prevail country philosophy big government big battalion big taxation big bureaucracy individual say goodness count decision entitle fruit labour pocket look child today people long protect big battalion world revolt heavy taxation government revolt big government happen country result year travel socialist direction head different destination destination western democracy increase prosperity far money pocket decision prosperity increase diminish number decision increase power politician know number people labour party recently outstanding feature year particularly year number distinguished labour politician say virtually look labour party day belong not ideal reg prentice dick marsh late alf roben say conservative party represent end ideal idealist man woman country wish well applause day lord roben join increase number people leave labour party advise people time vote conservative come telling statement say thing not not know go inside party not think statement see publicity go quote part extremely tell say d ask time difference labour government attlee proud serve labour government present say say attlee day leader giant today pygmy applause word go ernest bevin foreign secretary herbert morrison leader house compare david owen michael foot laughter applause go comparison odious think signal applause go wonder defection labour party people serve upwards year know labour win election head corporate state abolition second chamber house lord head possibility marxistdominated parliament prolong life year year applause bit worth repeat say dominant communist aim political life political life secure power communist fail miserably free democratic election way door go ernest bevin deakin et cetera union leader attlee fight communist win communist change tack start infiltrate union gain power bend policy labour party say largely succeed go speak disastrous winter strike live say coincidence deliberate policy say income tax food price different way tax payer money handle important election put freedom risk say finally say citizen britain prize freedom want conserve vote conservative time applause point phrase far vigorous language use accuse sort thing vigorous language pygmy mean truth matter apparently quote come person serve old labour party serve year advise vote conservative think like appreciate basis policy found conservative find policy fundamental individual right right family right man woman family lead life way minimum interference state rule law firm protection government independence judge process recovery britain recovery britain work individual end ask sort thing believe simple term conservative reckon party nation not matter background come want use talent responsible family work jolly hard prepared help neighbour party great majority like job feel perform useful service produce good people glad pay not mind hard work expect reward accordingly strive bit grow aim good family possible ensure child wide opportunity well prospect believe ordinary healthy ambition naturally responsible people precisely aim conservative party strive applause let reward inventiveness energy foresight skill incentive save creation real job pay real money confetti money nation safe foreign attack stand resolutely world know right aim objective sort people think support socialism policy shall seek end fact spell campaign let summarise number know campaign conservative fight positive policy future election future country child grandchild let summarise reduction personal tax simple reform trade union law encouragement home ownership creation condition new enterprise grow small business prosper social service improve new permanent job establish frontier state control gradually push thug vandal firmly deal applause immigration control yes good interest racial harmony national defence rebuild let word thing want clear positive policy conservative stand let look taxation overtaxation transparently foolish government overtax people overtax pay packet willing work family neighbour willing work chancellor exchequer lot lot applause free country people work hard pay present taxis high worthwhile work hard worthwhile work step recovery low tax earning rumour people earning gain nonsense need cut tax earning level earning characteristic government high taxation low earning high taxation comparatively low pension income putney day tell case widow lady age income week exactly fortune partly national insurance pension partly end pension get work have occupational pension scheme show demand tax week disgrace disgrace ought pay tax pensioner modest income come look ve get bit pension ve get bit saving ve bit halve value look tax pay income ve get people profit conservative reduction taxation build britain today applause cut tax earning saving level income stress number reason believe people entitle money spend way second believe spend economically spend hand government great big bureaucracy come end well value britain thirdly incentive shall not people worker hard sha not small business start grow sha not expansion need not expansion need shall exactly squabbling exist shekel parcel exist group s reason strife winter number reason fourth conservative believe people entitle decide money spend government slow take mean make choice money spend regardless want course socialism substitute government choice money choice spend money way debate television radio cut tax not like cut waste public service remember talk time not like recoup certain fact put little bit vat lot point money go pocket choice spend save buy house repay mortgage not pocket choice like absolutely clear people pocket right earning band choose spend thing not attract value add tax ve get money pocket young couple right s marvellous repay mortgage quickly pay capital value add tax housewife thank goodness ve get spend food well quality food value add tax food conservative government young mother desperately worried world go find money pay children shoe clothe value add tax old people desperately worried world ll find money pay fuel bill value end add tax want train journey relative value add tax people want save value add tax thing choice money pocket course spend thing attract value add tax get choice choice deny socialism choice conservative government applause course economic priority cut tax pay packet saving know small businessman big businessman selfemploye person struggle run business start tell number form fill time spend answer request government statistic people interesting calculation small business bureau conservative central office thousand firm join calculate thousand firm receive ounce government paper post week year half ton paper d million page year read laughter pile foot high roughly thirty labour mp lay end end laughter applause calculate figure country individual small business pile grow thirty mile high record labour mp lady gentleman laughter way illustration ridiculous paperwork time burden small business take away job serve public go fetch business export design new product tomorrow world compete competitor s reason find difficult live present socialist world expand business accordance talent ability find need set man shop floor free man whitehall interference big business government excessive know business make good profit ve get good prospect future sure god little apple understand youll price commission come fact take time stop look subject business ironic mr chairman year ve price commission price rise fast period history applause fact price need competition price commission competition british airway example know not government reduce air fare competition freddy laker applause run economy properly expansion start cut tax start cut form fill problem face go job young people refer genuine job know time end artificial job well know not prospect young person look totally artificial job time long job company profit good prospect government not government not create wealth come small business small business today big business tomorrow look big family name today start small way year ago new small business start tomorrow big business time single thing encourage today small business start encourage expand s interesting study recently united states say new job new job come firm year old show change time enterprise society want enterprising society new job young people know party discourage new business stop new job s central lesson labour year not stoppage new job d job young people policy price tax job final thing price believe go labour kind society ve know severe danger future think purpose thrift self reliance year value saving halve soon not people thrifty selfreliant d come rely confetti money d turn government solution problem not find soon tool government instead government serve people absolutely vital return sound money look thing mention trade union problem face mr chairman speak time lot say course election campaign point number not run away problem problem ve see winter occur know person try tackle justice harold wilson see period labour government difficulty union period need bring change law prepared publish say not see wastepaper basket present james callaghanprime minister think history different fact win election applause maybe try not problem go will not away know offer prime minister chance support fundamental thing need not tell think labour party find extremely difficult end requisite change trade union law fund labour party come trade union fund trade union control conference control national executive labour party labour not step country cry take not flinch way talk country free country freedom man s lose job livelihood refuse join union closed shop impose freedom labour get compensation loss livelihood whatsoever jim callaghan michael foot chap jolly good job not want join union lose job conservative shall change closed shop legislation shall right compensation shall right appeal court law shall opt ground personal conviction shall right impose closed shop chap employ business job year thing fact preserve freedom right work person want work job applause s end see picket scene television see port blockade see factory picket supply unable factory dispute employer employee kind whatsoever change law secondary picketing law picket people right lawful business applause people right lawful business let hindrance law picketing change know country tremendous number people come say not want strike not consult not consult consult great big public meeting field suffer courage have hand indicate view know unpopular mate lady gentleman s member parliament elect fact parliament say not fair people able secret ballot conservative shall offer taxpayer pay taxpayer money spend pay postal ballot election union official vitally important decision member trade union right parliamentary election vote private know vote affect influence particular personal future way shall lady gentleman shall vast majority trade union member applause deal quickly area find tremendous response country municipal housing estate people end rival speech television chap not worry ve get job right right little bit competition s s not shoot ve get laughter applause ve get running commentary background housing tremendous response municipal housing estate give opportunity ve opportunity home owner stage minicapitalist applause good stage minicapitalist want minicapitalist proud independent people not shove government resource have extra opportunity ooh ll ll labour government find council estate council estate people apply conservative local authority purchase house peter shore labour secretary state environment go stop ve get conservative government start shall chance deny applause stem totally different attitude labour government conservative government labour government want people dependent government dependent subsidy job dependent house dependent school child attempt deny choice deny variety school labour want people dependent government believe proud people people independent government house saving pension able live way get tremendous response hope constituency shall new generation home owner step ve take mr chairman m go little bit not time talk normally election mixed blessing mind let talk loom large election number suggestion conservative pension let tell conservative go pension thing straightaway tell price pension protect value pension price increase increase price old age pensioner need worry pick pension increase fact protect increase price matter fact well government time sir keith joseph try paint hardfaced person fact good secretary state social security introduce number thing pension manage value retirement pension abreast cost live actually average earning modest man not boast unlike end labour apt boast fact record keep average earning far increase november announce concern course carry effect point number pension price pension account hope well fully abreast earning point number time call earning rule know pensioner earn little bit retirement come time extra pound earn dock pension abolish lifetime parliament old folk earn wish earn little wish pocket have pension dock s point number point number shall continue pay annual christmas bonus conservative introduce labour measure conservative introduce fourth shall exempt pension war widow tax altogether applause fifth course pensioner benefit reduction income tax fact policy pensioner good policy hope time get home course benefit increase emphasis shall importance maintain law order maximum support police judge difficult role perform applause election mr chairman interesting incident see television dialogue go like mum bright youngster shirley williamssecretary state education not bad comprehensive school mum area believe good one problem secretary state education believe love ve get figure know wrong mum ve get child laughter applause point not tackle policy education say go sort school ve get not matter right school child not matter child benefit go small school available m sorry not tackle grammar school exist keep second restore direct grant school know mixture free place place pay accord income thirdly say look ve get child get good education locally great gift let heavens sake child end send independent school find free place child not well justice child dogma socialist politician applause policy measure shall implement objective want finally word different aspect politic fight economic factor material factor little attention give moral factor know end moral factor decide status pride nation opponent try claim moral case ve understand theirs case compulsion ve see s moral compulsion ve see s moral claim boasting spend people money well let try prove moral case free society know happen economic success western world communist world come freedom people free thing find standard living rise benefit effort standard living go economic result amuse human economist human laughter say know ve world seldom neighbour pick likely work happen free society fact come result effort fact shuffle paper try drop masse masse masse manuscript freedom chance exercise ability responsible person make decision need society responsible people allow decision socialism tend try deny choice choice basis able decision ultimately ll find socialism lead total coercion make decision instead able decision socialism impose detailed law seek impose authority respect authority receive exactly happen taxation living standard squeeze taxation great temptation evade taxation s s happen ve get coercion pay tax people turn right ill cash not return honest nation tax matter live inland revenue official think thousand million pound escape income tax coercion people try round want profit family standard honesty decline burden socialism high policy basically wrong pay price control control avoid business run earthly good people tell not pay certain end not pay certain skilled engineer need skilled engineer control people try evade state authority respect low low standard honesty society case moral case case free society produce well benefit enable thing responsibility way enable high standard moral standard achieve think proclaim tomorrow approach choice clear state believe totally alien briton want statecontrolled state statecontrolle people control believe heavy heavy burden taxation way totally different way free state less tax decision spot decision people know job work truly well way truly well way applause way path freedom path rule law hear prime minister talk free gently remind colleague fact freedom law rule law strongly enforce enforcement government entitle law strongly enforce freedom rule law accident law order party freedom party believe people want mr chairman know great politician say necessary triumph evil good man telling remark come vote tomorrow crucial decision shall year edmund burke say true today quote year ago price liberty uncease courage underlying vigilance liberty liberty law tomorrow nation opportunity demonstrate courage vigilance hope vote conservative future child grandchild applause copyright margaret thatcher foundation right reserve

Speeches, etc. Mrs. Margaret Thatcher Conservative plans for helping with homes are quite specific. They are a firm, unshakable promise. I've said it before and I'll repeat it. There are nine-and-a-half per cent mortgages by Christmas for all home buyers and also later help with the deposit for the first-time buyer. I know the Labour Party have called me a liar. That's the natural reaction of a Party that has no constructive plans of its own. And also it's absurd to call someone a liar before they've had the chance to carry out their promises. They know they can't fault the plans. They're feasible and they know the cost is modest. What they're really hysterical about is they know I will carry them out and they know there's nothing like it in the forseeable future [sic]. Now we've said what Conservative plans for spending money will be and that our top priority will be homes. Let's have a look at Labour's plans. Voice Over Well, luckily the latest issue of THE ECONOMIST, the country's leading financial journal, provides the answer Labour seems a little shy about. The programme set out in Labour's manifesto will set Britain back by two-thousand-million pounds in the first year and that's a firm commitment. Now, is that a lot or just about what you'd expect in these inflationary times? Well, let's look at the Liberal proposals. What do they cost? The Liberal Party provide their own figures—four-thousand-million pounds for the first year, just double. So what about the Tories? Those irresponsible spendthrifts according to Labour. Eight-thousand-million pounds? Ten-thousand-million pounds? In fact, it's less than a thousand-million—only seven-hundred-and-ten-million pounds, less than half Labour. [end p1] But just let's look at these Labour bills again. What it doesn't show is the amount of your money Labour's put aside for nationalisation. In the next few years, they're planning to spend another eleven-thousand-million pounds, more than five times their annual programme. That's a lot of money. And, because Governments don't have money, that's your money they're spending. And for what? What will Britain get back for it? Does Britain need it? Does Britain want it? Unidentified Speaker Personally, I disagree entirely with nationalisation because it … it's breaking some small firms down, it's all for the Government. Peter Walker If you vote Labour in the Election, you'll be voting for nationalisation. It doesn't matter what else you think you'll be voting for, because that's what you'll get. And, to be fair to Labour, they are not making any secret about it. It was in their manifesto in February and it's still there. They really believe they should control British industry. So it's only fair you should ask yourself, is it a good idea? What's involved? Well, all the parties are agreed that the most important thing we have to do is to fight inflation. Will nationalisation help us to keep down prices? At the moment, prices are rising by something like twenty per cent. Mr. Healey would like us to believe eight-point-four per cent. But every housewife knows that's not true. She can tell by the prices in the High Street and she can tell by all the other bills that land on the mat. The coal bill—up by £2.50 a ton. The electricity bill—up by 30p in the pound. The telephone bill—up by 15p in the pound. And even the stamps on the envelopes have gone up. All this in the last seven months of Labour Government. All of these, nationalised industries. And, of course, that's not the end of it. Far from it. There's a lot more big increases coming through just after the Election. Do you travel by train? Fares have just gone up by 12p in the pound haven't they? And did you see in the papers that British Rail want to put them up by another 12p in the pound within six months? And there's another bill. The hidden bill. Another bill you have to meet. It's for the losses on the nationalised industries. It doesn't come through the letter-box but you pay it nonetheless. You pay on your VAT, on your income tax, on the tax that goes on a pint of beer or a packet of cigarettes. Last year, the bill came to sixty pounds for every family and you can't do a thing about it. You can cut down on most of your bills by using less. But you can't cut down the hidden bill for nationalisation. The more nationalisation we have, the more prices rise and the worse inflation gets. So it doesn't help inflation. [end p2] But perhaps there's a case for it because it keeps people in jobs. I am afraid not. The facts shew that in the six years when Labour were last in Government, four-hundred-thousand jobs in nationalised industries were lost. Miners, railwaymen, steelworkers, they all lost jobs. So, nationalisation will do nothing to stop unemployment. The best way to look after jobs is to keep British industry alive and well. At the moment, it's on its knees. It won't be long before it's flat on its back. Instead of bleeding it white with increased taxes, as Labour have been doing, a Conservative Government will see that industry is allowed to get on with the job. So there are the facts and they're worth thinking about. If you vote Labour, remember you'll be voting for more nationalisation, less efficient industry and higher prices, because that's what nationalisation means. If you vote Conservative, you'll be voting against nationalisation. It's up to you. Unidentified Speaker I know in my own heart and soul it's not for the good of the country. You know, as far as I am concerned, it won't help the country in any way by taking over these firms. William Whitelaw This country of ours is facing a difficult time. There are considerable economic problems ahead of us and they affect us all. But we shall overcome them because we are determined to overcome them. We always have in the past. We shall again. But surely we all know in our hearts we shall only do so if we tackle those problems together. We may have different political views but, at a time like this, I don't believe there is no meeting point between us. And that is why it really saddens me we should have to be even talking about nationalisation when there is so much to be done to put Britain back on her feet. You know nationalisation won't help. It won't solve inflation. It won't safeguard your job and people don't want it. If there's something you're not happy with, wouldn't you rather have a word with the man you know instead of being told: “Don't ask me, I only work here. They make the decisions” ? So why do Labour want nationalisation? Because their Left-wing wants it. As we've seen time and time again, Labour's Left-wing always get what they want. And that's precisely my point. At a time when we must unite to stand together, Labour are quite prepared to go out of their way to divide us. Surely this is the time to put aside policies that divide and agree on policies that unite? We have done just that. Labour have not. We have stated our priorities, so in a way have they. Ask yourself which party has got its priorities right. Isn't owning your own home more important than the State owning ICI? Isn't a better pension better than the State owning a dockyard? You must decide. But I'll tell you very clearly where the Conservative Party stands. [end p3] We shall put money where it matters. We shall bury this nonsense about nationalisation. We shall make sure the firm you work for is allowed to get on with the job it does best. Labour has destroyed the confidence of business. It has taken away the money business needs to live, let alone invest. And, because we can't produce more, none of us can be better off. Instead, a Conservative Government will encourage our industries to hope and think and plan. We shall put money back to work. We shall invest in you. There will be a future once more. We believe in this nation, not nationalisation, and that is what we mean by putting Britain first. (Music) Voice Over The only way you can say no to nationalisation is to vote Conservative. Copyright © Margaret Thatcher Foundation 2024. All Rights Reserved.

right

speech etc mrs margaret thatcher conservative plan help home specific firm unshakable promise ve say ill repeat nineandahalf cent mortgage christmas home buyer later help deposit firsttime buyer know labour party call liar s natural reaction party constructive plan absurd liar ve chance carry promise know not fault plan feasible know cost modest hysterical know carry know s like forseeable future sic ve say conservative plan spend money priority home let look labour plan voice luckily late issue economist country lead financial journal provide answer labour little shy programme set labour manifesto set britain twothousandmillion pound year s firm commitment lot d expect inflationary time let look liberal proposal cost liberal party provide figure fourthousandmillion pound year double tory irresponsible spendthrift accord labour eightthousandmillion pound tenthousandmillion pound fact thousandmillion sevenhundredandtenmillion pound half labour end let look labour bill not money labour aside nationalisation year plan spend eleventhousandmillion pound time annual programme s lot money government not money s money spend britain britain need britain want unidentified speaker personally disagree entirely nationalisation break small firm government peter walker vote labour election ll vote nationalisation not matter think ll vote s ll fair labour make secret manifesto february believe control british industry fair ask good idea s involve party agree important thing fight inflation nationalisation help price moment price rise like cent mr healey like believe eightpointfour cent housewife know s true tell price high street tell bill land mat coal bill ton electricity bill pound telephone bill pound stamp envelope go seven month labour government nationalise industry course s end far s lot big increase come election travel train fare go pound not paper british rail want pound month s bill hide bill bill meet loss nationalise industry not come letterbox pay nonetheless pay vat income tax tax go pint beer packet cigarette year bill come pound family not thing cut bill not cut hidden bill nationalisation nationalisation price rise bad inflation get not help inflation end s case keep people job afraid fact shew year labour government fourhundredthousand job nationalise industry lose miner railwayman steelworker lose job nationalisation stop unemployment good way look job british industry alive moment knee will not long flat instead bleed white increase taxis labour conservative government industry allow job fact worth think vote labour remember ll vote nationalisation efficient industry high price s nationalisation mean vote conservative ll vote nationalisation unidentified speaker know heart soul good country know far concern will not help country way take firm william whitelaw country face difficult time considerable economic problem ahead affect shall overcome determined overcome past shall surely know heart shall tackle problem different political view time like not believe meeting point sadden talk nationalisation britain foot know nationalisation will not help will not solve inflation will not safeguard job people not want s happy not word man know instead tell not ask work decision labour want nationalisation leftwing want ve see time time labour leftwe want s precisely point time unite stand labour prepared way divide surely time aside policy divide agree policy unite labour state priority way ask party get priority right not own home important state owning ici not well pension well state own dockyard decide ill tell clearly conservative party stand end shall money matter shall bury nonsense nationalisation shall sure firm work allow job good labour destroy confidence business take away money business need live let invest not produce well instead conservative government encourage industry hope think plan shall money work shall invest future believe nation nationalisation mean put britain music voice way nationalisation vote conservative copyright margaret thatcher foundation right reserve

Oct 27, 2020 Melania Trump spoke at a campaign event in Atglen, Pennsylvania on October 27. Read the transcript of her speech remarks here. Transcribe Your Own Content Try Rev and save time transcribing, captioning, and subtitling. Melania Trump: (00:10)Thank you, Kellyanne. Hello, Pennsylvania. Melania Trump: (00:17)Thank you all for the very warm welcome. And to our friend, Congressman Smucker, for joining us today. Crowd: (00:33)We love you. Melania Trump: (00:33)I love you too. Thank you. Before I begin, thank you for all the love and support you gave us when our family was diagnosed with COVID-19. We are all feeling so much better now thanks to healthy eating and some of the amazing therapeutic options available in our country. Thank you again for your well wishes. Melania Trump: (00:59)Since early this year, our country has felt the effects of global pandemic. Like many of you, I have experienced the firsthand effects of COVID-19, not only as a patient, but as a worried mother and wife. I know there are many people who have lost loved ones or know people who have been forever impacted by this silent enemy. My family’s thoughts and prayers are with all of you through this difficult time. We all know the American spirit is stronger than this virus. We have proven that we can and will overcome this unexpected challenge. Crowd: (01:48)Amen. Melania Trump: (01:48)Thank you to all who have stepped up and help in this uncertain time. To the frontline workers, teachers, healthcare professionals, and many more, my husband and I are grateful to you. You continue to make a difference every single day. Such selfless service is what our American values are all about. It’s amazing to see the way we as Americans have come together in this time of need. Through the passionate and careful work being done in our communities, cities, and states all across our beautiful and powerful country, we will triumph over this virus. Melania Trump: (02:54)Donald is a fighter. He loves this country and he fights for you every single day. For the first time in history, the citizens of this country get to hear directly and instantly from their president every single day through social media. I do not always agree with the way he says things but it is important to him that he speaks directly to the people he serves. This administration chooses to keep moving forward during this pandemic, not backward. By moving forward, we demonstrate a fundamental value of our nation. Our ability to rise to any challenge and overcome any hurdle. We do not close down or hide in fear. We get to work to find real and lasting solutions. It’s what sets us apart from any other country in the world. Melania Trump: (04:16)It’s how we came from 13 small colonies to the global leader. Our schools, restaurants, and business, large or small, have developed safer ways for people to continue moving forward. Our administration remains 100% supportive of ensuring our nation is equipped with all the medical supplies we need and getting a vaccine developed and distributed safely and quickly as possible. This is something that both political parties should support, encourage, and celebrate. No one should be promoting fear of real solutions for purely political ends. Melania Trump: (05:19)The success of a vaccine will save millions of lives over the long term. I believe in our incredible doctors, nurses, medical professionals, and scientists. The Democrats have chosen to put their own agendas ahead of the American people’s wellbeing. Instead, they attempt to create a divide, a divide on something that should be nonpartisan and non-controversial. A divide that causes confusion and fear instead of hope and security. That is not leadership. Let us also not forget what the Democrats chose to focus on when COVID-19 first came into our country. Melania Trump: (06:13)While the President was taking decisive action to keep the American people safe, the Democrats were wasting American taxpayer dollars in a sham impeachment. They cared more about removing our elected president. Meanwhile, I watched Donald continue to work hard to keep people informed and calm, to protect our economy and make hard and unpopular decisions to the do all he could do to keep us all safe. This sham was led by opposition and their display of hatred is on display to this day. Children watching and learning about politics in our country deserve a better display of political responsibility and respect for our sacred institutions. Melania Trump: (07:25)Joe Biden attacked President Trump’s decision to put the American people first and closing travel from China. He called it xenophobic hysteria. Now he suggest that he could have done a better job. The American people can look at Joe Biden’s 36 years in Congress and eight years in the Vice Presidency and determine whether they think he will finally be able to get something done for the American people. Melania Trump: (08:07)On November 3rd, when you vote, you’re voting for our children’s futures. As long as Donald Trump is President, our American family values and the virtues that our country was built upon will continue to be cherished and upheld. The Democrats with help from the media have worked tirelessly to all but destroy our traditional values. Before my husband decided to run for President, the media loved him because they saw the man that I see every day. Someone tough, successful, and fair. Crowd: (09:01)And handsome. Melania Trump: (09:03)I agree. A man who sees potential in everyone he meets, no matter their gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation. A man who has a very big heart and have a great sense of humor. Donald loves helping people and he loves seeing those around him and his country succeed. But when he decided to run for the President as a Republican, the media created a different picture of my husband, one I don’t recognize, and treated all his supporters with equal disdain. The media has chosen to focus on stories of idle gossip and palace intrigue by editorializing real events and policies with their own bias and agendas. Melania Trump: (10:12)For instance, my initiative Be Best has one main goal, helping children. Yet the media have chosen to take the attention away from children and focus on only the negative. But that will not stop me to do what is right. Like my husband, we are not the politicians who have worked in Washington for too long. And just like my husband, I’m here to make a difference for you and your families. It has been the greatest honor and privilege to serve as the first lady of the amazing country. Crowd: (11:20)Four more years. Four more years. Melania Trump: (11:33)It has allowed me an opportunity unlike any other. I have met with children all around the country and the world. What I know is that all children understand the language of love. I have seen a great deal of love through simple, everyday acts of kindness. In fact, it was a little boy from this great state of Pennsylvania who helped show what it meant to be the best. Christian [Box 00:12:04] was in second grade when he created his buddy bench. When Christian notice some of his schoolmates were lonely, he decided to create a bench where children could sit at recess and connect with other children. Christian’s simple act helped address children’s feelings of loneliness, and it allowed for many new friendships to forum. Melania Trump: (12:32)These are the acts Be Best will continue sharing with the American people so that children everywhere can understand the power of kindness. Remember, it is love of optimism, not fear and lawlessness that will make America great again. There is so much goodness and compassion happening, but oftentimes it does not make the news. That drives the news are the handpicked, angry, and often baseless claims from anonymous sources and angry ex-employees who are only trying to distract from the important work happening inside the White House. These next four years are vital. Our president continues to move this country forward. The United States is a country of hope, not the country of fear. Melania Trump: (13:48)Under Donald’s leadership, our economy has soared, our borders are safer, we have stayed out of new conflicts, and worked to end wars. We have destroyed terrorists who attack this country and our allies under the last administration and have made historic peace deals in the Middle East which makes the world safer. We are respected again. We still have a strong alliances around the world and these allies are now doing their fair share globally. Melania Trump: (14:33)As a mother, I’m grateful for a President who believes in strong families. As an independent woman, I’m grateful for a President who has championed not only women, but working mothers, by promoting and supporting their roles in the workforce. As an American, I’m proud that we have a President who puts our country first. Remember, we are a strong nation. With Donald Trump as our President, we will be even stronger when we beat COVID-19. Melania Trump: (15:30)Please remember to follow CDC guidelines so that together we can minimize the spread of the virus until a vaccine can be developed. This election isn’t just about the next year. It’s about the next four years and beyond. It’s about continuing to set this country on a course of real prosperity and success. We can’t and we shouldn’t go backwards. Donald Trump is the man who will lead us and empower us to make that greater future together. Donald Trump will expand and grow the economy and keep us safe. Melania Trump: (16:20)Joe Biden’s policy and socialist agenda will only serve to destroy America and all that has been built in the past four years. We must keep Donald in the White House so he can finish what he started and our country can continue to flourish. Thank you for taking time out of your day to be here with me. And thank you for all of your support. If you haven’t already voted, please be sure to get out and vote on November 3rd and encourage everyone you know to do the same. God bless you, each of you, your families, and God bless our beautiful nation. Transcribe Your Own Content Try Rev and save time transcribing, captioning, and subtitling. Copyright Disclaimer Under Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Get a weekly digest of the week’s most important transcripts in your inbox. It’s the news, without the news.

right

oct melania trump speak campaign event atglen pennsylvania october read transcript speech remark transcribe content try rev save time transcribe captioning subtitle melania trump kellyanne hello pennsylvania melania trump warm welcome friend congressman smucker join today crowd love melania trump love thank begin thank love support give family diagnose feel well thank healthy eating amazing therapeutic option available country thank wish melania trump early year country feel effect global pandemic like experience firsthand effect patient worried mother wife know people lose love one know people forever impact silent enemy family thought prayer difficult time know american spirit strong virus prove overcome unexpected challenge crowd melania trump step help uncertain time frontline worker teacher healthcare professional husband grateful continue difference single day selfless service american value amazing way americans come time need passionate careful work community city state beautiful powerful country triumph virus melania trump fighter love country fight single day time history citizen country hear directly instantly president single day social medium agree way say thing important speak directly people serve administration choose move forward pandemic backward move forward demonstrate fundamental value nation ability rise challenge overcome hurdle close hide fear work find real lasting solution set apart country world melania trump come small colony global leader school restaurant business large small develop safe way people continue move forward administration remain supportive ensure nation equip medical supply need get vaccine develop distribute safely quickly possible political party support encourage celebrate promote fear real solution purely political end melania trump success vaccine save million life long term believe incredible doctor nurse medical professional scientist democrats choose agenda ahead american people wellbee instead attempt create divide divide nonpartisan noncontroversial divide cause confusion fear instead hope security leadership let forget democrats choose focus come country melania trump president take decisive action american people safe democrats waste american taxpayer dollar sham impeachment care remove elect president watch donald continue work hard people informed calm protect economy hard unpopular decision safe sham lead opposition display hatred display day child watch learn politic country deserve well display political responsibility respect sacred institution melania trump biden attack president trump decision american people closing travel china call xenophobic hysteria suggest well job american people look joe biden year congress year vice presidency determine think finally able american people melania trump november vote vote child future long donald trump president american family value virtue country build continue cherish uphold democrat help medium work tirelessly destroy traditional value husband decide run president medium love see man day tough successful fair crowd handsome melania trump agree man see potential meet matter gender race religion sexual orientation man big heart great sense humor donald loves help people love see country succeed decide run president republican medium create different picture husband recognize treat supporter equal disdain medium choose focus story idle gossip palace intrigue editorialize real event policy bias agendas melania trump instance initiative good main goal help child medium choose attention away child focus negative stop right like husband politician work washington long like husband difference family great honor privilege serve lady amazing country crowd year year melania trump allow opportunity unlike meet child country world know child understand language love see great deal love simple everyday act kindness fact little boy great state pennsylvania help mean good christian box second grade create buddy bench christian notice schoolmate lonely decide create bench child sit recess connect child christian simple act help address child feeling loneliness allow new friendship forum melania trump act good continue share american people child understand power kindness remember love optimism fear lawlessness america great goodness compassion happen oftentime news drive news handpicked angry baseless claim anonymous source angry exemployee try distract important work happen inside white house year vital president continue country forward united states country hope country fear melania trump donald leadership economy soar border safe stay new conflict work end war destroy terrorist attack country ally administration historic peace deal middle east make world safe respect strong alliance world ally fair share globally melania trump mother grateful president believe strong family independent woman grateful president champion woman work mother promote support role workforce american proud president put country remember strong nation donald trump president strong beat melania trump remember follow cdc guideline minimize spread virus vaccine develop election year year continue set country course real prosperity success backwards donald trump man lead empower great future donald trump expand grow economy safe melania trump biden policy socialist agenda serve destroy america build past year donald white house finish start country continue flourish thank take time day thank support vote sure vote november encourage know god bless family god bless beautiful nation transcribe content try rev save time transcribe captioning subtitle copyright disclaimer title usc section allowance fair use purpose criticism comment news reporting teaching scholarship research fair use permit copyright statute infringe weekly digest week important transcript inbox news news

Speeches, etc. Tomorrow, the voters of Britain have a chance to change history, a chance to transform this country from a land sliding into greyness and despair into a nation on the brink of new hope and fresh opportunity. Yes, this election is about prices. Yes, this election is about jobs—and I have done my share of explaining in these last few weeks why Conservative policies are the only way to restore our lost prosperity. But I believe this election is about something even more important. It offers the choice—and that choice may not occur again—between the path of freedom and self-respect and the slow but certain route to national suffocation under a blanket of bureaucracy and State control. That kind of Britain, a land where men and women are no longer people with ambitions and dreams and ideals, but first numbers in some remote computer is not the kind of Britain I ever want to see. • The Britain I want is a land which cares for the weak the old and the sick but which says that the able-bodied have the duty and the right to shape their own lives. • The Britain I want is a land where a man can know that if he works hard and earns money for his family, he will be allowed to hold on to most of what his efforts have brought him, rather than have it seized to build Ministerial empires. • The Britain I want is a land where people are not ground down in the name of false equality to the point where a man is better off on the dole than at work. • The Britain I Want is a land where people pay their taxes knowing that they are fair and that they will be prudently spent. I do not want this country to remain a place where taxation is wielded as a punishment for effort and success, and where envy and spite displace charity and compassion as our national ideals. [end p1] • The Britain I want is a land where a man can take a job he is capable of doing, and work for whom he chooses. Not a land where there is no employer but The State. I want this country of ours to be a place where those who obey just laws need not go in fear of their jobs or their safety. In these last few years. Britain has been transformed, Now, with increasing frequency, neighbour strikes against neighbour, and common humanity is being displaced by action against the most vulnerable of our people in the battle for pay and power. The dying, the sick, the old, the children and even the bereaved are now regularly not just the victims, but the targets of industrial action. Have millions of ordinary, decent trade unionists really become heartless mililtants? I refuse to believe it. What has happened is that, under the ethics of a breed of “socialism” which would have appalled Clem Atlee or Hugh Gaitskell, the trade union ideal has been distorted. The trade unions are a vital and essential part of the British way of life. They grew up as defenders of the weak against exploitation by ruthless employers. But for some that crusade is now a vendetta. Now, thanks to laws passed by the present Government to appease an unrepresentative minority in its own party, the greatest threat to a man's right to-work can be from the union which is supposed to offer him protection. How many of those involved in the suffering inflicted by this winter's strikes really believed in the fairness of what they did? And how many just put their heads down and did as they were told, for fear that if they refused they and their families might be victimised? • In the Britain I want, Cabinet Ministers would not parade on the picket lines and then plead their innocence when the blood flowed. • In the Britain I want, a man would have the right to appeal to the courts against persecution rather than throw himself upon the mercy of his accusers. The Britain I want is a place where all men and women, whatever their birth, their background, their colour or their religion, truly have the same chance to succeed. I do not want a Britain where the only way to the top is by knowing which bureaucrats to butter up, or which politicans to please in order to get one of the growing thousands of jobs which can only be gained by ministerial patronage. It was right that the old ruling class of the 19th century should give way to a greater democracy where all men—and women, too—should speak with an equal voice. But those battles were not fought to pave the way for a new “boss class” of politicians and their placemen, or to create an all-powerful State which would bend the law against liberty itself and diminish the authority of the courts. They were not fought to see the Parliamentary bastions of our democracy undermined to make possible the emergence of a one-party State. When I was a teenager, this country endured a war against tyranny. Did the sons, brothers and fathers who gave their tomorrows in that conflict do so to see us, today, throw away without a struggle the freedom they defended? • The Britain I want will cherish its liberties. • The Britain I want will also fight its own economic battles. It will be a country which does not scramble to blame its self-inflicted ills on other nations, friendly or otherwise, even while it cringes at the displeasure of any country large or small which faces it with threat or bluster. • The Britain I want is a country which once again is known throughout the world for its integrity, its industry, the calibre of its people and its valiant championship of justice and truth. A country which is not ashamed to work for its living and to teach its children the difference between right and wrong. • The Britain I want will guard the right of its citizens to live their lives without fear of crime and terrorism and those citizens will not be grudges the means to maintain the law or to protect them and their allies from aggression. In the Britain I want people will walk with freedom with opportunity and with security. But most of all, they will walk with pride. Copyright © Margaret Thatcher Foundation 2024. All Rights Reserved.

right

speech etc tomorrow voter britain chance change history chance transform country land slide greyness despair nation brink new hope fresh opportunity yes election price yes election job share explain week conservative policy way restore lose prosperity believe election important offer choice choice occur path freedom selfrespect slow certain route national suffocation blanket bureaucracy state control kind britain land man woman long people ambition dream ideal number remote computer kind britain want britain want land care weak old sick say ablebodie duty right shape life britain want land man know work hard earn money family allow hold effort bring seize build ministerial empire britain want land people grind false equality point man well dole work britain want land people pay taxis know fair prudently spend want country remain place taxation wield punishment effort success envy spite displace charity compassion national ideal end britain want land man job capable work choose land employer state want country place obey law need fear job safety year britain transform increase frequency neighbour strike neighbour common humanity displace action vulnerable people battle pay power die sick old child bereaved regularly victim target industrial action million ordinary decent trade unionist heartless mililtant refuse believe happen ethic breed socialism appal clem atlee hugh gaitskell trade union ideal distort trade union vital essential british way life grow defender weak exploitation ruthless employer crusade vendetta thank law pass present government appease unrepresentative minority party great threat man right towork union suppose offer protection involve suffering inflict winter strike believe fairness head tell fear refuse family victimise britain want cabinet minister parade picket line plead innocence blood flow britain want man right appeal court persecution throw mercy accuser britain want place man woman birth background colour religion truly chance succeed want britain way know bureaucrat butter politican order grow thousand job gain ministerial patronage right old rule class century way great democracy man woman speak equal voice battle fight pave way new boss class politician placeman create allpowerful state bend law liberty diminish authority court fight parliamentary bastion democracy undermine possible emergence oneparty state teenager country endure war tyranny son brother father give tomorrow conflict today throw away struggle freedom defend britain want cherish liberty britain want fight economic battle country scramble blame selfinflicted ill nation friendly cringe displeasure country large small face threat bluster britain want country know world integrity industry calibre people valiant championship justice truth country ashamed work living teach child difference right wrong britain want guard right citizen live life fear crime terrorism citizen grudge mean maintain law protect ally aggression britain want people walk freedom opportunity security walk pride copyright margaret thatcher foundation right reserve

Speeches, etc. Q1. Mr. Temple-Morris asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 13th June. The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan) Earlier today I greeted President Ceausescu of Romania on his [column 827]arrival for a State visit to this country. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding meetings with Ministerial colleagues and others. This evening I shall be the guest of Her Majesty The Queen at the State dinner in honour of President Ceausescu. Mr. Temple-Morris No doubt the Prime Minister has had time today to consider the effects of his policies of higher spending, more borrowing and higher interest rates. When this is coupled with stagnant production and a questionable wages policy, how can it be a fact, as pronounced recently by one of his Ministers—this is a vitally important point—that single-figure wage inflation will continue for the indefinite future? Surely this is no more and no less than election window dressing. The Prime Minister I realise the anxiety with which the hon. Member's thoughts are concentrated on possible forthcoming events. I beg him to contain his impatience. In terms of inflation, it is important that he should not, by slipshod words, convey an impression that is incorrect. I do not suppose that he intended to do so. Nobody has said that inflation will continue indefinitely into the future at single-figure rates. What my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection said was that it would continue at single-figure rates for the remainder of this year. What happens next year will depend to a large extent on the level of wage settlements, which begin again in the autumn. What is much more important than examining the statistical entrails every day is that the Government should have the will—as they have—to carry through their policy to keep down inflation. Mr. Joseph Dean With due deference to the debate that will take place tomorrow, will my right hon. Friend take time today to remind the general public of the substantial benefits which the Government's existing economic and financial policies have brought to the workers and the under-privileged sections of our society? The Prime Minister I do not wish to anticipate tomorrow's debate. It is true that the family budget was distorted by the Opposition and that the measures that [column 828]we propose to take will remedy the situation. Nothing can alter the fact that pensions will increase, that child benefit will improve, and that there will be a tax rebate in July. All these are valuable benefits, but we must not be complacent, because there is a great deal to do. I constantly remind the country of this. I did so again at the Nottingham miners' gala last Saturday. Mrs. Thatcher As one of James Callaghanthe Prime Minister's duties today is to answer Questions in the House, will he tell us why, in his package of economic measures, he deliberately chose to put a tax on exports and on all home production, thereby making us more vulnerable to imports? The Prime Minister There were many means by which we could have put right the recklessness of the Opposition in adding £500 million to the Budget by reducing taxation. We considered them, and no doubt the House will debate them tomorrow. Having looked at them carefully, it seemed to me that because the whole House agrees that inflation is the vital issue, it would not have been appropriate to take action through value-added tax, which might have been sensible in other directions but would have had the effect of pushing up inflation. Therefore, we chose the national insurance surcharge. I dare say that if we had chosen VAT there would have been complaints from the Opposition that we had not chosen something else. Mrs. Thatcher If the Prime Minister has no confidence in the decisions of the House of Commons about cutting income tax, he knows exactly what he can do about it, because it lies in his power to make arrangements to elect a new one. In the meantime, does he not recall that Denis Healeyhis Chancellor of the Exchequer, during his Budget speech, dismissed the claim of the Liberals when they wanted to increase the national insurance contribution by saying that it would be wrong to threaten jobs at a time of unemployment, wrong to put up industrial costs when we had a problem of competitiveness, and wrong to introduce a tax which would be passed on in prices at a time of higher inflation? Why has he changed his mind? The Prime Minister With respect to the right hon. Lady, I must inform her that it is not I who changed my mind. It [column 829]is the Opposition who have added £500 million to the Budget. As I have said on earlier occasions at this Dispatch Box, I would much have preferred it if those reductions in tax had not taken place. We would then not have had to bring forward a proposal for national insurance surcharge. Both matters should have been left on one side. I very much regret that the House of Commons took this decision, but, as it did so, we intend, as we said at the time, to put the matter right. We intend to follow a sound financial policy on all these matters. Mr. Fernyhough Does my right hon. Friend agree that what happens about inflation next year will depend largely on whether we have a Government who are prepared to co-operate with the unions or a Government who are determined to have confrontation with them? The Prime Minister I think the last four years have adequately shown that the policy of the previous Government on confrontation and conflict was not successful. We have been much more successful in the policy of conciliation that we have followed. As for next year's incomes increases, I propose to wait, listen and hear what the trade union conferences which are now taking place have to say. They will come to an end in July. After that the Government will have to put forward their own proposals. Q3. Mr. Joseph Dean asked the Prime Minister if he will list his public engagements for 13th June. The Prime Minister I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris). Mr. Dean I welcome my right hon. Friend's earlier reply to my supplementary question, but will he emphasise to the trade union movement the benefits which the Labour Government have conferred on their members, and stress that they should not be kidded by the Opposition, who appear to be trying to woo the trade unions with false promises? The Prime Minister I shall certainly point that out to the trade unions, but I believe it would be better if there were an all-party view about the importance and significance of the trade unions and of the great role that they play. It would [column 830]serve the Opposition far better if they were to emphasise that aspect, instead of constantly attacking the trade unions. Mr. Cormack As the Prime Minister referred to this evening's banquet, will he reflect how he can best commemorate the extinction of freedom and democratic Socialism that took place in Czechoslovakia 10 years ago? The Prime Minister President Ceausescu on that occasion spoke out clearly against what took place in Czechoslovakia, and I am very glad indeed that he did so. Q4. Mr. Noble asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 13th June. The Prime Minister I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris). Mr. Noble In the course of a busy day, will my right hon. Friend find time to reflect further on the subject of inflation, particularly the rate of increase in food prices, which is now the lowest since 1970? Will he make it clear to the country that if the Opposition have their way in devaluing the green pound, the healthy situation that now obtains on food prices would be totally destroyed? The Prime Minister I am glad to say that there is no doubt that food prices have risen far less rapidly in the past 12 months. The figure I have is 6.7 per cent., which is very good indeed. The devaluation of the green pound has the effect of putting up prices, but I repeat that it is the Government's policy and intention, so far as we can carry the country with us on issues in which the country is involved, to try to keep inflation down. We are succeeding at the moment, and we hope to continue to do so, because I think that the people of this country understand the issue. Mr. Higgins Is it not the case that by increasing the national insurance contribution the Government will put up food prices, whereas if they increased value added tax that would not happen? The Prime Minister An increase in value added tax would have put up immediately the retail price index substantially. [Hon. Members: “What [column 831]about food?” ] Hon. Gentlemen are baying as though they are in the zoo, waiting to be fed. The food index, as the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) knows, even if his Conservative colleagues do not, is part of the overall index and not separate from it, and forms only one element of it. The simple truth is that the Opposition cannot escape from the responsibility that they have forced the Government to introduce a measure that is unwelcome to the Government—namely, the national insurance surcharge. The only alternative would have been to increase value added tax, and that would have increased the retail price index even more. The Opposition can take their choice of which part of the responsibility they wish to assume. Mr. English I know that my right hon. Friend has tried to alter this silly system, but will he, in future, when met with a Question such as the one before him, or Question No. 1, answer it in the style of an American President? Leaving out matters of security, will he give the details of his engagements during one day? That might persuade hon. Members that they should not ask Questions to which they do not want answers. The Prime Minister As always, I shall take my hon. Friend's views into careful consideration. Mr. William Clark If it is necessary to recoup the £500 million to the Treasury because of the amendments moved on the Finance Bill, will the Prime Minister explain to the country why it is essential to put a tax on employment of £1,500 million? The Prime Minister The tax is to recover the amount that has been lost this year—namely, £500 million. That is what it will do. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, the tax itself does not come into effect until November. There will be another Budget next April, when the matter may be reconsidered. Q2. Mr. Christopher Price asked the Prime Minister when he next intends to visit Ankara. The Prime Minister I have at present no plans to visit Ankara. Mr. Christopher Price If my right hon. Friend sees Mr Ecevit in the near future, will he tell him that although we welcome the new co-operation agreement between Europe and Turkey and sympathise with Turkey's economic difficulties, the present Government take human rights very seriously, particularly the machinery of the European Convention on Human Rights? What action will British Ministers take in Strasbourg when this matter is next considered? Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the complaints against Turkey about violations of human rights in Cyprus were got out of the way it would help Britain's reputation for a belief in human rights, in terms not just of complaints against Russia but of human rights throughout the world, and would assist a final settlement in Cyprus? The Prime Minister I know that my hon. Friend takes a deep interest in these matters. The question of human rights, which my hon. Friend raised in the debate on foreign affairs last week, is a matter for the Council of Europe to reach a conclusion upon. I gather it has failed to do so on the last two occasions on which it has considered the subject. I hope that it will reach a just conclusion on the next occasion when it considers the matter. British Ministers will endeavour to ensure that that is done. If so, that conclusion should be published. I agree with my hon. Friend that this matter should not be left hanging around. Mr. Ian Lloyd If the Prime Minister has an opportunity to discuss these matters with the Turkish Government, will he explain to them that if they have either civil or military aircraft with Rolls-Royce engines requiring repair, the possibility of having those engines repaired will depend not on whether they pay the bill but on the view taken by the T and GWU—not the Foreign Office—of human rights? The Prime Minister No, Sir. I do not think that it will be necessary to explain that to the Turkish Government. Mr. Molloy In view of world concern about human rights, and particularly in respect of the discussions taking place between the two great Powers—the United States and Russia—on the dangerous situation that still exists in Africa [column 833]and the serious situation affecting the policy of detente, what is my right hon. Friend's view about the holding of a summit conference in the not-too-distant future? The Prime Minister As my hon. Friend knows, a conference of seven of the major industrial Powers is to take place, but I do not believe that we shall be discussing the question of Africa or detente. That conference will be concerned with the economic prospects of the Western world. Mr. Hooson Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the richer NATO countries should extend more economic aid to Turkey and to Greece, particularly having regard to their key position in NATO and the fact that the Soviet Union is extending more and more economic aid to Turkey? The Prime Minister That matter could be looked into. When the Turkish Prime Minister, Mr. Ecevit, saw me, he asked whether we could assist in supplying arms because of the difficulties that Turkey is having with the United States Congress. I undertook to look into the matter, but so far no propositions have come forward that would be satisfactory. Copyright © Margaret Thatcher Foundation 2024. All Rights Reserved.

right

speech etc mr templemorris ask prime minister list official engagement june prime minister mr james callaghan early today greet president ceausescu romania column state visit country addition duty house shall hold meeting ministerial colleague evening shall guest majesty queen state dinner honour president ceausescu mr templemorris doubt prime minister time today consider effect policy high spending borrowing high interest rate couple stagnant production questionable wage policy fact pronounce recently minister vitally important point singlefigure wage inflation continue indefinite future surely election window dress prime minister realise anxiety hon member thought concentrate possible forthcoming event beg contain impatience term inflation important slipshod word convey impression incorrect suppose intend say inflation continue indefinitely future singlefigure rate right hon friend secretary state price consumer protection say continue singlefigure rate remainder year happen year depend large extent level wage settlement begin autumn important examine statistical entrail day government carry policy inflation mr joseph dean deference debate place tomorrow right hon friend time today remind general public substantial benefit government exist economic financial policy bring worker underprivileged section society prime minister wish anticipate tomorrow debate true family budget distort opposition measure column propose remedy situation alter fact pension increase child benefit improve tax rebate july valuable benefit complacent great deal constantly remind country nottingham miner gala saturday mrs thatcher james callaghanthe prime minister duty today answer question house tell package economic measure deliberately choose tax export home production make vulnerable import prime minister mean right recklessness opposition add million budget reduce taxation consider doubt house debate tomorrow having look carefully house agree inflation vital issue appropriate action valueadde tax sensible direction effect push inflation choose national insurance surcharge dare choose vat complaint opposition choose mrs thatcher prime minister confidence decision house common cut income tax know exactly lie power arrangement elect new meantime recall denis healeyhis chancellor exchequer budget speech dismiss claim liberal want increase national insurance contribution say wrong threaten job time unemployment wrong industrial cost problem competitiveness wrong introduce tax pass price time high inflation change mind prime minister respect right hon lady inform change mind column opposition add million budget say early occasion dispatch box prefer reduction tax take place bring forward proposal national insurance surcharge matter leave regret house common take decision intend say time matter right intend follow sound financial policy matter mr fernyhough right hon friend agree happen inflation year depend largely government prepared cooperate union government determined confrontation prime minister think year adequately show policy previous government confrontation conflict successful successful policy conciliation follow year income increase propose wait listen hear trade union conference take place come end july government forward proposal mr joseph dean ask prime minister list public engagement june prime minister refer hon friend reply give early today hon member leominster mr templemorris mr dean welcome right hon friend early reply supplementary question emphasise trade union movement benefit labour government confer member stress kid opposition appear try woo trade union false promise prime minister shall certainly point trade union believe well allparty view importance significance trade union great role play column opposition far well emphasise aspect instead constantly attack trade union mr cormack prime minister refer evening banquet reflect well commemorate extinction freedom democratic socialism take place czechoslovakia year ago prime minister president ceausescu occasion speak clearly take place czechoslovakia glad mr noble ask prime minister list official engagement june prime minister refer hon friend reply give early today hon member leominster mr templemorris mr noble course busy day right hon friend find time reflect subject inflation particularly rate increase food price low clear country opposition way devalue green pound healthy situation obtain food price totally destroy prime minister glad doubt food price rise far rapidly past month figure cent good devaluation green pound effect put price repeat government policy intention far carry country issue country involve try inflation succeed moment hope continue think people country understand issue mr higgins case increase national insurance contribution government food price increase value add tax happen prime minister increase value add tax immediately retail price index substantially hon member column food hon gentleman bay zoo wait feed food index hon member worthe mr higgin know conservative colleague overall index separate form element simple truth opposition escape responsibility force government introduce measure unwelcome government national insurance surcharge alternative increase value add tax increase retail price index opposition choice responsibility wish assume mr english know right hon friend try alter silly system future meet question question answer style american president leave matter security detail engagement day persuade hon member ask question want answer prime minister shall hon friend view careful consideration mr william clark necessary recoup million treasury amendment move finance bill prime minister explain country essential tax employment million prime minister tax recover lose year million sure hon gentleman know tax come effect november budget april matter reconsider mr christopher price ask prime minister intend visit ankara prime minister present plan visit ankara mr christopher price right hon friend see mr ecevit near future tell welcome new cooperation agreement europe turkey sympathise turkey economic difficulty present government human right seriously particularly machinery european convention human right action british minister strasbourg matter consider right hon friend aware complaint turkey violation human right cyprus get way help britain reputation belief human right term complaint russia human right world assist final settlement cyprus prime minister know hon friend take deep interest matter question human right hon friend raise debate foreign affair week matter council europe reach conclusion gather fail occasion consider subject hope reach conclusion occasion consider matter british minister endeavour ensure conclusion publish agree hon friend matter leave hang mr ian lloyd prime minister opportunity discuss matter turkish government explain civil military aircraft rollsroyce engine require repair possibility have engine repair depend pay bill view take t gwu foreign office human right prime minister sir think necessary explain turkish government mr molloy view world concern human right particularly respect discussion take place great power united states russia dangerous situation exist africa column situation affect policy detente right hon friend view holding summit conference nottoodistant future prime minister hon friend know conference seven major industrial power place believe shall discuss question africa detente conference concern economic prospect western world mr hooson right hon gentleman think rich nato country extend economic aid turkey greece particularly have regard key position nato fact soviet union extend economic aid turkey prime minister matter look turkish prime minister mr ecevit see ask assist supply arm difficulty turkey have united states congress undertake look matter far proposition come forward satisfactory copyright margaret thatcher foundation right reserve

Speeches, etc. Have you noticed that when politics enters a conversation, men usually dismiss women's opinions out of hand? Men tend to think that discussing politics is a strictly male prerogative and something about which women have no valid opinions. Gradually, however, they are having to change this attitude as more and more women enter the political scene and prove that women have minds and opinions to be respected. Mrs. Margaret Thatcher, MP for Finchley and Friern Barnet, and Shadow Minister of Transport, is one woman who is doing a lot to get rid of the idea that women should leave politics exclusively to the male sex. Hard-working, with an astute and lively mind, she has shown her male colleagues in the political field that she is a woman to be reckoned with. At the moment she is the only woman Conservative MP with a Shadow Ministry. But Mrs. Thatcher has not lost her femininity during her climb to the top of the male-dominated political scene. Slim, attractive, mother of teenage twins, she always looks every inch a woman, elegantly dressed, with an obvious warm, sympathetic nature. And she is one of the most approachable MPs. I went to talk to Mrs. Thatcher at the House of Commons this week before the summer recess, and found her looking cool and collected on a very hot and sticky day. She looked tiny among the pomp and splendour of the House, but as she sat and talked to me on the terrace I began to understand how she had got so far in the highly competitive world of top politics. Although she is a wife and mother and looks very feminine she is not soft when it comes to her career. Mrs. Thatcher became interested in politics when she was very young and decided definitely to try for Parliament when she was at University at Oxford. She explained that politics have had a fascination for her since she was very young. My “Alfred Robertsfather was on the local council and politics were discussed frequently at home,” she said. “There were always books on politics and political figures around the house, and I used to read them and became interested.” Mrs. Thatcher says that she continues her policy of discussing politics at home with her own family and her teenage twins, Mark and Carol are also interested. It was not until Mrs. Thatcher was at Oxford University reading chemistry that her interest in politics became really pronounced. “In my year there were a lot of people interested in politics, such as Ludovic Kennedy, the TV personality, Mr. W. Rees Mogg, Editor of “The Times,” and on the other side of the fence, people like Anthony Crosland and Anthony Wedgwood Benn,” she said. “We used to have active discussion groups.” After leaving university, Mrs. Thatcher first took up a job in chemistry but became interested in law and studied in her spare time. She passed her law exams but her interests in politics had grown even more and she decided to try for Parliament, fighting one of the Kent seats in 1950. That attempt failed, but she did meet her husband during one of the meetings there so the effort was specially worthwhile. She was married in 1951 and then politics took a back seat while she looked after her children. Mrs. Thatcher's husband is in the chemical industry. “I gave up politics while the children were small because I think they need a mother more than ever then.” she said. “As soon as they became a little older and able to go away to school I decided to try again. “My Denis Thatcherhusband gives me every encouragement. He would think it an awful waste for me to give up my interest and he gives me every support and co-operation. I couldn't carry on without his support.” In 1959, Mrs. Thatcher became MP for, Finchley and Friern Barnet and now she is as much a part of the district as if she lived there. “I am interested in everything in Finchley,” she said. “At the moment I am rather upset about the boundary commissions' proposals to cut down my constituency and am helping the fight to try to stop the proposals being carried out. “And, of course, I am very interested in the road widening in Hampstead Garden Suburb—this was something that I was interested in when I first started out in Finchley and we are just getting an inquiry now.” Looking to the future Mrs. Thatcher hopes to continue as MP for Finchley and to further her interest in the monetary side of politics. “I have been involved with transport, social security, fuel and power, housing, law and the treasury,” she said. “But it is the money side which dominates everything in politics. If you haven't got the money you cannot implement policies.” Talking about her early days in Parliament, Mrs. Thatcher said that at first she became personally involved in all the problems that were brought to her. “I got so involved that I became incapable of helping people,” she explained. “You have to be like a nurse and be rather dispassionate. “It is difficult and time consuming work that I do and there is not much time to relax. But I enjoy my work which helps an awful lot because you don't mind putting in all the extra hours that you need.” Mrs. Thatcher explained that the only time she had with her family was during the summer recess which normally coincides with the schools' summer holidays. “Even during the recess I have correspondence to deal with and meetings to attend,” she said. “I want to stay in politics, though. Everyone says that politicians are cynical and hypocritical but there are some very fine people in it. Politics couldn't survive otherwise. “We can get a lot done here even with the system and all the drawbacks,” she added. “It takes a lot of time and we have to be patient. I try to keep as much contact as possible with people and their problems, especially in my constituency and that stops one from becoming cut off and sterile.” When asked whether she had any difficulties because she is a woman in a man's world, Mrs. Thatcher replied that whenever she is asked whether women should take part in politics she replies: “More than half the electorate are women.” Copyright © Margaret Thatcher Foundation 2024. All Rights Reserved.

right

speech etc notice politic enter conversation man usually dismiss women opinion hand man tend think discuss politic strictly male prerogative woman valid opinion gradually have change attitude woman enter political scene prove woman mind opinion respect mrs margaret thatcher mp finchley friern barnet shadow minister transport woman lot rid idea woman leave politic exclusively male sex hardworke astute lively mind show male colleague political field woman reckon moment woman conservative mp shadow ministry mrs thatcher lose femininity climb maledominated political scene slim attractive mother teenage twin look inch woman elegantly dress obvious warm sympathetic nature approachable mp go talk mrs thatcher house common week summer recess find look cool collect hot sticky day look tiny pomp splendour house sit talk terrace begin understand get far highly competitive world politic wife mother look feminine soft come career mrs thatcher interested politic young decide definitely try parliament university oxford explain politic fascination young alfred robertsfather local council politic discuss frequently home say book politic political figure house read interested mrs thatcher say continue policy discuss politic home family teenage twin mark carol interested mrs thatcher oxford university read chemistry interest politic pronounce year lot people interested politic ludovic kennedy tv personality mr w rees mogg editor time fence people like anthony crosland anthony wedgwood benn say active discussion group leave university mrs thatcher take job chemistry interested law study spare time pass law exam interest politic grow decide try parliament fight kent seat attempt fail meet husband meeting effort specially worthwhile marry politic take seat look child mrs thatcher husband chemical industry give politic child small think need mother say soon little old able away school decide try denis thatcherhusband give encouragement think awful waste interest give support cooperation not carry support mrs thatcher mp finchley friern barnet district live interested finchley say moment upset boundary commission proposal cut constituency help fight try stop proposal carry course interested road widen hampstead garden suburb interested start finchley get inquiry look future mrs thatcher hope continue mp finchley interest monetary politic involve transport social security fuel power housing law treasury say money dominate politic not get money implement policy talk early day parliament mrs thatcher say personally involve problem bring get involved incapable help people explain like nurse dispassionate difficult time consuming work time relax enjoy work help awful lot not mind put extra hour need mrs thatcher explain time family summer recess normally coincide school summer holiday recess correspondence deal meeting attend say want stay politic say politician cynical hypocritical fine people politic not survive lot system drawback add take lot time patient try contact possible people problem especially constituency stop cut sterile ask difficulty woman mans world mrs thatcher reply ask woman politic reply half electorate woman copyright margaret thatcher foundation right reserve

This bill prohibits a federal agency, or a contractor of an agency, that provides food services to a dining facility of the agency from establishing a policy that prohibits serving a particular type of food.

right

bill prohibit federal agency contractor agency provide food service dining facility agency establish policy prohibit serve particular type food

Ep. 1928 - Bankrupting Donald Trump Published: 3/19/2024 (in RSS feed: 53m 58s) At ti, our passion for brewing has been transforming a few simple ingredients into a beer of unmistakable quality and taste. Since 1859. Brewed with passion, get the facts, be Drink aware, visit drink Aware e Folks who begin today's show with a thank you to Congressman Greg Murphy. Greg Murphy is the only acting physician in the United States Congress right now following our reporting here at DailyWire. We talked about it on the show about rampant DEI in medical schools. Congressman Murphy is now introducing legislation to end federal funding, including student loan funding for any medical school that practices at DEI. The bill is called the Educate Act and it would ban the anti-white admission standards that, for example, duke has been using to hire surgeons, which we talked about last month. Any attempt to push against meritocracy at medical schools in favor of quote unquote racial diversity would make you ineligible to receive federal funding under the bill. Specifically the bill prevents medical schools from taking quote, any action that would deprive a medical student of educational opportunities or otherwise adversely affect their status on the basis of race. It would also prohibit medical schools from teaching that America is systematically racist and that some racial groups are oppressors. This would obviously apply to some of the reporting that we've already done about medical schools like UCLA where there are mandatory courses talking about colonization of the United States and such would also shut down DEI offices like the one at Wake Forest Medical School. So all of this is really good and really necessary. Again, there are many areas of American life where the meritocracy is necessary. It's hard to think of one word as more necessary than when it comes to your medical care, your surgical care and the fact that Congressman Murphy is bringing forward that bill is excellent and so we say thank you to him. Okay. Now the big news of the day is that President Trump is on the hook for a $454 million judgment according to the courts in New York, the the court in New York, which was presided over by Judge Arthur Engan was a stacked court, the civil fraud prosecution that was brought against Donald Trump. Again, it was done so specifically in civil court as opposed to criminal court because the burden of proof is lower in civil court, this is the case where attorney General Letitia James, who had come into office pledging to get Trump, which by the way is not an actual thing that prosecutors should do. You don't come into office saying you're going to get that guy. What you do is you say you're going to prosecute a crime. Typically, you don't find the criminal, you find the crime, and the person who does the crime is by definition the criminal. If you're targeting a specific person, then that looks very much like malicious and selective prosecution, which is exactly of course what, what Letitia James was doing right here. So she prosecuted him in this New York court for the great crime of supposedly inflating the value of his real estate assets in obtaining loans from the banks. There was no allegation that the banks that gave the loans were actually damaged. In fact, they all got their money back. The allegation instead is that by inflating the price of the real estate inflating his assets, that somehow he had perpetrated a fraud against the people of New York, despite there being zero damages. So it's a case with zero damages and then a judgment was brought down of nearly half a billion dollars, which is totally insane. I mean, of all the cases that have been brought against President Trump, this one is by far the most insane. The judgment is completely off kilter. The insanity of using a statute like this in order to bankrupt someone for no damages is totally crazy. So in order for Donald Trump to appeal that judgment, which of course he has to do, he had to post bond. The bond that he had to post was $454 million. He had to secure a bond to cover all of that. Now, Donald Trump's a very, very wealthy person obviously, but as I've mentioned many times on the show when it comes to wealth, not all wealth is liquid. People who have a lot of money don't have a bank account with a lot of money in it. What they do is they have say, real estate holdings or stock holdings. Those are semi-liquid assets, meaning that you could sell them, you could offload them, you could sell stock, you could borrow against them theoretically, but Donald Trump does not have like $500 million sitting around on hand in a bank vault like Scrooge McDuck, and then every night he just goes home and he dumps into the, into the vault and swims around or something stupid like that. That's not how this works. So Donald Trump couldn't secure the bond. And so what that now means is that if he cannot secure the bond in order to appeal, they would have to put liens on his properties. They would have to basically shut down the business workings of all of his properties, including properties that are not apparently located in New York. Letitia James, by the way, says that if Donald Trump does not pay up, then the New York Ag is in fact prepared to seize Donald Trump's assets. If he does not have funds to pay off the judgment, then we will seek You know judgment enforcement mechanisms in court and we will ask the judge to seize his assets. Okay, so basically if he's not going to appeal, if he can't appeal 'cause he can't get the bond and you need the bond in order to appeal, if he can't do that, they'll move forward with trying to seize his assets, including assets like Trump Tower in New York. According to Yahoo Finance, the former president must either pay the sum out of his own pocket or post a bond to stave off the state's seizure. While he appeals. Justice Arthur Eng ground's February 16th judgment against him for misstating property values to dupe lenders and insurers. Apparently Trump and two of his adult children and other Trump organization executives had so far approached the 30 companies through four separate brokers without success. According to his lawyers, the other defendants face judgments totaling about $10 million. A bonding company would be on the hook for any payout if Trump loses the appeal and proves unable to pay. And that's the reason why people are not putting up the money there. There's two reasons. One, they're afraid that on appeal the appeal will get rejected and Trump will have to pay up. And when Trump pays up, it wouldn't be Trump paying up, it would be whoever puts up the money, that money would then be seized and used as the payment for the actual judgment and then they would have to turn around and go back to Trump and try to chisel the money out of Trump. So the fact is that on a personal level, that a lot of people who have accused Donald Trump in the past of not paying his bills properly and so they're having a difficult time securing some sort of bond collateralized against Donald Trump's assets. Maybe Trump isn't willing to give that or maybe the assets are are not free. Whatever it is, Donald Trump is having a very difficult time posting posting bond here. We'll get some more on this in just a second. First financial experts said we were in the clear while experts anticipated rate cuts inflation in the United States remains a significant economic concern. Think about it. The United States is in the hole by $34 trillion. We're continuing to print money that's gonna push prices you pay every day even higher. So you can bury your head in the sand or you can do something about it. Diversify at least a portion of your savings into gold with Birch Gold Group gold is your hedge against inflation. Birch Gold makes it easy to own. They'll help you convert your existing IRA or 401k into a tax shelter to IRA in gold. You're not gonna pay a penny outta pocket. Gold is part of my savings strategy. I buy it from Birch Gold. They've been the exclusive gold partner of The Daily Wire for over seven years now. Literally helping thousands of our listeners. They can help you too. Text Ben 2 98. 98 98, get your free info kit on gold and then talk to a precious metal specialist about protecting your savings from persistent inflation with Gold Text Ben. 2 98. 98 98 right now, again, text Ben to 98. 98 98 to get started with my friends over at Birch Gold today. Diversification is just a smart business strategy. Go check out Birch Gold right now. Text Ben to 98. 98 98 to get started. We'll get to more on this in just one moment. First, using the internet without express VPN, it's like having a first aid kit but not keeping it stocked. Most of the time it's probably fine, but what's the point of the thing you get in a horrible accident? You look in there, it's empty. That would be stupid. Every time you connect to an unencrypted network in cafes, hotels, or airports, you're essentially leaving your personal data wide open for any hacker on the same network to access. Don't wait for a security breach to happen. Protect yourself with expressive VPN. Your data isn't just data. It's valuable information that hackers can make up to a thousand dollars per person selling on the dark web. That's why you need to protect it with Express VPNI love that Express VPN creates a secure encrypted tunnel between my device and the internet so hackers can't steal my sensitive data. It would take a hacker with a supercomputer over a billion years to get past expressive VPNs. Encryption express VPN is extremely easy to use. You just fire up that app, you click one button, you get it protected. Plus it works on all your devices including phones, laptops, tablets, and more. So you can stay secure on the go. Secure your online data today by visiting expressive vpn.com/ben. That's ex P-R-E-S-S vpn.com/ben. You can get an extra three months for free. Expressive vpn.com/ben. That's express vpn.com/ben and again, he has to post cash or bond within 30 days of Enron's formal entry of the order on February 23rd. So we are coming up very, very close to that or he has to risk the state seizing some of the Trump organization's assets to ensure that Letitia James can collect again those 30 days end March 25th. So in just six days we are going to be faced with either Donald Trump has to come up with a bond in order to appeal or Letitia James is going to start seizing his assets in a court filing on Monday, Trump's lawyers urged a mid-level state appeals court to delay enforcement of the judgment arguing the amount was excessive unclear at this point when that court known as the appellate division will actually rule. So a delay in that could create a conflict. It could be that Letitia James is putting liens on his properties and the appellate division has not put a stay on her doing that. And so you end up with this weird conflict where she has liens on his assets even as he's attempting to appeal the amount of the judgment. Now I find it hard to believe that there will be any circumstance in which this, in which this judgment is not knocked down extraordinarily, that 95% of this judgment doesn't just disappear. It's an insane proposition that if you are negotiating with a bank and you take an opening negotiation position of my real estate assets are worth x, and then they go and they survey the real estate assets and they determine what they think it's worth and then you negotiate over it and then you come up with a loan and they're not damaged and they get their money back that somehow you owe half a billion dollars to the state of New York. This is purely an attempt by Letitia James to bankrupt Trump. That is all this is. It's an attempt to bankrupt Donald Trump. So as to forest all his ability to, for example, pay his legal bills in other legal cases, of all the cases that have been brought against Trump, this is the one that's most obviously malicious prosecution. It is deeply malicious. The judge in this case is a political actor, Arthur Engan. He's a clown. He made a clown out of himself in the courtroom. Letitia James is a clown, but again, this is the danger of being able to forum shop. If you can try Donald Trump in New York with a New York jury, you can get away with pretty much anything in front of a New York judge. You can get away with pretty much anything and that is not equal application of the law. It's incredibly, incredibly dangerous. It is, by the way, one of the reasons why you are seeing capital flight from places like New York because a lot of people are looking around and going, hold up. If they don't like me, they're just gonna season my assets and that is what it looks like in the state of New York right now. Donald Trump's lawyers are asking that Trump be allowed to post a $100 million bond while he appeals the judgment, which again, that's a lot of money, a hundred million dollars in bond. Gary gii, an executive with insurance brokerage with the Lockton companies hired by Trump to help get them Bond wrote in a court filing a bond for the full $464 million is not possible under the circumstances presented. Giuliani said many assurities would not issue bonds above a hundred million dollars and were willing to accept only cash or securities, not real estate as a collateral so that therein lies the problem. Donald Trump, you could theoretically get a collateral right? I give a loan to Donald Trump collateralized against his real estate, but there are a lot of bonding companies that won't do that. They will only do that based on more liquid assets like stocks because when you go to sell real estate, it's not a perfectly liquid market. Liquid just means that it's very easy to buy and sell in that market as people have ever tried to sell a house, no, it may take a while. There may be multiple offers. It may be that you don't get the price that you are actually seeking. It's a time consuming issue, particularly when You know that Trump is going to be forced into the corner and forced to sell at at fire sale prices if he actually has to sell his assets in order to pay this sort of judgment. Really, really ugly stuff. Obviously deeply corrupt Trump campaign spokesperson. Stephen Chung told the Daily Express us this is a motion to stay the unjust, unconstitutional un-American judgment from New York Judge Arthur Engan in a political witch hunt brought by a corrupt attorney general, a bond of this size would be an abuse of the law. Contradict bedrock principles of our Republican fundamentally undermine the rule of law in New York. Again, that is not wrong and again, if Trump fails to pay up, the state could in fact levy and sell his assets lien Israel property and garnish anyone who owns him money, who owes him money according to his Syracuse law professor named Gregory Germaine. So this is truly nasty and ugly stuff and I'm very hopeful that an appellate court in New York will stay this because this is insane. It is, it is. In fact, Trump is not wrong when he says, listen, I didn't have a judgment against me in New York, anything remotely like this, being the biggest real estate mogul in New York, most famous real estate mogul in New York for literally half a century, nothing like this. He runs for president, he wins the presidency, he loses the presidency and then all of a sudden magically there are these judgments against him for half a billion dollars. Totally insane. Well again, the Democrats are pulling out all the stops against President Trump up to and including every hoax that they can find. So for example, the Biden campaign as well as the media continue as we discussed yesterday, to claim that Donald Trump is pledging a bloodbath. Should he, should he lose the upcoming election? That is not what he said. What he said of course, is that if Joe Biden won the upcoming election, there would be an economic bloodbath that didn't stop Al Sharpton, a person who has been involved in some inflammatory language of his own that also involved riots from actually ripping into Trump saying Trump might prompt violence Again, Al Sharpton standing there and and saying this with a straight face is truly astonishing. Given the Crown Heights riots in 1991 and the burning down of Freddie's Fashion Mart that same decade, both of which he used some rather inflammatory language regarding Jews here was here was Al Sharpton. Much of this bigger than than threatening language and behavior is being encouraged by former President Trump, who once again at a rally just last night reminded us of his passion for pushing the boundaries of civility last month, the FBI warned election officials throughout the country, the threat of political violence is real and urged them to take steps to ensure their safety. I pray every day this election will come and go without incident, but if a tragedy should occur, we should all remember who was stoking the flames of hatred and anger as well as we should remember those who refused to speak out against them. Democrats are such hypocrites on this sort of stuff. I mean truly hypocrites because they are perfectly fine with political violence so long as it comes from their side. I oppose political violence on all sides. Democrats only oppose political violence so long as it is supports of Donald Trump who are supposedly perpetuating it. Democrats were totally fine with $2 billion in property damage in 2020. In fact, they were cheering on the fiery but mostly peaceful riots of the Black Lives Matter movement in 2020. And again, Al Sharpton as your spokesperson against violence is pretty astonishing. Get to more on this in a moment. First 20 bucks that barely gets you anything these days. You can't get a burger and fries for less than that. What about at the gas pump? You get maybe a quarter tank of gas. Do You know what $20 will get you? However? Well from the cell phone company I use PureTalk can get unlimited talk text and plenty of 5G data for just 20 bucks a month. PureTalk gives you the same quality of service as your current cell phone provider, but for half the cost, the average family saves almost a thousand dollars a year, all with no contracts and no activation fees. You can switch to PureTalk and keep the phone and phone number you currently use or you can take advantage of their great deals on the latest iPhones and Androids making the switch incredibly easy. Their US customer service team can help you join PureTalk in as little as 10 minutes. Choose to spend your hard earned money with a wireless company that shares your values, supports the military and veterans, creates American jobs and refuses to advertise on You. know the fake news networks. Stop spending ridiculous amounts of money on your phone plan. Go to PureTalk dot com slash shapiro right now. My listeners can get an additional 50% off their very first month of coverage. That's PureTalk dot com slash shapiro. Again, go check them out today at PureTalk dot com slash shapiro. We'll get to more on this in a moment. First, if you're a business owner or a hiring manager, You know it's rough out there right now to find people good enough to fill the positions you need to fill. Fortunately, you don't need luck. To find top talent for your team, you need ZipRecruiter, and right now you can try ZipRecruiter for [email protected] slash DailyWire. ZipRecruiter, user-friendly technology guides you to finding top talent when you post your job. ZipRecruiter's Intuitive matching technology presents you with a list of qualified candidates. Once you've reviewed your list of qualified candidates, you can swiftly invite your top choices to apply this streamlined process encourages them to apply sooner, allowing you to fill that role as fast as humanly possible. Aren't you curious to see how ZipRecruiter can help you? Right now? You can try ZipRecruiter for free. Just go to ziprecruiter.com/ DailyWire. Four to five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within day one. Once again, just go to this exclusive web address to try ZipRecruiter for [email protected] slash DailyWire. ZipRecruiter is indeed the smartest way to hire ziprecruiter.com/ DailyWire. That's ziprecruiter.com/ DailyWire. Go check them out right now. Meanwhile, Joe Biden actually cut a campaign ad based on the bloodbath hoax here. Here's the campaign ad from yesterday. Now, if I don't get elected, it's gonna be a bloodbath and it's gonna be a bloodbath for the country. Jews will not replace us, but you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. Are You willing to condemn white supremacists and militia groups? Loud boys, stand back and stand by. Please rise for the horribly and unfairly treated January 6th hostages. There'd Be a lot of pardons and commutations of January 6th Defendants. Yes, Absolutely. You tell your supporters now no matter what, no violence and it's gonna be a blood bath. Okay, the blood bath like that, that's so insane. The blood bath line is an economic bloodbath description. They're literally taking it out of context and then they're hooking it up with a bunch of other statements that he has made about January 6th, many of which are also out of context to create a narrative that Donald Trump is gonna foment in actual civil war in the country if he wins. Now, let's be real. We all know what's actually going to happen if Donald Trump wins. There will be major riots in America's major cities if Donald Trump wins. We all know this, we know it. In fact, there was violence in 2017 when Donald Trump took office. That is a real thing that happened and it got ignored by the press because the press really don't care about violence so long as his left wing violence. But these sorts of silly hoaxes like the blood bath hoax, these sorts of silly hoaxes are now becoming democratic stock and trade. So the latest one comes courtesy of the White House. So yesterday Donald Trump did a a an interview with Seb Gorka and during that interview he was talking about Jews voting Democrat and he was making a point that frankly I have made myself, which is that Jews who are voting Democrat do not understand the Democratic Party at this point. They do not understand that the Democratic Party is a wildly anti-Israel party. That it is split at best between moderates on Israel and radicals who hate Israel. Ilhan Omar Rashida to leave. These are people who are honored in the halls of Congress. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez. It is Democrats, Democrat senators right now who are attempting to withdraw military aid as Israel tries to finish off a terrorist group that killed 1200 Israelis on October 7th and took 250 hostage and currently holds at least 50 more hostages right now. That is the Biden administration that's doing that. The Biden administration lit, they unleashed Chuck Schumer to try to overthrow the democratically elected government of Israel right now. He literally called for new elections and said that Bibi Netanyahu is the problem in a conflict between a democratically elected ally of the United States and an actual honest to God America hating terrorist group. That was Chuck Schumer. Who is doing that? It is Joe Biden who right now is putting significant pressure on Netanyahu. Okay? But, but Donald Trump mentions this and he says, You know Jews should not vote Democrat based on this. That if you're a Jew, you're voting Democrat. It's because either you don't understand what's going on or you don't care about what's going on. He happens to be correct about that. He happens to be correct about that. Donald Trump is the single most pro-ISIS Israel president of my lifetime. Bar none. There is no comparison. Joe Biden has been shockingly derelict in his inability to explain a basic moral difference between a Democrat state, a democratic state that is an American ally and that actually is in America's interest and a terrorist group that that our American ally is attempting to destroy right now that here is Trump yesterday. This apparently according to the White House, they claim this is antisemitic You know it's anti-Semitic. The fact that your party literally will not associate from Eleena Omar and Rashed at the Lieb You know it's anti-Semitic. Your party's bizarre suggestion that there's a moral equivalent between Israel and Hamas terrorists. It's absurd and You know what's truly endangering for Jews. You're trying to cut off arms shipments to a democratic ally of the United States in the middle of a war against a genocidal terror group. Anyway, here's Donald Trump yesterday. When you see those Palestinian marches, even I, I am amazed at how many people are in those marches and guys like Schumer see that, and to him it's votes, I think it's votes more than anything else because he was always pro-Israel. He's very anti-Israel. Now any Jewish person that votes for Democrats hates their religion. They hate everything about Israel and they should be ashamed of themselves. Okay? So people are saying, well, it's antisemitic to say that that Jews who are voting for Democrats hate their religion. Okay, well, here is the real, that's very strong language. I would suggest that many Jews who are voting for Democrats literally don't know about what Joe Biden is doing right now. But if you are a Jew in the United States and you are willing to overlook what the Democratic party is doing right now and the direction the Democratic party is moving on Israel, I would suggest that the very best you are rather disconnected from your religion because it turns out that the religious dream of a, a Jewish state in Israel, which Jews who are religious, pray for multiple times a day, and there's a reason that Jews pray toward the East and pray toward Jerusalem. There's a reason for that. That if in fact you are voting for a party that disdains Israel and that overlooks antisemitism within its own party because for example, you just like abortion policy coming from the Biden administration, I can't say that I have a lot of respect for your religious convictions, at least Judaically. Now again, you can say that your version of Judaism is not the, is not a, a more traditional form of Judaism. You can make a case that your religious practice has nothing to do with Israel. You can do that, but it has nothing to do with Judaism. Let's just be clear about that. Judaism is a set of precepts and principles, and yes, they have to do with Israel. Pretending that they do not is absurd. Of course, Jews have something to do with Israel. Of course they do. So calling that anti-Semitic is really a stretch. Democrats trying to swivel Donald Trump, who is a full scale supporter of Israel into an anti-Semite for being too pro Israel, which is effectively what they're doing right There is an absurdity. We'll get to more on this in just one moment. First spring is here. That means spring cleaning, warmer weather. The flowers and leaves are beginning to bloom. So of course you should be thinking about death. I'm just joking. But you actually should. You should be thinking about life insurance with policy genius. Getting life insurance today means you'll have peace of mind. So if something were to happen to you, your family can cover expenses while getting back on their feet. Luckily, PolicyGenius helps you compare options from top companies and their team of licensed experts on hand to help you talk through it. PolicyGenius has licensed award-winning agents and technology that makes it easy to compare life insurance quotes from America's top insurers in just a few clicks to find your lowest price. Even if you already have life insurance through work, it might not offer enough protection for your family's needs and it might not follow you. If you leave your job with PolicyGenius, you can find life insurance policy starting at just 292 bucks per year for a million dollars in coverage. Some options offer same day approval and avoid those unnecessary medical exams. PolicyGenius works for you, not the insurance companies, which means they don't have the incentive to recommend one insurer over another. Save time, save money. Provide your family with financial safety net using PolicyGenius. Head on over to policygenius.com/shapiro. Get your free life insurance quotes, see how much you could save. That's policygenius.com/shapiro. New estimates show that more than 1 million babies were killed by abortion in 2023. That's the highest number of abortions in the United States since 2012. Despite the overturning of Roe versus Wade, this is only made the abortion pill more readily available when they shout abortion. However, we shout life, we have to fight back against this evil. How do we do that? We join hands with PreBorn, the largest pro-life organization in the country that sponsors ultrasounds for clinics in the highest abortion areas. When a mom considering abortion meets her baby on ultrasound and hears the heartbeat, it doubles the baby's chance At life. Every day PreBorn rescues 200 babies' lives, which is a truly miraculous thing, but by the time I finish this ad, two babies will have been taken by this tragedy. One ultrasound costs only 28 bucks. It could be the difference between life and death because when mom sees the baby on ultrasound, it changes her mind. Please join the fight by sponsoring one, two, or even 300 ultrasounds all gifts tax deductible. Go to PreBorn dot com slash ben to donate today. That's PreBorn dot com slash ben or dial pound two 50. Say keyword baby. That's pound 2 5 0, baby, go check them out right now. PreBorn dot com slash ben to donate today or dial pound two 50 and say keyword baby. The White House said President Biden has put his foot down when it comes to violent unhinged anti-Semitic rhetoric has he though? Has he really? Because it seems to me every time there's been violent, unhinged, antisemitic rhetoric, he said nothing when it comes from his own Congress. It seems to me that Joe Biden, every time he talks about antisemitism, finds the desperate need to pair it with Islamophobia fan thumb Islamophobia that Joe Biden literally invited the council on American Islamic relations, which is in fact highly connected with Islamist radicals to help join him in defining antisemitism. The White House did this, so yeah, no, I don't think that's true. The White House said as antisemitic crimes and acts of hate have increased around the world, among them the deadliest attack committed against the Jewish people. Since the Holocaust leaders have an obligation to call hate what it is and bring Americans together against it, there is no justification for spreading toxic false stereotypes that threaten fellow citizens. Like President Biden said he was moved to run for president when he saw neo-Nazis chanting the same anti-Semitic bile that was heard in Germany in the 1930s in Charlottesville. Weird. He has had nothing to say about hundreds of thousands of pro Hamas American citizens chanting anti-Semitic bile. That's not just reminiscent of the 1930s. It is identical. So the stuff being chanted during the 1930s, that dude is trying to win those votes in Michigan. He's trying to win the votes of people who love Hamas in Dearborn, Michigan. That is what Joe Biden is trying to do right now, and he has the gall to suggest that Donald Trump is an antisemite. Truly that's the direction that he's going. He's literally doing this, by the way, at the same time that he's putting significant pressure on Benjamin Netanyahu. Not to finish off genocidal antisemites in Rafa, Israel has successfully pushed Kamas away from Gaza City, away from unis and the final city. They have have apparently four battalions of Hamas terrorists in there is Rafa. The only way that those terrorists will be eliminated is with a military incursion into Rafa. Everyone knows this and yet the Biden administration is trying to pressure Israel into not doing that. Why? Because Joe Biden desperately wants to win those votes in Dearborn, Michigan. He thinks he's gonna lose the election if he loses Michigan and for some odd reason he thinks he's losing Michigan 'cause not a, not enough Arab Americans are gonna vote for him, which by the way is not the reason he is losing Michigan. The reason he's losing Michigan is because blue collar workers don't like Joe Biden. 'cause Joe Biden is the, is the representative of an uppercrust white liberal establishment, and turns out blue collar workers don't like that very much. According to the times of Israel, US National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, acknowledged that the effort to secure an extended truth between Israel and Kama through a hostage deal has been more elusive than we would've hoped. But insists the Biden administration will keep pressing because we regard this as an urgent priority. Meanwhile, Joe Biden called Netanyahu yesterday and Biden offered his strongest warnings against an Israeli assault in Rafa. The prospect of fighting in Rafa Gaza's Southern Mo city was the main focus of the conversation. National Security advisor, Jake Sullivan, briefed reporters at the White House after the call. He actually requested that Israel pre-clear its military operations with United States basically before going into Rafa. Sullivan said that Biden said, I want you to understand Mr. Prime Minister exactly where I am on. I am on this. I'm for the defeat of Kamas. I believe they're an evil terrorist group with not just Israeli but American blood on their hands at the same time. I believe that to get to that, you need a strategy that works. That strategy should not involve a major military operation, puts thousands and thousands of innocent civilian lives at risk in Rafa. There is a better way. Yes, brilliant noted. Military strategist Joe Biden is going to explain to the ID F1 of the single most effective fighting forces on planet Earth, exactly how they should do a military operation. Joe Biden, who literally could not abandon Afghanistan without getting tens of thousands of Afghan allies murdered and 13 American troops murdered. That dude is gonna have a military recommendation to the Israelis on how to finish things off in Rafa. That senile old daughter is gonna be lecturing the, by the way, not just lecturing the Israelis apparently putting enough pressure on the Israelis that he is according to the New York Sun, threatening to withhold offensive military aid to Israel to actually do that. According to Benny Avni writing for the New York Sun by Sunday, Israel must tell America it is complying with international restrictions on armed supplies, including by facilitating ample humanitarian assistance to Gaza, according to the National Security Advisor. This is totally wild. Here was so Jake Sullivan was asked about the fact that this is all based on Joe Biden's sinking poll numbers 'cause it is, and here he was denying that even though it's obviously true, There's a report that when President Biden was told his handling of the war between Israel and Hamas was starting to affect his poll numbers. The quote is he began to shout and swear. So when he does that, is he shouting and swearing about Netanyahu or about Hamas or about his full numbers? This is the, when did you stop beating your spouse question because I don't think he ever did that and so, excuse me. Well you, you use that as the premise of your question, which is when he does that, he, I've never seen him do that shout or swear in response to that. So from my perspective, that particular report is not correct. Okay, so he says he's never shouted and he is never sworn, but obviously that's not true. Get some more on this in just one moment. First, in eternal truth, vegetables are horrifying. They taste bad. Brussels sprouts, for instance, they taste bad and then they stick with you for literally ever. What are they supposed to be like? Tiny cabbages? They're the worst. Well, I don't have to worry about eating them neither do you. With balance of nature, fruits and veggies, balance of nature, fruits and veggies is the most convenient way to ensure you get your daily intake of fruits and veggies. Balance of nature uses an advanced cold vacuum process that encapsulates fruits and veggies into a whole food supplements without sacrificing those natural antioxidants. The capsules are completely void of additives, fillers, extracts, synthetics, pesticides, or added sugar. The only thing in balances of nature is fruit and veggie capsules are You know like fruits and veggies. You need nutrients to function at your best each and every day. Balance of nature helps you do just that and it's kosher, which means I can use it myself in the protein smoothies so I can keep this rocking bod going. Go to balance of nature.com. Use promo code Shapiro to get 35% off your first set of fruits and veggies, plus an additional 10 bucks off every additional set you buy. That's balance of nature.com. Promo code Shapiro, balance of nature.com. Promo code Shapiro. We'll get some more on this in a moment. First, my days are really, really full between the show. Being a dad helping run my company, I can't keep up with my day if I don't get a good night's sleep, which is why I'm so appreciative of my Helix mattress. Helix harnesses years of mattress expertise to offer a truly elevated sleep experience. The Helix Elite Collection includes six different mattress models, each tailored four specific sleep positions in firmness preferences. If you're nervous about buying a mattress online, you really don't have to be. Helix has a sleep quiz, it matches your body type and sleep preferences to the perfect mattress because why would you buy a mattress made for somebody else? I took that Helix quiz. I was matched with a firm but breathable mattress, which I love because that's what I need. My wife loves the mattress as well. We are big Helix fans at the Shapiro house. Plus Helix has a 10 year warranty. You can try it out for a hundred nights risk free. They'll even pick it up for you if you don't love it, but you're gonna love it. Helix is financing options and flexible payment plans make it while great night's sleep is never far away. Right now Helix is offering all my listeners 20% off all mattress orders and two free pillows. Go to Helix sleep.com/ bennet's Helix sleep.com/bennets. Their best offer yet it's not gonna last long with Helix. Better sleep starts right now. Then Sullivan outlined the reasons that the United States opposes an offensive in Rafa. This is wild stuff. Here The President explained why he is so deeply concerned about the prospect of Israel conducting major military operations in Rafa of the kind it conducted in Gaza City and Kunis. First more than a million people have taken refuge in Rafa. They went from Gaza City to Kunis and then to Rafa, and they have nowhere else to go. Gaza's, other major cities have largely been destroyed and Israel has not presented us or the world with a plan for how or where they would safely move those civilians, let alone feed and house them and ensure access to basic things like sanitation. Second, Rafa is a primary entry point for humanitarian assistance into Gaza, from Egypt and from Israel. An invasion would shut that down or at least put it at grave risk right at the moment when it is most sorely needed. Third Rafa is on the border with Egypt, which has voiced its deep alarm over a major military operation there and has even raised questions about its future relationship with Israel as a result of any impending military operation. Okay, this is asinine. All three reasons that he listed our asinine. First he says, there are lots of people in Rafa and those people are gonna have to be moved and they haven't presented us a plan with how to move those people. Presumably they will move those people and in fact they have in fact discussed with the Americans plans to move those people to safe enclaves 'cause they've been doing that the whole time. Israel doesn't wanna be wading through civilians in order to get to the military members of Hamas. They don't want to be doing that. That's not something Israel is, has a military interest in doing. They would like to clear the area. So they say first, well, we're gonna need to move the civilians. Then they make the counter argument. You can't move the civilians because if you move the civilians, then Rafa is an entry point for humanitarian assistance. Well, yes, Rafa is a humanitarian point for for assistance because that's literally where the people are. So when you move the people, then you're gonna move the humanitarian assistance. This is not all that difficult to understand. By the way, a lot of that humanitarian assistance, Israel is pouring humanitarian assistance into the Gaza Strip and a ton of it is being stolen by Israel's enemies, Kamas, which are still very much present. Finally, he says, Rafa is on the border with Egypt and Egypt is really upset. Weird how the United States won't put any pressure on Egypt whatsoever to provide humanitarian aid, escape route for people. You know what Egypt has done. Egypt has done nothing. Egypt has put up a giant wall, a three barrier wall on the border of Gaza and they have said, we're not even gonna talk about temporary camps for refugees so that they can move into say, the Sinai desert temporarily and then move back into Gaza when all of this is over. Egypt was like, Nope, we're not taking anyone. We're not going to allow any of that. Once again, it is truly incredible how the burden is on Israel to take care of Gaza's civilian population that elected Hamas is sympathetic to Hamas, the Arab nations surrounding which are putting pressure on Israel. So it's Israel's job to to take care of everyone there and also to destroy Hamas that I've never heard of a war like this. Truly World War II has not fought like this. If you are talking about a civilian population that sides with Israel, that would be one thing that would look more like Korea or like Vietnam. If you are talking about a civilian population that is largely integrated with the terror group and that supports the terror group, the like, who has ever what are, what are they even talking about? Normally you'd use counterinsurgency tactics in a situation like this, you'd create safe enclaves, you would clear those enclaves and you would hold those enclaves moving forward and that will be Israel's plan moving forward. But the first thing you have to do is destroy the offensive military capacity of Hamas and this administration is attempting to full stop, prevent that, which is crazy. So basically they're saying, we would love to use destroy Hamas. We're just gonna prevent you from doing so. Meanwhile, Sullivan acknowledges that Israel, which is supposedly Netanyahu, supposedly the bad guy, right? Netanyahu's so terrible doesn't represent the Israeli people by the way, on this, he went, hundred percent represents the Israeli people. The vast majority of Israelis want an operation in Rafa to end this. Again, this is the equivalent of the allies getting outside Berlin in 1945 being like You know what? There are a lot of civilians in Berlin. We're probably just gonna have to leave Hitler in place in the bunker. That's really the only choice at this point. Netanyahu in an attempt to make nice with the Americans, is actually sending a delegation to DC to listen to the old man badger him about military plans, which is absurd. On the call today, president Biden asked the prime minister to send a senior interagency team composed of military intelligence and humanitarian officials to Washington in the coming days to hear us concerns about Israel's current Rafa planning and to lay out an alternative approach that would target key Hamas elements in Rafa and secure the Egypt Gaza border without a major ground invasion. The prime minister agreed that he would send a team, obviously he has his own point of view on a Roth operation, but he agreed that he would send a team to Washington to have this discussion and have this engagement and we look forward to those discussions. Okay, so here is the problem. I'm sure that if you had a magic wand and you could prevent a credible military operation that gets rid of Kamas, I'm sure Israel's willing to hear it. Israeli soldiers are dying literally every day at this point. Israel doesn't wanna lose soldiers. If you have a magic weapon option, Joe Biden go for it. But I don't think that's what this is about and no one thinks that's what this is about. By the way, you are simultaneously putting pressure on Netanyahu and you're calling for his ouster. The Biden administration literally mobilized Chuck Schumer. It's clear they did this in order to make that asinine speech on the floor of the Senate in which he called for Netanyahu to be ousted from office and called him the Obstacle to peace in the region. After Kamas slaughtered over a thousand Israeli citizens and took 250 hostages, then Sullivan had the gall to yell at and Netanyahu 'cause Netanyahu went on the Sunday shows and he defended himself and, and, and Sullivan's like, well, now you're intervening in American politics. Really? Did, did, did Netanyahu say that Joe Biden should be ousted from office? I missed that part. Or did he merely say that it's inappropriate for an American administration to call for the alster of a democratic ally in unprecedented fashion? Here's Jake Sullivan being just an idiot. Yesterday he talked about having the support of the majority of the Israeli people for his policies, including going into Rafa. Is there more that the administration, the US administration needs to do to speak to the Israeli people directly so that they don't support this idea of going into Rafa now? Well, first of all, inherent in the question is a, is a kind of a, an interesting irony, which is you have the Prime Minister speaking on American television about his concerns about Americans interfering in Israeli politics. And then your question is, should Americans be speaking into Israeli politics? Which in fact we don't do nearly as much as they speak into ours. So this administration is gonna lecture Donald Trump about antisemitism. This administration truly give me a flipping break. So just absolute insanity. And just one second. We're going to get into a Supreme Court case that could very well be impactful in the 2024 election. First, ladies and gentlemen, behold the iconic leftist tears Tumbl is back here. It is. It is sending shivers down the spines of woke baristas everywhere. But wait, there's a twist. This is the original never duplicated Spectacular. Yes, it's real Leftist tears, hot or cold Tumblr, it's yours for free when you become a DailyWire Plus annual member. Now I know you're thinking membership. I just want the legendary leftist tears Tumblr. Sure. Unlimited access to ad free Uncensored chose from The. Daily Wire hosts you love is is awesome and so is having hit movies and series and groundbreaking documentaries on demand. Yeah, that's awesome. But what you really want is the leftist tier Tumblr. Well, it is yours for free with an insider annual membership. And if you want more new all access members, get two leftist tier Tumblrs for free. That's right. Double the cred, double the tiers. Become an annual member today at DailyWire plus.com for your iconic leftist steer Tumblr and drink to triggering the left. It's more on this in just a moment. First, the NBA playoffs are heating up. There's no shortage of high stakes of basketball moments this time of year. Get in on the excitement with prize picks. America's number one fantasy sports app where you can turn your hoops knowledge into serious cash. You can now win up to 100 times your money on prize picks. With as little as four correct picks, you can turn 10 bucks into a thousand bucks. If you wanna play alongside some of prize pick's favorite players like Meek Mill and Sugar Sean O'Malley, you can now find community plays under the promos tab of the app to view entries from some of the biggest names in the prize picks community every week, prize picks even offers injury insurance so your entries stay and play even if one of your players gets injured for basketball games. If you've got a player who exits the game in the first half and does not return in the second, that player projection won't count against you, the rest of your entry will stay Live. Producer Jake, he's been loving Prize picks. He likes the easy to use interface. He's been getting it on the NBA playoff action. Download that prize pick apps today. Use code Ben for a first deposit match of up to a hundred bucks. Pick more, pick less. It's that easy. Use code Ben on the prize picks app for a first deposit match up to $100. Lots of action this time of year. Use code Ben over at Prize Picks app and get that first deposit match of up to a hundred bucks. Hey Atti, our passion for brewing has been transforming a few simple ingredients into a beer of unmistakable quality and taste since 1859. Brewed with passion, get the facts, be drink aware, visit, drink Aware e Meanwhile, of course Joe Biden is ailing. He just says dumb things every every single day and my my favorite is when he says things that that he thinks are kind of feminist slogans and they make no sense. So, so here he was yesterday explaining that there is literally nothing a man can do that a woman can't except for peace standing up All kid. The suck is not a damn thing a man can do that a woman can't do to state the obvious. Pick up really heavy objects, open jars of pickles, right? That I, I could name a few that they're throw a baseball really, really fast. Like there, there, there are a lot of them actually. And there's a lot of things that women can do that men can't do, like have babies, which is a superpower. But You know again, Joe Biden is, is an idiot and I guess this is appealing to somebody. Well, how exactly does Joe Biden plan to win the election? Well, the way that that he won the election in 2020 was at least partially affected by the fact that you had the FBI pushing social media companies. Not to say allow the publication and publicization of Hunter Biden's laptop material. This is all uncovered in the So-called Twitter files by reporters ranging from Matt Taibbi to Michael Shellenberger to Barry Weiss. And what those files showed is the FBI and the federal government pushing social media companies to shut down things for quote unquote disinformation. And a federal appellate court ruled that this was in fact a violation of the First Amendment. It was a violation of the First Amendment because the federal government should not be telling people to take down information if that information is not quote unquote illegal. Right? So you can make a case that for example, it would be illegal for Russia to engage in misinformation in propaganda stick efforts. But if an American says the same thing, not illegal, that that falls under the auspices of free speech. Well the Supreme Court has been asked to rule on this. Now, according to the New York Times, a majority of the Supreme Court seemed wary on Monday of a bid by two Republican alleged states to limit the Biden administration's interactions with social media companies with several justices questioning the state's legal theories and factual assertions. Most of the justices appeared convinced that government officials should be able to try to persuade private companies, whether news organizations or tech platforms not to publish information so long as the requests are not backed by coercive threats. This seems very risky to me. The reason it seems risky to me is because when the FBI tells you to take something down, are you thinking to yourself, man, I'm just gonna take this kind of like a normal run of the mill request to take something down the same as if my friend asked me to take something down. Or are you thinking, hey, that's the FBI, that's a lot of people with guns and federal power and warrants and all, all that sort of stuff. Maybe I should do what they say. Again, the idea of the government requesting something from you, it's typically not a request. They're requesting something from you in the same way that Capone was requesting something from you when he asked if you'd like to pay a protection fee. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Elena Kagan, both former White House lawyers said interactions between administration officials and news outlets provided a valuable analogy. Efforts by officials to influence coverage they said are part of a valuable dialogue that is not prohibited by the First Amendment. But again, that is a different thing. If you are saying to a news outlet as the White House, listen, we don't like your opinion on this. We think you're wrong. Maybe you don't wanna publish it. That is a different thing than law enforcement agencies like the FBI doing the same thing. Justice Sonia Sotomayor accused the states of distorting the record in the case the lawyer on behalf of the states in this particular case, Benjamin Aga, who's Louisiana Solicitor General Justice. So Tamara said, dam, I have a problem with your brief. You omit information that changes the context of some of your claims. You attribute things to people who didn't happen to the justices. Peppered. Aga with hypothetical questions about national security, doxing of public officials contest that could endanger teenagers, all suggesting there's a role for vigorous efforts by the government to combat harmful speech. Justice Samuel Alito, who again is one of the better justices on the court, if you're gonna rank Justices on the court in terms of being awesome, it would go Thomas and then Alito second, here's Alito yesterday, who is asking the lawyers for the government? Would you treat the New York Times the way you treat social media? Like telling them to literally take things down 'cause they're a national security threat. There are regular meetings, there is constant pestering of of Facebook and some of the other platforms, and they want to have regular meetings and they suggest, why don't you, they suggest rules that should be applied and why don't you tell us everything that you're gonna do so we can help you and we can look it over. And I thought, wow, I cannot imagine federal officials taking that approach to the, the, the print media, our representatives over there. If you, if you did that to, to them, what do you think the reaction would be? And. so I thought You know the only reason why this is taking place is because the federal government has got Section two 30 and antitrust in its pocket and it's to mix my metaphors and it's got these big clubs available for available to it. And so it's treating Facebook and these other platforms like their subordinates. Would you do that to the, to the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal or the Associated Press or any other big newspaper or wire service? Okay, so that would be the relevant question, obviously. And the answer by the government is, well, maybe, maybe the person who represented best. The government's position on this, on the Supreme Court is the worst justice on the Supreme Court. Keji Brown Jackson, she's the newest, it's between her and Sonya Omaar for worst justice on the court. The woman who can't define the word woman, she, she had some things to say in this case as well. She said, well, You know. We do know that the government can prohibit certain speech on the internet Whether or not the government can do this. This is something I took up with Mr. Fletcher depends on the application of our First Amendment jurisprudence, and there may be circumstances in which the government could prohibit certain speech on the internet or otherwise. Okay. She then continued by saying that the First Amendment shouldn't hamstring the government, which raises the question as to who exactly is designed to hamstring considering. It's literally says Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. That's literally what it's designed to do, is to hamstring the government literally in the text. Anyway, here is our, our esteemed Supreme Court Justice Kere Brown Jackson. So my biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important time periods. I mean, what would, what would you have the government do? I've heard you say a couple times that the government can post its own speech, but in my hypothetical You know kids, this is not safe. Don't do it, is not gonna get it done. And. so I, I guess some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country, and you seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information. Well, yes, that is exactly what they're claiming because harmful information may in fact be constitutionally protected speech. That's the entire question we're not talking about where the government has an interest in removing illegal material. There. Obviously, the government can do whatever it wants. We're talking about spaces in which the gov, like in this particular case, the government literally pressured social media to take down Hunter Biden laptop related posts on the basis of the lie that it was Russian disinformation when it was not without evidence. They did the same thing with regard to covid. They pressured social media to take down true information because it did not jive with what the federal government was promoting at the time with regard to covid or vaccines. So yes, the First Amendment was designed to specifically prevent the Congress from doing exactly what it is doing here. How this case goes down is gonna have pretty significant ramifications for election 2024, because I can promise you that the federal government under Joe Biden militarized to go after Big Tech and convince them to take down information damaging to Joe Biden. That is a thing that absolutely will happen. Speaking of censorship and the government's attempts to censor fascinating interview between Elon Musk and Don Lemon. So obviously there's been this big kerfuffle about Elon Musk and Don Lemon. Don Lemon was supposed to have a show on x sort of like Tucker Carlson has a show on XI don't know what the arrangements are, compensation or anything like that, but whatever arrangement there was fell apart after this interview between Musk and Lemon Musk didn't like what Lemon was promoting, and he basically said, You know you can still post on X whatever you want, but I'm, but I'm not gonna pay you for the privilege or anything like that. Well, this interview is kind of fascinating because Don Lemon legitimately does not seem to understand Musk's perspective on censorship and free speech. And again, a lot of the left doesn't. This is why they're so comfortable with the idea of the government stepping in and forcing social media not to post certain things or pressuring social media not to post certain things. So here was Elon Musk versus Don Lemon on censorship on X. These are just a handful of extremely. You look at those antisemitic and racist tropes and tweets, and as of this morning, they're still on x and from your own content policy, these posts should have been deleted. So why haven't they been deleted? Why are they still there? Do you We delete things if they are illegal, But these have been up there for a while. Are They illegal? They're not illegal, but they're hateful and they can, they can lead to violence. As I just read to you, the shooters You know in all of these mass shootings attributed social media to radicalizing it. So Don, you love censorship is what you're saying? No, I don't love censorship. Then Why, why are you Asking? I believe in moderation, but I, I don't believe in censorship is a Moderation is a propaganda word for censorship. But don't you think free speech is one thing, right? Or not? You know, look, if If something's illegal, we're gonna take it down. If it's not illegal, then we're putting out thumb on the scale and we're bringing censors. Okay? So here is the simple fact must happens to be right about censorship and moderation. He also is taking seriously his job as the proprietor of a platform. It's literally the reason that he bought X in the first place. X is a platform, this is the whole social media debate. Platforms are not publishers. Publishers are places like The, Daily, Wire. If you are in fact a person who is wildly pro-abortion, cheers, abortion, the likelihood that we're gonna hire you as a host is really, really low. We have no obligation to do so. That is not the same thing as saying that somebody should be banned from X or banned from YouTube or banned from any of the other platforms. If your basic idea is that you have section two 30 protection as a platform, well then you should treat that obligation seriously. And that's what Musk is doing right there. And again, I hate all the posts that Don Lemon is showing right there, right? The, the, the post that Don Lemon is showing on antisemitism or racism. I don't think Elon Musk likes those either, but that's not his point. Agreeing with Elon Musk is not a precondition to being on Twitter and even being within Elon Musk's Overton window is not a precondition to being on X or Twitter. But again, there, there is a, a wild disconnect in the way that people understand the world. This is also obvious when Musk was talking with, with Don Lemon about the fact that as we've reported on the show that DEI affirmative action programs, lower meritocratic standards, which is obviously true. Here's the clip. If the standards, like, like let's say, I think that particular thing was referring to surgeons. Let's say a surgeon is, is asked to a, a surgeon in training is asked to do a, a series of operations outta the supervision of a senior surgeon and they get a bunch of those operations wrong. If, if, if, if that happens and yet they are still approved to be a surgeon, the probability that someone will die, I think at some point is high. Okay, I understand that, but that's the hypothetical. That doesn't mean it's happening. I didn't say it, it's happening. You said you didn't say it was happening. I said it, I said it will you? But I said if, if, if, if we lower a status people, people will die. But why respond to something or put something out there that has not happened? Because I could say You know because I don't want it to happen. I think we don't wanna lower lowest standards. Okay. Again, I'm, I'm, I'm not sure what what Don is confused about right here. He literally posited that you should censor posts on X 'cause it might lead to violence, right? That, that that's what he's saying. That that's a will happen hypothetical could happen. That's like saying maybe we should You know we don't need to pave the roads. And you say, well, but we do because we wanna prevent people from driving off the roads because You know when, when it's rainy out, non paved roads are really bad and you could really hurt yourself and no, no, no. But it hasn't happened yet. Has it? It hasn't happened yet. Has it is a really bad argument. The argument that Musk is making with regard to DEI and meritocracy is very obvious, which is if there is a high standard for doing a thing and you have to pass those standards in order to do the thing, the people likely to pass those standards are likely to make fewer mistakes. Then the people who do not pass those standards, this is true in literally every area of American life. If there are tryouts for the basketball team, you don't just say anybody who tries out gets in more shots will likely be missed. If that is the case, I don't even understand why this is remotely controversial and the disconnect between Musk and, and the the kind of traditional left is, is pretty wild. Or, or the, the left as it is moved in the modern era here, for example, is Elon Musk versus Don Lemon on slavery. In fact, if you look at history, if you study history broadly, everyone was a slave. Everyone, Yes. Well, not everyone was a slave. Everyone was a slave, okay. But We, we, we all, we are all the descended From slaves. Yeah, Well, all of us. Yeah. So, but just a question of when is it, was it more recent or less recent? That's it, right? So the but what, what future do we want? We are, is this something we want to make part about constant dialogue forever or do do we wanna say like, let's just move on and treat everyone You know according to just who they are as an individual? I agree with you with that. That's the ideal. But what the evidence shows is that that's not what's actually in practice. I think we're doing it better than anywhere else. That is true. Again, the evidence does show that people generally treat people as individuals. I don't know what evidence Don Lemon is citing there, particularly in the United States, we do way better than other cultures have done in, in terms of treating people as individuals rather than as members of subgroups. And the people who are pushing against the individual are people who are in favor of the intersectional hierarchy. Here's more of musk on individualism, But that doesn't mean anything. That doesn't mean a lot to a whole lot of people who are able to take advantage of the opportunities that you are able to take advantage of simply because the color of your skin. What advantage, what what advantages did my color of my skin give made? Well, there's a cer there's an ease that you have in society that you, that many people of color don't. You are able to come to this country voluntarily. There are many people who are not able to come to the country voluntarily. There are people who came here as slaves for me to come here, slave and there is a legacy of slavery that still continues on. There's a legacy of racism that still continues on in this country. That's, and that's undeniable. Well, if, if, if we keep talking about it nonstop, it will never go away. If we keep making up the central thing, it will never go away. Well, why do you believe that? I think I'm just making a simple statement of fact. So I think, I think we want to get away from making everything a race or a gender or whatever issue and just treat people like individuals. Again, that is so obvious. And by the way, the data suggests that what Musk is saying there is, right? That the more people talk about these issues, the worse the issues become. All you have to do is look at the opinion poll since about 2013 in the United States. I'm, I'm honestly incredibly confused by, by the, the claim by John Lemon that Elon Musk has gotten forward because of the color of the skin. I know a lot of white people and none of them are Elon Musk. I know a lot of black people and none of 'em are Elon Musk. Turns out Elon Musk is one of one. But again, that, that failure to understand the perspective is one of the big gaps in American life right now. Joining us on the line is Congressman Greg Murphy. Dr. Murphy represents North Carolina's third congressional district. He's the only practicing physician in Congress today and he has now introduced legislation, the first of his kind at the federal level to ban race-based mandates at 158 accredited medical schools and accrediting agencies that receive federal funding. Congressman Murphy, thanks so much for joining the show, really appreciate it. Good morning. Good morning. Hope you're doing well, Ben. Doing well. So let's talk about the educate act that you are now introducing. What exactly does it do? This basically You know given the the absolute disaster of what's going on in medical schools now, where instead of teaching medicine, they're teaching activism basically withdrawals federal funding for any of these schools that are preaching diversity statements, which are forcing kids to, to sign diversity statements, forcing individuals to just because the color of the skin say that they're an oppressor. Basically, it's all the bad things of what we want from trying to improve race relations and instilling them in the curriculum in medical school of all places. So let's talk about the kind of stuff that's happening on these campuses that is driving your legislation in the first place. Place. You mentioned DEI education, but we've also seen, obviously we've reported here at DailyWire on many of the cases at medical schools across the country of actual discrimination against incoming students or applicants with regard to medical school. So what is the kind of stuff that you're seeing that's driving the legislation? Well, Ben, if you, if you start at the beginning, start from the admissions process where all of a sudden where You know, you look at the picture of UCLA School of Medicine, there are hardly any, any literally white men. It's just everything that's being discriminated against. You know Ben, many years ago when I was at Davidson College, I won the Sandy Black Memorial Ward for the highest pre-medical student. I look back now and if I had taken those same standards now and try to get it in medical school, my chances of being admitted because I was, didn't have enough melanin in my skin, didn't, people didn't believe, don't like Catholics anymore, any of these other things, I don't check the correct boxes for them. My chances of getting in medical school are greatly reduced. And then once you get into medical school, instead of teaching of a curriculum full of the facts on how to take care of all people, we're now seeing courses in social justice. And then for faculty they have to sign a diversity statement also, and I believe it's Colorado, the students have to sign a diversity statement. Then if they don't do that, then they don't get tenure, they don't get the right committees, they don't do a lot of the things. So in my opinion, this is the greatest mass peer pressure event since the Grand Inquisition. So we're forcing people to do something to conform very reminiscent of 1930s Germany. So let's talk about the actual act and, and its level of support in Congress. Do you have anybody else who's willing to sign onto the act? What are the prospects of moving this bill forward? Yeah, we got about 35, I believe co-signers so far may be higher than that. And You know, I've been in full discussion with Dr. Fox, who's the chairman of education and workforce. What most likely this will be is combined into a greater anti DEI bill, but You know Ben, I've been a surgeon now for close to 35 years and taking care of people, majority of which I live in a very high minority district both here and abroad. I've taken care of so many people that don't look like I do and worked with so many individuals, high quality individuals that don't look like I do. And so this, this build is DEI thing is anathema to those things. So You know we'll be, we put all this together under one bill for all universities and all education. A lower ed, I mean, excuse me, undergraduate education and higher education. I think America's finally realizing how detrimental this is to our meritory previously Meritorious Society You know, one of the things that's so amazing about all of this is that when people think about DEI or diversity standards, they think those are being applied in the liberal arts and they think, okay, well that's, those are soft studies, so who really cares if it's happening there? But this makes a real world difference. If you're talking about admitting people who are less qualified to medical school and those people then go on to become doctors and people who are more qualified to be doctors, never become doctors, then you are actively lowering the standard of care for a bunch of patients who are out there. Not only that, there are patients who have been for a very long time relying on the university credential as sort of a standin for the iur of approval that that goes with You know becoming a doctor. And so if the idea is that all the standards are being lowered at the various universities, those standards now become more untrustworthy and that has nothing to do with race. That just has to do with the fact that as soon as you substitute literally any metric outside of merit for actual merit, you're gonna be lowering the standards by necessity. Absolutely. And You know Ben Medical School, some people may disagree, was always thought to be the highest, I believe educational level. It was always supposedly taking our brightest individuals because we have so much knowledge to, to have to access, to take care of individuals. It was always thought to be completely merit based. Yes, we want it to be a diverse force. Absolutely. It was doing that naturally. I believe 50 per 6% of the physicians are white. The next highest are Hispanics, or sorry Asians and then their Hispanics and Blacks. It was becoming diverse. But to force this, to make patients not feel welcome by their doctor because they don't share their same skin color or belief, it's literally going in the opposite direction of what it should be. Well, that is Congressman Greg Murphy. He's bringing a bill forward to get rid of DEI at our medical schools. It is much appreciated. Congressman, really appreciate the time and thanks so much for doing what you're doing. Great. Thanks so much, Ben. Good to talk to you. Alrighty, folks who've reached the end of the show, we'll be back here tomorrow with much more. I'm Ben Shapiro. This is The Ben Shapiro Show At bi. Our passion for brewing has been transforming a few simple ingredients into a beer of unmistakable quality and taste since 1859 Brewed with passion. Get the facts, be drink aware, visit drink Aware. E.

right

ep bankrupting donald trump publish rss feed m ti passion brewing transform simple ingredient beer unmistakable quality taste brew passion fact drink aware visit drink aware e folk begin today thank congressman greg murphy greg murphy act physician united states congress right follow reporting dailywire talk rampant dei medical school congressman murphy introduce legislation end federal funding include student loan funding medical school practice dei bill call educate act ban antiwhite admission standard example duke hire surgeon talk month attempt push meritocracy medical school favor quote unquote racial diversity ineligible receive federal funding bill specifically bill prevent medical school take quote action deprive medical student educational opportunity adversely affect status basis race prohibit medical school teach america systematically racist racial group oppressor obviously apply reporting ve medical school like ucla mandatory course talk colonization united states shut dei office like wake forest medical school good necessary area american life meritocracy necessary hard think word necessary come medical care surgical care fact congressman murphy bring forward bill excellent thank okay big news day president trump hook million judgment accord court new york court new york preside judge arthur engan stacked court civil fraud prosecution bring donald trump specifically civil court oppose criminal court burden proof low civil court case attorney general letitia james come office pledge trump way actual thing prosecutor not come office say go guy go prosecute crime typically not find criminal find crime person crime definition criminal target specific person look like malicious selective prosecution exactly course letitia james right prosecute new york court great crime supposedly inflate value real estate asset obtain loan bank allegation bank give loan actually damage fact get money allegation instead inflate price real estate inflate asset perpetrate fraud people new york despite zero damage case zero damage judgment bring nearly half billion dollar totally insane mean case bring president trump far insane judgment completely kilter insanity statute like order bankrupt damage totally crazy order donald trump appeal judgment course post bond bond post million secure bond cover donald trump wealthy person obviously ve mention time come wealth wealth liquid people lot money not bank account lot money real estate holding stock holding semiliquid asset mean sell offload sell stock borrow theoretically donald trump like million sit hand bank vault like scrooge mcduck night go home dump vault swim stupid like s work donald trump not secure bond mean secure bond order appeal lien property basically shut business working property include property apparently locate new york letitia james way say donald trump pay new york ag fact prepare seize donald trumps asset fund pay judgment seek know judgment enforcement mechanism court ask judge seize asset okay basically s go appeal not appeal cause not bond need bond order appeal not ll forward try seize asset include asset like trump tower new york accord yahoo finance president pay sum pocket post bond stave state seizure appeal justice arthur eng ground february judgment misstate property value dupe lender insurer apparently trump adult child trump organization executive far approach company separate broker success accord lawyer defendant face judgment total million bond company hook payout trump lose appeal prove unable pay s reason people put money s reason afraid appeal appeal reject trump pay trump pay not trump pay put money money seize payment actual judgment turn trump try chisel money trump fact personal level lot people accuse donald trump past pay bill properly have difficult time secure sort bond collateralize donald trumps asset maybe trump not willing maybe asset free donald trump have difficult time post posting bond second financial expert say clear expert anticipate rate cut inflation united states remain significant economic concern think united states hole trillion continue print money s go to push price pay day high bury head sand diversify portion saving gold birch gold group gold hedge inflation birch gold make easy ll help convert exist ira tax shelter ira gold go to pay penny outta pocket gold saving strategy buy birch gold ve exclusive gold partner daily wire seven year literally help thousand listener help text ben free info kit gold talk precious metal specialist protect saving persistent inflation gold text ben right text ben start friend birch gold today diversification smart business strategy check birch gold right text ben start moment internet express vpn like have aid kit keep stock time probably fine s point thing horrible accident look stupid time connect unencrypted network cafe hotel airport essentially leave personal datum wide open hacker network access not wait security breach happen protect expressive vpn datum not data valuable information hacker thousand dollar person sell dark web s need protect express vpni love express vpn create secure encrypt tunnel device internet hacker not steal sensitive datum hacker supercomputer billion year past expressive vpns encryption express vpn extremely easy use fire app click button protect plus work device include phone laptop tablet stay secure secure online datum today visit expressive vpncomben s ex press vpncomben extra month free expressive vpncomben s express vpncomben post cash bond day enron formal entry order february come close risk state seize trump organization asset ensure letitia james collect day end march day go face donald trump come bond order appeal letitia james go start seize asset court filing monday trump lawyer urge midlevel state appeal court delay enforcement judgment argue excessive unclear point court know appellate division actually rule delay create conflict letitia james put lien property appellate division stay end weird conflict lien asset s attempt appeal judgment find hard believe circumstance judgment knock extraordinarily judgment not disappear insane proposition negotiate bank opening negotiation position real estate asset worth x survey real estate asset determine think worth negotiate come loan damage money owe half billion dollar state new york purely attempt letitia james bankrupt trump attempt bankrupt donald trump forest ability example pay legal bill legal case case bring trump s obviously malicious prosecution deeply malicious judge case political actor arthur engan s clown clown courtroom letitia james clown danger able forum shop try donald trump new york new york jury away pretty new york judge away pretty equal application law incredibly incredibly dangerous way reason see capital flight place like new york lot people look go hold not like go to season asset look like state new york right donald trumps lawyer ask trump allow post million bond appeal judgment s lot money million dollar bond gary gii executive insurance brokerage lockton company hire trump help bond write court file bond million possible circumstance present giuliani say assuritie issue bond million dollar willing accept cash security real estate collateral lie problem donald trump theoretically collateral right loan donald trump collateralize real estate lot bond company will not base liquid asset like stock sell real estate perfectly liquid market liquid mean easy buy sell market people try sell house multiple offer not price actually seek time consume issue particularly know trump go force corner force sell fire sale price actually sell asset order pay sort judgment ugly stuff obviously deeply corrupt trump campaign spokesperson stephen chung tell daily express motion stay unjust unconstitutional unamerican judgment new york judge arthur engan political witch hunt bring corrupt attorney general bond size abuse law contradict bedrock principle republican fundamentally undermine rule law new york wrong trump fail pay state fact levy sell asset lien israel property garnish own money owe money accord syracuse law professor name gregory germaine truly nasty ugly stuff m hopeful appellate court new york stay insane fact trump wrong say listen not judgment new york remotely like big real estate mogul new york famous real estate mogul new york literally half century like run president win presidency lose presidency sudden magically judgment half billion dollar totally insane democrats pull stop president trump include hoax find example biden campaign medium continue discuss yesterday claim donald trump pledge bloodbath lose upcoming election say say course joe biden win upcoming election economic bloodbath not stop al sharpton person involve inflammatory language involve riot actually rip trump say trump prompt violence al sharpton stand say straight face truly astonishing give crown height riot burning freddie fashion mart decade inflammatory language jews al sharpton big threaten language behavior encourage president trump rally night remind passion push boundary civility month fbi warn election official country threat political violence real urge step ensure safety pray day election come incident tragedy occur remember stoke flame hatred anger remember refuse speak democrats hypocrite sort stuff mean truly hypocrite perfectly fine political violence long come oppose political violence side democrat oppose political violence long support donald trump supposedly perpetuate democrats totally fine billion property damage fact cheer fiery peaceful riot black life matter movement al sharpton spokesperson violence pretty astonishing moment buck barely get day not burger fry gas pump maybe quarter tank gas know cell phone company use puretalk unlimited talk text plenty g datum buck month puretalk give quality service current cell phone provider half cost average family save thousand dollar year contract activation fee switch puretalk phone phone number currently use advantage great deal late iphone android make switch incredibly easy customer service team help join puretalk little minute choose spend hard earn money wireless company share value support military veteran create american job refuse advertise know fake news network stop spend ridiculous amount money phone plan puretalk dot com slash shapiro right listener additional month coverage s puretalk dot com slash shapiro check today puretalk dot com slash shapiro moment business owner hire manager know rough right find people good fill position need fill fortunately not need luck find talent team need ziprecruiter right try ziprecruiter freeziprecruitercom slash dailywire ziprecruiter userfriendly technology guide find talent post job ziprecruiter intuitive match technology present list qualified candidate ve review list qualified candidate swiftly invite choice apply streamlined process encourage apply soon allow fill role fast humanly possible not curious ziprecruiter help right try ziprecruiter free ziprecruitercom dailywire employer post ziprecruiter quality candidate day exclusive web address try ziprecruiter freeziprecruitercom slash dailywire ziprecruiter smart way hire ziprecruitercom dailywire s ziprecruitercom dailywire check right joe biden actually cut campaign ad base bloodbath hoax here campaign ad yesterday not elect go to bloodbath go to bloodbath country jews replace people fine people side willing condemn white supremacist militia group loud boy stand stand rise horribly unfairly treat january hostage d lot pardon commutation january defendant yes absolutely tell supporter matter violence go to blood bath okay blood bath like s insane blood bath line economic bloodbath description literally take context hook bunch statement january context create narrative donald trump go to foment actual civil war country win let real know s actually go happen donald trump win major riot americas major city donald trump win know know fact violence donald trump take office real thing happen get ignore press press not care violence long left wing violence sort silly hoax like blood bath hoax sort silly hoax democratic stock trade late come courtesy white house yesterday donald trump interview seb gorka interview talk jews vote democrat make point frankly jews vote democrat understand democratic party point understand democratic party wildly antiisrael party split good moderate israel radical hate israel ilhan omar rashida leave people honor hall congress alexandra ocasiocortez democrats democrat senator right attempt withdraw military aid israel try finish terrorist group kill israelis october take hostage currently hold hostage right biden administration s biden administration light unleash chuck schumer try overthrow democratically elect government israel right literally call new election say bibi netanyahu problem conflict democratically elect ally united states actual honest god america hate terrorist group chuck schumer joe biden right put significant pressure netanyahu okay donald trump mention say know jews vote democrat base jew vote democrat not understand s go not care s go happen correct happen correct donald trump single proisis israel president lifetime bar comparison joe biden shockingly derelict inability explain basic moral difference democrat state democratic state american ally actually america interest terrorist group american ally attempt destroy right trump yesterday apparently accord white house claim antisemitic know antisemitic fact party literally associate eleena omar rashe lieb know antisemitic partys bizarre suggestion s moral equivalent israel hamas terrorist absurd know s truly endanger jews try cut arm shipment democratic ally united states middle war genocidal terror group here donald trump yesterday palestinian marche amazed people marche guy like schumer vote think vote proisrael s antiisrael jewish person vote democrats hate religion hate israel ashamed okay people say antisemitic jews vote democrats hate religion okay real s strong language suggest jews vote democrats literally not know joe biden right jew united states willing overlook democratic party right direction democratic party move israel suggest good disconnected religion turn religious dream jewish state israel jews religious pray multiple time day s reason jews pray east pray jerusalem s reason fact vote party disdain israel overlook antisemitism party example like abortion policy come biden administration not lot respect religious conviction judaically version judaism traditional form judaism case religious practice israel judaism let clear judaism set precept principle yes israel pretend absurd course jews israel course call antisemitic stretch democrat try swivel donald trump scale supporter israel antisemite pro israel effectively right absurdity moment spring mean spring clean warm weather flower leave begin bloom course think death m joke actually think life insurance policy genius get life insurance today mean ll peace mind happen family cover expense get foot luckily policygenius help compare option company team licensed expert hand help talk policygenius license awardwinne agent technology make easy compare life insurance quote americas insurer click find low price life insurance work offer protection family need follow leave job policygenius find life insurance policy start buck year million dollar coverage option offer day approval avoid unnecessary medical exam policygenius work insurance company mean not incentive recommend insurer save time save money provide family financial safety net policygenius head policygeniuscomshapiro free life insurance quote save s policygeniuscomshapiro new estimate million baby kill abortion s high number abortion united states despite overturning roe versus wade abortion pill readily available shout abortion shout life fight evil join hand preborn large prolife organization country sponsor ultrasound clinic high abortion area mom consider abortion meet baby ultrasound hear heartbeat double babys chance life day preborn rescue baby life truly miraculous thing time finish ad baby take tragedy ultrasound cost buck difference life death mom see baby ultrasound change mind join fight sponsor ultrasound gift tax deductible preborn dot com slash ben donate today s preborn dot com slash ben dial pound keyword baby s pound baby check right preborn dot com slash ben donate today dial pound keyword baby white house say president biden foot come violent unhinged antisemitic rhetoric time s violent unhinged antisemitic rhetoric say come congress joe biden time talk antisemitism find desperate need pair islamophobia fan thumb islamophobia joe biden literally invite council american islamic relation fact highly connect islamist radical help join define antisemitism white house yeah not think s true white house say antisemitic crime act hate increase world deadly attack commit jewish people holocaust leader obligation hate bring americans justification spread toxic false stereotype threaten fellow citizen like president biden say move run president see neonazi chant antisemitic bile hear germany charlottesville weird hundred thousand pro hamas american citizen chant antisemitic bile s reminiscent identical stuff chant dude try win vote michigan s try win vote people love hamas dearborn michigan joe biden try right gall suggest donald trump antisemite truly s direction s go s literally way time s put significant pressure benjamin netanyahu finish genocidal antisemite rafa israel successfully push kamas away gaza city away uni final city apparently battalion hamas terrorist rafa way terrorist eliminate military incursion rafa know biden administration try pressure israel joe biden desperately want win vote dearborn michigan think s go to lose election lose michigan odd reason think s lose michigan cause arab americans go to vote way reason lose michigan reason s lose michigan blue collar worker not like joe biden cause joe biden representative uppercrust white liberal establishment turn blue collar worker not like accord time israel national security advisor jake sullivan acknowledge effort secure extended truth israel kama hostage deal elusive ve hope insist biden administration press regard urgent priority joe biden call netanyahu yesterday biden offer strong warning israeli assault rafa prospect fight rafa gazas southern mo city main focus conversation national security advisor jake sullivan brief reporter white house actually request israel preclear military operation united states basically go rafa sullivan say biden say want understand mr prime minister exactly m defeat kamas believe evil terrorist group israeli american blood hand time believe need strategy work strategy involve major military operation put thousand thousand innocent civilian live risk rafa well way yes brilliant note military strategist joe biden go explain d single effective fighting force planet earth exactly military operation joe biden literally abandon afghanistan get ten thousand afghan ally murder american troop murder dude go to military recommendation israelis finish thing rafa senile old daughter go to lecture way lecture israelis apparently put pressure israelis accord new york sun threaten withhold offensive military aid israel actually accord benny avni write new york sun sunday israel tell america comply international restriction armed supply include facilitate ample humanitarian assistance gaza accord national security advisor totally wild jake sullivan ask fact base joe biden sink poll number cause deny obviously true s report president biden tell handling war israel hamas start affect poll number quote begin shout swear shout swear netanyahu hamas number stop beat spouse question not think excuse use premise question ve see shout swear response perspective particular report correct okay say s shout swear obviously s true moment eternal truth vegetable horrify taste bad brussels sprout instance taste bad stick literally suppose like tiny cabbage bad not worry eat balance nature fruit veggie balance nature fruit veggie convenient way ensure daily intake fruit veggie balance nature use advanced cold vacuum process encapsulate fruit veggie food supplement sacrifice natural antioxidant capsule completely void additive filler extract synthetic pesticide add sugar thing balance nature fruit veggie capsule know like fruit veggie need nutrient function good day balance nature help kosher mean use protein smoothie rock bod go balance naturecom use promo code shapiro set fruit veggie plus additional buck additional set buy s balance naturecom promo code shapiro balance naturecom promo code shapiro moment day dad helping run company not day not good night sleep m appreciative helix mattress helix harness year mattress expertise offer truly elevate sleep experience helix elite collection include different mattress model tailor specific sleep position firmness preference nervous buy mattress online not helix sleep quiz match body type sleep preference perfect mattress buy mattress somebody take helix quiz match firm breathable mattress love s need wife love mattress big helix fan shapiro house plus helix year warranty try night risk free ll pick not love go to love helix financing option flexible payment plan great night sleep far away right helix offer listener mattress order free pillow helix sleepcom bennet helix sleepcombennet good offer go to long helix well sleep start right sullivan outline reason united states oppose offensive rafa wild stuff president explain deeply concerned prospect israel conduct major military operation rafa kind conduct gaza city kunis million people take refuge rafa go gaza city kunis rafa gazas major city largely destroy israel present world plan safely civilian let feed house ensure access basic thing like sanitation second rafa primary entry point humanitarian assistance gaza egypt israel invasion shut grave risk right moment sorely need rafa border egypt voice deep alarm major military operation raise question future relationship israel result impending military operation okay asinine reason list asinine say lot people rafa people go to move not present plan people presumably people fact fact discuss americans plan people safe enclave cause ve time israel not wanna wade civilian order military member hamas not want s israel military interest like clear area go to need civilian counter argument not civilian civilian rafa entry point humanitarian assistance yes rafa humanitarian point assistance s literally people people go to humanitarian assistance difficult understand way lot humanitarian assistance israel pour humanitarian assistance gaza strip ton steal israel enemy kamas present finally say rafa border egypt egypt upset weird united states will not pressure egypt whatsoever provide humanitarian aid escape route people know egypt egypt egypt giant wall barrier wall border gaza say go to talk temporary camp refugee sinai desert temporarily gaza egypt like nope take go allow truly incredible burden israel care gazas civilian population elect hamas sympathetic hamas arab nation surround put pressure israel israel job care destroy hamas ve hear war like truly world war ii fight like talk civilian population side israel thing look like korea like vietnam talk civilian population largely integrate terror group support terror group like talk normally d use counterinsurgency tactic situation like d create safe enclave clear enclave hold enclave move forward israel plan move forward thing destroy offensive military capacity hamas administration attempt stop prevent crazy basically say love use destroy hamas go to prevent sullivan acknowledge israel supposedly netanyahu supposedly bad guy right netanyahu terrible not represent israeli people way go percent represent israeli people vast majority israelis want operation rafa end equivalent ally get outside berlin like know lot civilian berlin probably go to leave hitler place bunker s choice point netanyahu attempt nice americans actually send delegation dc listen old man badger military plan absurd today president biden ask prime minister send senior interagency team compose military intelligence humanitarian official washington come day hear concern israels current rafa planning lay alternative approach target key hamas element rafa secure egypt gaza border major ground invasion prime minister agree send team obviously point view roth operation agree send team washington discussion engagement look forward discussion okay problem m sure magic wand prevent credible military operation get rid kamas m sure israel willing hear israeli soldier die literally day point israel not wanna lose soldier magic weapon option joe biden not think s think s way simultaneously put pressure netanyahu call ouster biden administration literally mobilize chuck schumer clear order asinine speech floor senate call netanyahu oust office call obstacle peace region kamas slaughter thousand israeli citizen take hostage sullivan gall yell netanyahu cause netanyahu go sunday show defend sullivan like intervene american politic netanyahu joe biden oust office miss merely inappropriate american administration alster democratic ally unprecedented fashion here jake sullivan idiot yesterday talk have support majority israeli people policy include go rafa administration administration need speak israeli people directly not support idea go rafa inherent question kind interesting irony prime minister speak american television concern americans interfere israeli politic question americans speak israeli politic fact not nearly speak administration go to lecture donald trump antisemitism administration truly flipping break absolute insanity second go supreme court case impactful election lady gentleman behold iconic leftist tear tumbl send shiver spine wake barista wait s twist original duplicate spectacular yes real leftist tear hot cold tumblr free dailywire plus annual member know think membership want legendary leftist tear tumblr sure unlimited access ad free uncensored choose daily wire host love awesome having hit movie series groundbreaking documentary demand yeah s awesome want leftist tier tumblr free insider annual membership want new access member leftist tier tumblrs free s right double cre double tier annual member today dailywire pluscom iconic leftist steer tumblr drink trigger left moment nba playoff heat s shortage high stake basketball moment time year excitement prize pick america number fantasy sport app turn hoop knowledge cash win time money prize pick little correct pick turn buck thousand buck wanna play alongside prize pick favorite player like meek mill sugar sean omalley find community play promos tab app view entry big name prize pick community week prize pick offer injury insurance entry stay play player get injure basketball game ve get player exit game half return second player projection will not count rest entry stay live producer jake s love prize pick like easy use interface s get nba playoff action download prize pick app today use code ben deposit match buck pick pick easy use code ben prize pick app deposit match lot action time year use code ben prize pick app deposit match buck hey atti passion brewing transform simple ingredient beer unmistakable quality taste brew passion fact drink aware visit drink aware e course joe biden ail say dumb thing single day favorite say thing think kind feminist slogan sense yesterday explain literally man woman not peace stand kid suck damn thing man woman not state obvious pick heavy object open jar pickle right throw baseball fast like lot actually s lot thing woman man not like baby superpower know joe biden idiot guess appeal somebody exactly joe biden plan win election way win election partially affect fact fbi push social medium company allow publication publicization hunter biden laptop material uncover socalled twitter file reporter range matt taibbi michael shellenberger barry weiss file show fbi federal government push social medium company shut thing quote unquote disinformation federal appellate court rule fact violation amendment violation amendment federal government tell people information information quote unquote illegal right case example illegal russia engage misinformation propaganda stick effort american say thing illegal fall auspex free speech supreme court ask rule accord new york times majority supreme court wary monday bid republican alleged state limit biden administration interaction social medium company justice question state legal theory factual assertion justice appear convinced government official able try persuade private company news organization tech platform publish information long request back coercive threat risky reason risky fbi tell think man m go to kind like normal run mill request friend ask think hey s fbi s lot people gun federal power warrant sort stuff maybe idea government request typically request request way capone request ask d like pay protection fee justice brett kavanaugh elena kagan white house lawyer say interaction administration official news outlet provide valuable analogy effort official influence coverage say valuable dialogue prohibit amendment different thing say news outlet white house listen not like opinion think wrong maybe not wanna publish different thing law enforcement agency like fbi thing justice sonia sotomayor accuse state distort record case lawyer behalf state particular case benjamin aga s louisiana solicitor general justice tamara say dam problem brief omit information change context claim attribute thing people not happen justice pepper aga hypothetical question national security doxing public official contest endanger teenager suggest s role vigorous effort government combat harmful speech justice samuel alito well justice court go to rank justice court term awesome thomas alito second here alito yesterday ask lawyer government treat new york times way treat social medium like tell literally thing cause national security threat regular meeting constant pestering facebook platform want regular meeting suggest not suggest rule apply not tell go to help look think wow imagine federal official take approach print medium representative think reaction think know reason take place federal government get section antitrust pocket mix metaphor get big club available available treat facebook platform like subordinate new york times wall street journal associated press big newspaper wire service okay relevant question obviously answer government maybe maybe person represent well government position supreme court bad justice supreme court keji brown jackson s new sonya omaar bad justice court woman not define word woman thing case say know know government prohibit certain speech internet government take mr fletcher depend application amendment jurisprudence circumstance government prohibit certain speech internet okay continue say amendment not hamstre government raise question exactly design hamstring consider literally say congress shall law abridge freedom speech s literally design hamstre government literally text esteemed supreme court justice kere brown jackson big concern view amendment hamstring government significant way important time period mean government ve hear couple time government post speech hypothetical know kid safe not go to guess government actually duty step protect citizen country suggest duty manifest government encouraging pressure platform harmful information yes exactly claim harmful information fact constitutionally protect speech s entire question talk government interest remove illegal material obviously government want talk space gov like particular case government literally pressure social medium hunter biden laptop relate post basis lie russian disinformation evidence thing regard covid pressure social medium true information jive federal government promote time regard covid vaccine yes amendment design specifically prevent congress exactly case go go to pretty significant ramification election promise federal government joe biden militarize big tech convince information damage joe biden thing absolutely happen speak censorship government attempt censor fascinating interview elon musk don lemon obviously s big kerfuffle elon musk don lemon don lemon suppose x sort like tucker carlson xi not know arrangement compensation like arrangement fall apart interview musk lemon musk not like lemon promote basically say know post x want m m go to pay privilege like interview kind fascinating don lemon legitimately understand musk perspective censorship free speech lot left not comfortable idea government step force social medium post certain thing pressure social medium post certain thing elon musk versus don lemon censorship x handful extremely look antisemitic racist trope tweet morning x content policy post delete not delete delete thing illegal illegal illegal hateful lead violence read shooter know mass shooting attribute social medium radicalize don love censorship say not love censorship ask believe moderation not believe censorship moderation propaganda word censorship not think free speech thing right know look something illegal go to illegal put thumb scale bring censor okay simple fact happen right censorship moderation take seriously job proprietor platform literally reason buy x place x platform social medium debate platform publisher publisher place like daily wire fact person wildly proabortion cheer abortion likelihood go to hire host low obligation thing say somebody ban x ban youtube ban platform basic idea section protection platform treat obligation seriously s musk right hate post don lemon show right right post don lemon show antisemitism racism not think elon musk like s point agree elon musk precondition twitter elon musk overton window precondition x twitter wild disconnect way people understand world obvious musk talk don lemon fact ve report dei affirmative action program low meritocratic standard obviously true here clip standard like like let think particular thing refer surgeon let surgeon ask surgeon training ask series operation outta supervision senior surgeon bunch operation wrong happen approve surgeon probability die think point high okay understand s hypothetical not mean happen not happen say not happen say say say lower status people people die respond happen know not want happen think not wanna lower low standard okay m m m sure don confuse right literally posit censor post x cause lead violence right s s say s happen hypothetical happen s like say maybe know not need pave road wanna prevent people drive road know rainy non paved road bad hurt not happen not happen bad argument argument musk make regard dei meritocracy obvious high standard thing pass standard order thing people likely pass standard likely few mistake people pass standard true literally area american life tryout basketball team not anybody try get shot likely miss case not understand remotely controversial disconnect musk kind traditional left pretty wild left move modern era example elon musk versus don lemon slavery fact look history study history broadly slave yes slave slave okay descended slave yeah yeah question recent recent s right future want want constant dialogue forever wanna like let treat know accord individual agree s ideal evidence show s s actually practice think well true evidence people generally treat people individual not know evidence don lemon cite particularly united states way well culture term treat people individual member subgroup people push individual people favor intersectional hierarchy here musk individualism not mean not mean lot lot people able advantage opportunity able advantage simply color skin advantage advantage color skin s cer s ease society people color not able come country voluntarily people able come country voluntarily people come slave come slave legacy slavery continue s legacy racism continue country s s undeniable talk nonstop away make central thing away believe think m make simple statement fact think think want away make race gender issue treat people like individual obvious way datum suggest musk say right people talk issue bad issue look opinion poll united states m m honestly incredibly confuse claim john lemon elon musk get forward color skin know lot white people elon musk know lot black people em elon musk turn elon musk failure understand perspective big gap american life right join line congressman greg murphy dr murphy represent north carolinas congressional district s practice physician congress today introduce legislation kind federal level ban racebase mandate accredit medical school accredit agency receive federal funding congressman murphy thank join appreciate good morning good morning hope ben let talk educate act introduce exactly basically know give absolute disaster s go medical school instead teach medicine teach activism basically withdrawal federal funding school preach diversity statement force kid sign diversity statement force individual color skin oppressor basically bad thing want try improve race relation instill curriculum medical school place let talk kind stuff s happen campus drive legislation place place mention dei education ve see obviously ve report dailywire case medical school country actual discrimination incoming student applicant regard medical school kind stuff see s drive legislation ben start beginning start admission process sudden know look picture ucla school medicine hardly literally white man s discriminate know ben year ago davidson college win sandy black memorial ward high premedical student look take standard try medical school chance admit not melanin skin not people not believe not like catholic anymore thing not check correct box chance get medical school greatly reduce medical school instead teaching curriculum fact care people see course social justice faculty sign diversity statement believe colorado student sign diversity statement not not tenure not right committee not lot thing opinion great mass peer pressure event grand inquisition force people conform reminiscent germany let talk actual act level support congress anybody s willing sign act prospect move bill forward yeah get believe cosigner far high know ve discussion dr fox s chairman education workforce likely combine great anti dei bill know ben ve surgeon close year take care people majority live high minority district abroad ve take care people not look like work individual high quality individual not look like build dei thing anathema thing know bill university education low ed mean excuse undergraduate education high education think america finally realize detrimental meritory previously meritorious society know thing s amazing people think dei diversity standard think apply liberal art think okay s soft study care happen make real world difference talk admit people qualified medical school people doctor people qualified doctor doctor actively lower standard care bunch patient patient long time rely university credential sort standin iur approval go know doctor idea standard lower university standard untrustworthy race fact soon substitute literally metric outside merit actual merit go to lower standard necessity absolutely know ben medical school people disagree think high believe educational level supposedly take bright individual knowledge access care individual think completely merit base yes want diverse force absolutely naturally believe physician white high hispanic sorry asian hispanic black diverse force patient feel welcome doctor not share skin color belief literally go opposite direction congressman greg murphy s bring bill forward rid dei medical school appreciated congressman appreciate time thank great thank ben good talk alrighty folk ve reach end tomorrow m ben shapiro ben shapiro bi passion brewing transform simple ingredient beer unmistakable quality taste brew passion fact drink aware visit drink aware e

Title: The Press Under a Free Government Date: January 17, 1925 Location: Washington, D.C. Context: Address to the American Society of Newspaper Editors on the rights and privileges that come with journalism and writing under a free government (Original document available here) The relationship between governments and the press has always been recognized as a matter of large importance. Wherever despotism abounds, the sources of public information are the first to be brought under its control. Wherever the cause of liberty is making its way, one of its highest accomplishments is the guarantee of the freedom of the press. It has always been realized, sometimes instinctively, oftentimes expressly, that truth and freedom are inseparable. An absolutism could never rest upon anything save a perverted and distorted view of human relationships and upon false standards set up and maintained by force. It has always found it necessary to attempt to dominate the entire field of education and instruction. It has thrived on ignorance. While it has sought to train the minds of a few, it has been largely with the purpose of attempting to give them a superior facility for misleading the many. Men have been educated under absolutism, not that they might bear witness to the truth, but that they might be the more ingenious advocates and defenders of false standards and hollow pretenses. This has always been the method of privilege, the method of class and caste, the method of master and slave. When a community has sufficiently advanced so that its government begins to take on that of the nature of a republic, the processes of education become even more important, but the method is necessarily reversed. It is all the more necessary under a system of free government that the people should be enlightened, that they should be correctly informed, than it is under an absolute government that they should be ignorant. Under a republic the institutions of learning, while bound by the constitution and laws, are in no way subservient to the government. The principles which they enunciate do not depend for their authority upon whether they square with the wish of the ruling dynasty, but whether they square with the everlasting truth. Under these conditions the press, which had before been made an instrument for concealing or perverting the facts, must be made an instrument for their true representation and their sound and logical interpretation. From the position of a mere organ, constantly bound to servitude, public prints rise to a dignity, not only of independence, but of a great educational and enlightening factor. They attain new powers, which it is almost impossible to measure, and become charged with commensurate responsibilities. The public press under an autocracy is necessarily a true agency of propaganda. Under a free government it must be the very reverse. Propaganda seeks to present a part of the facts, to distort their relations, and to force conclusions which could not be drawn from a complete and candid survey of all the facts. It has been observed that propaganda seeks to close the mind, while education seeks to open it. This has become one of the dangers of the present day. The great difficulty in combating unfair propaganda, or even in recognizing it, arises from the fact that at the present time we confront so many new and technical problems that it is an enormous task to keep ourselves accurately informed concerning them. In this respect, you gentlemen of the press face the same perplexities that are encountered by legislators and government administrators. Whoever deals with current public questions is compelled to rely greatly upon the information and judgments of experts and specialists. Unfortunately, not all experts are to be trusted, as entirely disinterested. Not all specialists are completely without guile. In our increasing dependence on specialized authority, we tend to become easier victims for the propagandists, and need to cultivate sedulously the habit of the open mind. No doubt every generation feels that its problems are the most intricate and baffling that have ever been presented for solution. But with all recognition of the disposition to exaggerate in this respect, I think we can fairly say that our times in all their social and economic aspects are more complex than any past period. We need to keep our minds free from prejudice and bias. Of education, and of real information we cannot get too much. But of propaganda, which is tainted or perverted information, we cannot have too little. Newspaper men, therefore, endlessly discuss the question of what is news. I judge that they will go on discussing it as long as there are newspapers. It has seemed to me that quite obviously the news-giving function of a newspaper cannot possibly require that it give a photographic presentation of everything that happens in the community. That is an obvious impossibility. It seems fair to say that the proper presentation of the news bears about the same relation to the whole field of happenings that a painting does to a photograph. The photograph might give the more accurate presentation of details, but in doing so it might sacrifice the opportunity the more clearly to delineate character. My college professor was wont to tell us a good many years ago that if a painting of a tree was only the exact representation of the original, so that it looked just like the tree, there would be no reason for making it; we might as well look at the tree itself. But the painting, if it is of the right sort, gives something that neither a photograph nor a view of the tree conveys. It emphasizes something of character, quality, individuality. We are not lost in looking at thorns and defects; we catch a vision of the grandeur and beauty of a king of the forest. And so I have conceived that the news, properly presented, should be a sort of cross-section of the character of current human experience. It should delineate character, quality, tendencies and implications. In this way the reporter exercises his genius. Out of the current events he does not make a drab and sordid story, but rather an informing and enlightened epic. His work becomes no longer imitative, but rises to an original art. Our American newspapers serve a double purpose. They bring knowledge and information to their readers, and at the same time they play a most important part in connection with the business interests of the community, both through their news and advertising departments. Probably there is no rule of your profession to which you gentlemen are more devoted than that which prescribes that the editorial and the business policies of the paper are to be conducted by strictly separate departments. Editorial policy and news policy must not be influenced by business consideration; business policies must not be affected by editorial programs. Such a dictum strikes the outsider as involving a good deal of difficulty in the practical adjustments of every-day management. Yet, in fact, I doubt if those adjustments are any more difficult than have to be made in every other department of human effort. Life is a long succession of compromises and adjustments, and it may be doubted whether the press is compelled to make them more frequently than others do. When I have contemplated these adjustments of business and editorial policy, it has always seemed to me that American newspapers are peculiarly representative of the practical idealism of our country. Quite recently the construction of a revenue statute resulted in giving publicity to some highly interesting facts about incomes. It must have been observed that nearly all the newspapers published these interesting facts in their news columns, while very many of them protested in their editorial columns that such publicity was a bad policy. Yet this was not inconsistent. I am referring to the incident by way of illustrating what I just said about the newspapers representing the practical idealism of America. As practical newsmen they printed the facts. As editorial idealists they protested that there ought to be no such facts available. Some people feel concerned about the commercialism of the press. They note that great newspapers are great business enterprises earning large profits and controlled by men of wealth. So they fear that in such control the press may tend to support the private interests of those who own the papers, rather than the general interest of the whole people. It seems to me, however, that the real test is not whether the newspapers are controlled by men of wealth, but whether they are sincerely trying to serve the public interests. There will be little occasion for worry about who owns a newspaper, so long as its attitudes on public questions are such as to promote the general welfare. A press which is actuated by the purpose of genuine usefulness to the public interest can never be too strong financially, so long as its strength is used for the support of popular government. There does not seem to be cause for alarm in the dual relationship of the press to the public, whereby it is on one side a purveyor of information and opinion and on the other side a purely business enterprise. Rather, it is probable that a press which maintains an intimate touch with the business currents of the nation, is likely to be more reliable than it would be if it were a stranger to these influences. After all, the chief business of the American people is business. They are profoundly concerned with producing, buying, selling, investing and prospering in the world. I am strongly of opinion that the great majority of people will always find these are moving impulses of our life. The opposite view was oracularly and poetically set forth in those lines of Goldsmith which everybody repeats, but few really believe: Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey, Where wealth accumulates, and men decay. Excellent poetry, but not a good working philosophy. Goldsmith would have been right, if, in fact, the accumulation of wealth meant the decay of men. It is rare indeed that the men who are accumulating wealth decay. It is only when they cease production, when accumulation stops, that an irreparable decay begins. Wealth is the product of industry, ambition, character and untiring effort. In all experience, the accumulation of wealth means the multiplication of schools, the increase of knowledge, the dissemination of intelligence, the encouragement of science, the broadening of outlook, the expansion of liberties, the widening of culture. Of course, the accumulation of wealth cannot be justified as the chief end of existence. But we are compelled to recognize it as a means to well-nigh every desirable achievement. So long as wealth is made the means and not the end, we need not greatly fear it. And there never was a time when wealth was so generally regarded as a means, or so little regarded as an end, as today. Just a little time ago we read in your newspapers that two leaders of American business, whose efforts at accumulation had been most astonishingly successful, had given fifty or sixty million dollars as endowments to educational works. That was real news. It was characteristic of our American experience with men of large resources. They use their power to serve, not themselves and their own families, but the public. I feel sure that the coming generations, which will benefit by those endowments, will not be easily convinced that they have suffered greatly because of these particular accumulations of wealth. So there is little cause for the fear that our journalism, merely because it is prosperous, is likely to betray us. But it calls for additional effort to avoid even the appearance of the evil of selfishness. In every worthy profession, of course, there will always be a minority who will appeal to the baser instinct. There always have been, and probably always will be some who will feel that their own temporary interest may be furthered by betraying the interest of others. But these are becoming constantly a less numerous and less potential element in the community. Their influence, whatever it may seem at a particular moment, is always ephemeral. They will not long interfere with the progress of the race which is determined to go its own forward and upward way. They may at times somewhat retard and delay its progress, but in the end their opposition will be overcome. They have no permanent effect. They accomplish no permanent result. The race is not traveling in that direction. The power of the spirit always prevails over the power of the flesh. These furnish us no justification for interfering with the freedom of the press, because all freedom, though it may sometime tend toward excesses, bears within it those remedies which will finally effect a cure for its own disorders. American newspapers have seemed to me to be particularly representative of this practical idealism of our people. Therefore, I feel secure in saying that they are the best newspapers in the world. I believe that they print more real news and more reliable and characteristic news than any other newspaper. I believe their editorial opinions are less colored in influence by mere partisanship or selfish interest, than are those of any other country. Moreover, I believe that our American press is more independent, more reliable and less partisan today than at any other time in its history. I believe this of our press, precisely as I believe it of those who manage our public affairs. Both are cleaner, finer, less influenced by improper considerations, than ever before. Whoever disagrees with this judgment must take the chance of marking himself as ignorant of conditions which notoriously affected our public life, thoughts and methods, even within the memory of many men who are still among us. It can safely be assumed that self-interest will always place sufficient emphasis on the business side of newspapers, so that they do not need any outside encouragement for that part of their activities. Important, however, as this factor is, it is not the main element which appeals to the American people. It is only those who do not understand our people, who believe that our national life is entirely absorbed by material motives. We make no concealment of the fact that we want wealth, but there are many other things that we want very much more. We want peace and honor, and that charity which is so strong an element of all civilization. The chief ideal of the American people is idealism. I cannot repeat too often that America is a nation of idealists. That is the only motive to which they ever give any strong and lasting reaction. No newspaper can be a success which fails to appeal to that element of our national life. It is in this direction that the public press can lend its strongest support to our Government. I could not truly criticize the vast importance of the counting room, but my ultimate faith I would place in the high idealism of the editorial room of the American newspaper. Citation: Foundations of the Republic by Calvin Coolidge (1926). The Coolidge Foundation gratefully acknowledges the volunteer efforts of Greg Harkenrider, who prepared this document for digital publication. Excellent speech. Especially about wealth creation and attitude towards it. But, alas, the media in the freest country in the world, America, has been corrupted–not by money but by a discredited ideology: postmodernism or New Left. It finds expression in the millions of words written and spoken by journalists, even the most experienced ones, every day. Name (required) Email (will not be published) (required) Comment DONATE • NEWSLETTER Privacy Policy | Terms of Use Copyright © 2024 Calvin Coolidge Presidential Foundation, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

right

title press free government date january location washington dc context address american society newspaper editor right privilege come journalism write free government original document available relationship government press recognize matter large importance despotism abound source public information bring control cause liberty make way high accomplishment guarantee freedom press realize instinctively oftentime expressly truth freedom inseparable absolutism rest save perverted distorted view human relationship false standard set maintain force find necessary attempt dominate entire field education instruction thrive ignorance seek train mind largely purpose attempt superior facility mislead man educate absolutism bear witness truth ingenious advocate defender false standard hollow pretense method privilege method class caste method master slave community sufficiently advance government begin nature republic process education important method necessarily reverse necessary system free government people enlighten correctly inform absolute government ignorant republic institution learning bind constitution law way subservient government principle enunciate depend authority square wish rule dynasty square everlasting truth condition press instrument conceal pervert fact instrument true representation sound logical interpretation position mere organ constantly bind servitude public print rise dignity independence great educational enlightening factor attain new power impossible measure charge commensurate responsibility public press autocracy necessarily true agency propaganda free government reverse propaganda seek present fact distort relation force conclusion draw complete candid survey fact observe propaganda seek close mind education seek open danger present day great difficulty combat unfair propaganda recognize arise fact present time confront new technical problem enormous task accurately informed concern respect gentleman press face perplexity encounter legislator government administrator deal current public question compel rely greatly information judgment expert specialist unfortunately expert trust entirely disintereste specialist completely guile increase dependence specialized authority tend easy victim propagandist need cultivate sedulously habit open mind doubt generation feel problem intricate baffle present solution recognition disposition exaggerate respect think fairly time social economic aspect complex past period need mind free prejudice bias education real information propaganda taint pervert information little newspaper man endlessly discuss question news judge discuss long newspaper obviously newsgiving function newspaper possibly require photographic presentation happen community obvious impossibility fair proper presentation news bear relation field happening painting photograph photograph accurate presentation detail sacrifice opportunity clearly delineate character college professor will not tell good year ago painting tree exact representation original look like tree reason make look tree painting right sort give photograph view tree convey emphasize character quality individuality lose look thorn defect catch vision grandeur beauty king forest conceive news properly present sort crosssection character current human experience delineate character quality tendency implication way reporter exercise genius current event drab sordid story informing enlighten epic work long imitative rise original art american newspaper serve double purpose bring knowledge information reader time play important connection business interest community news advertising department probably rule profession gentleman devoted prescribe editorial business policy paper conduct strictly separate department editorial policy news policy influence business consideration business policy affect editorial program dictum strike outsider involve good deal difficulty practical adjustment everyday management fact doubt adjustment difficult department human effort life long succession compromise adjustment doubt press compel frequently contemplate adjustment business editorial policy american newspaper peculiarly representative practical idealism country recently construction revenue statute result give publicity highly interesting fact income observe nearly newspaper publish interesting fact news column protest editorial column publicity bad policy inconsistent refer incident way illustrate say newspaper represent practical idealism america practical newsman print fact editorial idealist protest ought fact available people feel concerned commercialism press note great newspaper great business enterprise earn large profit control man wealth fear control press tend support private interest paper general interest people real test newspaper control man wealth sincerely try serve public interest little occasion worry own newspaper long attitude public question promote general welfare press actuate purpose genuine usefulness public interest strong financially long strength support popular government cause alarm dual relationship press public purveyor information opinion purely business enterprise probable press maintain intimate touch business current nation likely reliable stranger influence chief business american people business profoundly concerned produce buying selling investing prosper world strongly opinion great majority people find move impulse life opposite view oracularly poetically set forth line goldsmith everybody repeat believe ill fare land hastening ill prey wealth accumulate man decay excellent poetry good work philosophy goldsmith right fact accumulation wealth mean decay man rare man accumulate wealth decay cease production accumulation stop irreparable decay begin wealth product industry ambition character untiring effort experience accumulation wealth mean multiplication school increase knowledge dissemination intelligence encouragement science broadening outlook expansion liberty widening culture course accumulation wealth justify chief end existence compel recognize means wellnigh desirable achievement long wealth mean end need greatly fear time wealth generally regard means little regard end today little time ago read newspaper leader american business effort accumulation astonishingly successful give million dollar endowment educational work real news characteristic american experience man large resource use power serve family public feel sure come generation benefit endowment easily convince suffer greatly particular accumulation wealth little cause fear journalism merely prosperous likely betray call additional effort avoid appearance evil selfishness worthy profession course minority appeal base instinct probably feel temporary interest further betray interest constantly numerous potential element community influence particular moment ephemeral long interfere progress race determined forward upward way times somewhat retard delay progress end opposition overcome permanent effect accomplish permanent result race travel direction power spirit prevail power flesh furnish justification interfere freedom press freedom tend excess bear remedy finally effect cure disorder american newspaper particularly representative practical idealism people feel secure say good newspaper world believe print real news reliable characteristic news newspaper believe editorial opinion color influence mere partisanship selfish interest country believe american press independent reliable partisan today time history believe press precisely believe manage public affair clean fine influence improper consideration disagree judgment chance mark ignorant condition notoriously affect public life thought method memory man safely assume selfinter place sufficient emphasis business newspaper need outside encouragement activity important factor main element appeal american people understand people believe national life entirely absorb material motive concealment fact want wealth thing want want peace honor charity strong element civilization chief ideal american people idealism repeat america nation idealist motive strong lasting reaction newspaper success fail appeal element national life direction public press lend strong support government truly criticize vast importance counting room ultimate faith place high idealism editorial room american newspaper citation foundation republic calvin coolidge coolidge foundation gratefully acknowledge volunteer effort greg harkenrider prepare document digital publication excellent speech especially wealth creation attitude alas medium free country world america corrupt money discredit ideology postmodernism new left find expression million word write speak journalist experienced one day require email publish require comment donate newsletter privacy policy term use copyright calvin coolidge presidential foundation inc right reserve

Speeches, etc. 7.5 p.m. Mrs. Margaret Thatcher (Finchley) I start by declaring an interest. Either I or my family have been associated with the petro-chemical or agro-chemical industry for some time. The interests are mainly through my husband. I am not sure whether marriage is an interest which [column 106]one ought to declare, but I am being on the safe side in doing so. We give a general welcome to the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman claimed some degree of parentage for the previous Bill and we claim a good degree of parentage for this Bill. There is no point in arguing about this. Most lusty offspring require two parents and perhaps this is as well. It is good to have the advice and support of both sides. It is inevitable that after two Bills—the first in their Lordships' House as the Protection of the Environment Bill, and the second this Bill—there is a lot of recycling of speeches. Therefore, we must do our best to avoid repeating points, but I am afraid that that is not wholly possible when dealing with this subject. This is a very detailed Bill. Not having been directly politically involved with the subject as long as the right hon. Gentleman, I have found it a somewhat exhausting and exacting business in preparing for the debate. I cannot think of any Bill which I have seen introduced in the House which has been preceded by more investigation, research, discussion and consultation than this Bill. It goes back to the Royal Commission to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. The right hon. Gentleman was extremely fortunate in having Lord Ashby as the first chairman and is now equally fortunate in having Sir Brian Flowers as the present chairman. The right hon. Gentleman appointed the Royal Commission as a watchdog for the public, and one could wish that all Royal Commissions tackled their problems in the way that this one did. It adopted an approach to the problem of first finding the facts and then recommending constructive and practical solutions. That is a good recipe for any Royal Commission when looking into any difficult and detailed problem. The right hon. Gentleman also referred to some of the other reports which have contributed greatly to solutions in the Bill—the Key and Summer Reports and the Scott Report on Neighbourhood Noise—but that is not the limit of the material. There is a wealth of common law rights, of statutory rights and an enormous library of circulars, as central Governments have tried to introduce the best practices to local authorities, and there have been [column 107]endless articles in the Press which have helped draw the public's attention to the things which need to be done. We have a great deal of good will on the part of the public and industry and public authorities. This is an excellent basis on which to go ahead. The problem has been that many of the responsibilities have been fragmented. I gather that there are 101 pollution monitoring schemes, controlled by nine different Ministries. One of the objectives of the Bill is to have a comprehensive measure to deal with these matters, but when we start looking at the Bill as a matter of principle we realise that many of the points we wish to make will be Committee points. I shall not go through those points at present because a large number of hon. Members wish to speak, but I wish to raise some general points. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that one of the reasons we need to have a Bill arises from technological advance. Looking back we can see how many products which we now use, and which contribute greatly to the standard of living of the nation, have been produced only in the past 30 or 40 years. The first nylon factory was set up in 1941. The many thermoplastic materials originated mainly in the post-war period. These, in particular, have given rise to a number of problems of disposal. But examples of all the plastics are to be found in the kitchen of any housewife, and they have contributed greatly to our standard of living. On the agro-chemical side, we have had far greater yields through the fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides which are the products of the scientists. These substances have given rise to a number of problems, of course. Perhaps we did not realise that the great advances in pesticides would cause secondary effects in getting rid of them. The same applies to herbicides. Still less did we realise that some of the fertilisers could cause great agricultural problems. Nitrate put on the soil may leak into inland lakes and waters, stimulating the plant life, which uses up all the oxygen and thus kills off the fish. These secondary effects were unforeseen. We cannot do without these technological innovations and new chemicals, but the same scientific ability which led to [column 108]the introduction of those products is there to solve the problems which arise when we try to dispose of them. Much of the research has been directed to this end, so we need not despair. My second point concerns the extent of the research which has already been undertaken. In my last work, I was responsible for the research councils and was particularly interested, therefore, in the report from those councils on pollution research relating to the year 1971–72. The right hon. Gentleman might not fully realise, although Geoffrey Ripponhis predecessor would, that his Department managed to take away some of my research council budget for their own research purposes. Mr. Eldon Griffiths I remember. Mrs. Thatcher My hon. Friend remembers very well. For his Department to get money out of mine was such a traumatic experience for me that it is seared on my soul. But even before that happened a great deal of pollution research was being done by the four research councils. It is interesting to note from the report that in every one of the four sections into which this Bill is divided research projects were going on even in 1971–72, from the then limited budget they applied to pollution research of £1.2 million. They tackled the matter sensibly, as they always do, by studying the chemical and physical properties of the pollutant substances and their biological effects, by studying recognised pollutant areas, and by solving specified problems. I am interested to see the extent to which they were already on to problems some of which were unknown to some of us. In regard to the disposal of waste, they were already studying the design of drainage channels and pipes for waste disposal on farms, and they were tackling problems connected with the degradation of sunken oil. They were doing research on the behaviour and persistence of herbicides and insecticides, and on heavy metal pollution of streams and marine waters by mine and mill effluents. In regard to noise, they had a project on the levels of jet noise, with which the Bill does not deal, for reasons which we understand, and the long-term effects of building noise on hospital staffs. In [column 109]regard to atmospheric pollution, they were doing analyses of engine exhaust pollution, with a view to developing low pollution engines. As for sulphur dioxide and fluorine compounds, they were doing studies on their influence on plant growth and crops. These are just examples from many research projects which were already under way. So we are fortunate in coming to this subject with a large amount of research behind us and the knowledge that many of the solutions are already in preparation. I notice that under Clause 73, dealing with atmospheric pollution, local authorities are given powers not just to contribute to research—which is common—but to undertake it. I wonder whether local authorities are the right bodies to undertake research themselves when other excellent bodies already exist. This tiny point may not have struck other hon. Members, and the provision may have been in the original Bill, but I learned one great lesson from the behaviour of the Labour Party when it was in opposition before. It was never inhibited by what it had said in government. That is a formula which I occasionally propose to adopt. My third main general point is that there are expensive new duties on local authorities and the regional water bodies which will lead to the employment of far more staff and will be far more expensive than the Financial Memorandum suggests. It is not the plans under the Bill which will have an effect—they will have a partial effect—but how far they are implemented. They will require a large number of technical staff—this point came up in the other place—and also, as Anthony Croslandthe Secretary of State realised, a great deal of extra expenditure. One of the complaints of the local authorities frequently is, “You are always putting new duties on us and then complaining when our expenditure rises considerably.” The noble Lord, Lord Gransworthy, estimated on Third Reading on 21st May that the extra staff of local authorities would cost between £2 million and £3 million per annum—I would have thought that that was an underestimate—and that the extra cost to improving the waste collection services would be £6 million per annum at present costs. We all know that those will not stay as they are. Just a little pointer is the two Bills that I have with me. One is the Control of [column 110]Pollution Bill just after it had been amended in Committee in another place. The other is the Bill as it came to us, five days later. The first cost 75p and the second 86p. An increase of 15 per cent. in five days is a little much, even for this Government! Lord Garnsworthy went on: He went on to talk about the best use of resources and some redeployment of staffs. I would not quarrel with his words in that respect, since he was preaching the language of priorities. Many people would perhaps prefer to put central and local money into the achievement of clean air, clean water, freedom from nuisance, and public amenity than into some other kinds of public projects. I agree with the Secretary of State and with the Second Report of the Royal Commission that if the public are to make these judgments they must have the maximum information. Some people, knowing the state into which air or water will get if we do not make this expenditure, would give that higher priority than some other things on central or local government agendas. It is vital that more attention should be given to a good and pure water supply, which for years we took for granted. Because of trade effluents and other chemicals going into the water we are in danger of losing the purity. At the moment we are concentrating on oil supplies, but water is one of our most valuable commodities and we must take all necessary steps to ensure that it is in good and clear supply. The fourth general point is that there is a great gap between legislation and its enforcement, on the one hand, and legislation and the habits of people, on the other. There is only a limited amount that we in Parliament can do to improve the environment. We can make all the plans and, in due course, provide the money to implement those plans, but in spite of the effort and enthusiasm of successive Governments for improving the environment, and particularly in spite of the many anti-litter campaigns, [column 111]matters do not always seem to be improving. A walk down the King's Road on a Saturday afternoon will show that the anti-litter campaign is not having a great deal of effect. Many of the products that we have today are, for convenience and hygiene, wrapped in various kinds of packaging which all too often is thrown down. We are all aware of this. Improvement will not just happen. Some take the view that the propaganda will eventually sink in and that we shall eventually see an improvement. I note the new provisions in the Bill about litter, but this is a classic case in which the public can do more to improve the environment than can Parliament. I have also noticed, as an ordinary constituency Member, increasing complaints about noise, not only that coming from industry and construction sites but that coming from the house next door. We have not been able to take adequate steps to deal with it. It is rather sad that there are some people who seem to follow courses of action at home which are designed to irritate their next-door neighbours, or who are careless of the consequences for their neighbours. Here, too, legislation is only a matter of last resort. The general standard is determined by people's willingness or otherwise to take consideration for others into account in their own actions. I shall not go through the four parts of the Bill in detail, for obvious reasons. I want to make one or two points about each part, and we can then deal with them in detail in Committee. On the disposal of waste, we welcome the general duty to ensure adequate arrangements for the disposal of controlled waste. We particularly welcome the new clause on reclamation and recycling. We also welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said about the advisory council. There is a greater awareness on the part of the public about the need for reclamation and a wish to be prudent in the use of resources. But so often their awareness and wish to help is frustrated by the lack of separate collection of waste paper and metal. There can be nothing more irritating than to have sorted out different things into separate piles and then to see them all [column 112]going into the same lorry to be dealt with in the same way. Recycling is not new. The total value of materials reclaimed annually in Britain is £1,500 million, including £800 million worth of metal. But much more could be gathered from municipal refuse, which I understand amounts to 20 million tons a year, including 14 million tons from domestic waste. We understand that the problem is often that of separating the metals from other materials. It is not as though the waste comes nicely separated into specific metals. One or two metals may occur together, and often they are in association with other materials. I note that a good deal of research is now being done on how to separate these components to make them easier to reclaim. Paper and plastics in refuse are increasing at the fastest rate. There is a real need to reclaim more paper, because of its increasing use and the long-term supply of available timber stocks. Plastics are the most obstinately persistent of wastes, but, again, there appears to be research into recycling synthetic polymers. There is a particular point on Part I of the Bill in which Denis Howellthe Minister of State may be interested, because it arose at Question Time recently. I refer to Clause 12(4)(b). Perhaps I can explain that without the Secretary of State looking at it. He will remember that that is the clause which lays upon local authorities a duty to empty cesspools, among other things. But it lays upon local authorities only a permissive power to charge. They do not have to charge for the emptying of cesspools. There are certain things for which they cannot charge, but they have a permissive power to charge for emptying cesspools. If it is only a permissive power, many of the problems that the right hon. Gentleman and I are meeting now could be solved by the local authorities refraining from charging. Alternatively, we have the solution in our hands, because by striking out their power to charge—bearing in mind that there is a sewerage rate—for the emptying of septic tanks, and by invoking the capacity, in Clause 102, to make different clauses effective from different appointed days, we could have solved this problem by the time that the House rises for the Summer Recess—I assume by the end of July. It appears that the Minister of State wishes [column 113]to intervene. He may have the information ready. The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Mr. Denis Howell) I am obliged to the right hon. Lady. She has raised quite an interesting point. As my right hon. Friend has said, we met the water authority chairmen this morning. This is one of the matters that we raised and that they certainly wished to raise in view of the concern in the country and the House. It is odd that the local authorities have these powers while water authorities do not. In looking at the question whether we should charge, as we do now, and what should be done about householders who cannot have their houses connected to the sewerable system, for which they should be charged—about which I gave an undertaking in a recent Adjournment debate—it is quite clear that we cannot look at this problem in isolation. I give the right hon. Lady the assurance that we shall do all that we can to get this done as speedily as possible. We can return to the matter in Committee, and I am sure that there is no division on either side of the House about it. Mrs. Thatcher On the provisions of the Bill, we have the means to a solution. I am concerned that those means should be used. What really interested me is that these are permissive and not mandatory powers. If local authorities co-operated, one could have no charge at all at present. Mr. Stephen Ross (Isle of Wight) I should like to point out to the right hon. Lady that some local authorities were not under the impression that they would have this duty left to them in regard to cesspits. They were certainly under the impression that some of the regional water authorities would do the job and, therefore, have not budgeted for the job. Therefore, if the right hon. Lady is saying that local authorities will have to do it without making a charge—as most of them are trying to do—she is asking them to find the money for this service from somewhere else. Mrs. Thatcher The ratepayer is already paying through the sewerage rate. Many people are not getting the service but are being charged for it and are also having to pay to have their own septic [column 114]tanks emptied. The main political parties in the House thoroughly understand this problem. I turn to the part of the Bill dealing with the pollution of water. I note the changes in the clauses on pollution arising from good agricultural practice. There is a fundamental dilemma here, that good husbandry may nevertheless lead to pollution. I see what has been done in the amendments to the clauses. It may be that some of my hon. Friends who are connected with the agricultural industry still feel it is not enough. As we know, the agriculture industry is going through particularly difficult times at present and may wish to pursue the question of compensation. I know of the reasons why we should treat agriculture in the same way as we treat industrial concerns. But equally, we realise that there is a difference, and hon. Members may wish to pursue the matter in Committee in regard to treating agriculture differently. I welcome Clause 54, which deals with noise. This will enable many householders to take action against those who offend in neighbouring households without having to invoke the local authority's powers or having, as previously, to get the signature of two other people under the ordinary nuisance provisions of the law. From what the right hon. Gentleman said, I understand that he is setting up a new study of pollution of the atmosphere, which we welcome. From the debate in the other place, I understand that we may have to have lead and sulphur in petrol for longer than we would wish; but we all know that the reason for that is the supply of crude oil. The Bill represents the most comprehensive attempt for many years to bring pollution under proper control. It may be couched in dull phraseology, but it is likely to have a greater and more lasting effect on the quality of life in many parts of Britain than most other measures. We shall do all we can to assist its passage to the statute book. Copyright © Margaret Thatcher Foundation 2024. All Rights Reserved.

right

speech etc pm mrs margaret thatcher finchley start declare interest family associate petrochemical agrochemical industry time interest mainly husband sure marriage interest column ought declare safe general welcome bill right hon gentleman claim degree parentage previous bill claim good degree parentage bill point argue lusty offspring require parent good advice support side inevitable bill lordship house protection environment bill second bill lot recycling speech good avoid repeat point afraid wholly possible deal subject detailed bill having directly politically involve subject long right hon gentleman find somewhat exhausting exact business prepare debate think bill see introduce house precede investigation research discussion consultation bill go royal commission right hon gentleman refer right hon gentleman extremely fortunate have lord ashby chairman equally fortunate have sir brian flower present chairman right hon gentleman appoint royal commission watchdog public wish royal commission tackle problem way adopt approach problem find fact recommend constructive practical solution good recipe royal commission look difficult detailed problem right hon gentleman refer report contribute greatly solution bill key summer report scott report neighbourhood noise limit material wealth common law right statutory right enormous library circular central government try introduce good practice local authority column article press help draw public attention thing need great deal good public industry public authority excellent basis ahead problem responsibility fragment gather pollution monitoring scheme control different ministry objective bill comprehensive measure deal matter start look bill matter principle realise point wish committee point shall point present large number hon member wish speak wish raise general point agree right hon gentleman reason need bill arise technological advance look product use contribute greatly standard living nation produce past year nylon factory set thermoplastic material originate mainly postwar period particular give rise number problem disposal example plastic find kitchen housewife contribute greatly standard live agrochemical far great yield fertiliser pesticide herbicide product scientist substance give rise number problem course realise great advance pesticide cause secondary effect getting rid apply herbicide realise fertiliser cause great agricultural problem nitrate soil leak inland lake water stimulate plant life use oxygen kill fish secondary effect unforeseen technological innovation new chemical scientific ability lead column introduction product solve problem arise try dispose research direct end need despair second point concern extent research undertake work responsible research council particularly interested report council pollution research relate year right hon gentleman fully realise geoffrey ripponhis predecessor department manage away research council budget research purpose mr eldon griffiths remember mrs thatcher hon friend remember department money traumatic experience sear soul happen great deal pollution research research council interesting note report section bill divide research project go limit budget apply pollution research million tackle matter sensibly study chemical physical property pollutant substance biological effect study recognise pollutant area solve specify problem interested extent problem unknown regard disposal waste study design drainage channel pipe waste disposal farm tackle problem connect degradation sunken oil research behaviour persistence herbicide insecticide heavy metal pollution stream marine water mill effluent regard noise project level jet noise bill deal reason understand longterm effect build noise hospital staff column atmospheric pollution analysis engine exhaust pollution view develop low pollution engine sulphur dioxide fluorine compound study influence plant growth crop example research project way fortunate come subject large research knowledge solution preparation notice clause deal atmospheric pollution local authority give power contribute research common undertake wonder local authority right body undertake research excellent body exist tiny point strike hon member provision original bill learn great lesson behaviour labour party opposition inhibit say government formula occasionally propose adopt main general point expensive new duty local authority regional water body lead employment far staff far expensive financial memorandum suggest plan bill effect partial effect far implement require large number technical staff point come place anthony croslandthe secretary state realise great deal extra expenditure complaint local authority frequently put new duty complain expenditure rise considerably noble lord lord gransworthy estimate reading extra staff local authority cost million million annum think underestimate extra cost improve waste collection service million annum present cost know stay little pointer bill control column bill amend committee place bill come day later cost second increase cent day little government lord garnsworthy go go talk good use resource redeployment staff quarrel word respect preach language priority people prefer central local money achievement clean air clean water freedom nuisance public amenity kind public project agree secretary state second report royal commission public judgment maximum information people know state air water expenditure high priority thing central local government agenda vital attention give good pure water supply year take grant trade effluent chemical go water danger lose purity moment concentrate oil supply water valuable commodity necessary step ensure good clear supply fourth general point great gap legislation enforcement hand legislation habit people limited parliament improve environment plan course provide money implement plan spite effort enthusiasm successive government improve environment particularly spite antilitter campaign column improve walk king road saturday afternoon antilitter campaign have great deal effect product today convenience hygiene wrap kind packaging throw aware improvement happen view propaganda eventually sink shall eventually improvement note new provision bill litter classic case public improve environment parliament notice ordinary constituency member increase complaint noise come industry construction site come house door able adequate step deal sad people follow course action home design irritate nextdoor neighbour careless consequence neighbour legislation matter resort general standard determine people willingness consideration account action shall part bill detail obvious reason want point deal detail committee disposal waste welcome general duty ensure adequate arrangement disposal control waste particularly welcome new clause reclamation recycling welcome right hon gentleman say advisory council great awareness public need reclamation wish prudent use resource awareness wish help frustrate lack separate collection waste paper metal irritating sort different thing separate pile column lorry deal way recycling new total value material reclaim annually britain million include million worth metal gather municipal refuse understand amount million ton year include million ton domestic waste understand problem separate metal material waste comes nicely separate specific metal metal occur association material note good deal research separate component easy reclaim paper plastic refuse increase fast rate real need reclaim paper increase use longterm supply available timber stock plastic obstinately persistent waste appear research recycle synthetic polymer particular point bill denis howellthe minister state interested arise question time recently refer clause explain secretary state look remember clause lay local authority duty cesspool thing lay local authority permissive power charge charge emptying cesspool certain thing charge permissive power charge empty cesspool permissive power problem right hon gentleman meet solve local authority refrain charge alternatively solution hand strike power charge bear mind sewerage rate emptying septic tank invoke capacity clause different clause effective different appoint day solve problem time house rise summer recess assume end july appear minister state wish column intervene information ready minister state department environment mr denis howell oblige right hon lady raise interesting point right hon friend say meet water authority chairman morning matter raise certainly wish raise view concern country house odd local authority power water authority look question charge householder house connect sewerable system charge give undertaking recent adjournment debate clear look problem isolation right hon lady assurance shall speedily possible return matter committee sure division house mrs thatcher provision bill mean solution concerned mean interested permissive mandatory power local authority cooperate charge present mr stephen ross isle wight like point right hon lady local authority impression duty leave regard cesspit certainly impression regional water authority job budget job right hon lady say local authority make charge try ask find money service mrs thatcher ratepayer pay sewerage rate people get service charge have pay septic column empty main political party house thoroughly understand problem turn bill deal pollution water note change clause pollution arise good agricultural practice fundamental dilemma good husbandry lead pollution amendment clause hon friend connect agricultural industry feel know agriculture industry go particularly difficult time present wish pursue question compensation know reason treat agriculture way treat industrial concern equally realise difference hon member wish pursue matter committee regard treat agriculture differently welcome clause deal noise enable householder action offend neighbouring household have invoke local authority power have previously signature people ordinary nuisance provision law right hon gentleman say understand set new study pollution atmosphere welcome debate place understand lead sulphur petrol long wish know reason supply crude oil bill represent comprehensive attempt year bring pollution proper control couch dull phraseology likely great lasting effect quality life part britain measure shall assist passage statute book copyright margaret thatcher foundation right reserve

Speeches, etc. There is a real difference between Right and Left and, argues a Conservative politician, it is wrong to talk of ‘taking the big issues out of politics.’ In politics, certain words suddenly become fashionable. Sometimes they are just words. Sometimes they reveal a whole attitude of mind and influence the development of thought. Then they can be dangerous and set us on a false trail. Consensus is one of these. It isn't difficult to see how it has become popular with some politicians. In the post-war years, all Governments in this country have tended to be more compromising in power than their policies in Opposition would have led an inexperienced observer to expect. On the Left, Mr. Callaghan did not introduce the wealth tax he proclaimed as Shadow Chancellor, Mr. Wilson did not denegotiate the Nassau Agreement, Kenneth Robinsonthe Health Minister had to bring back prescription charges, and the immigration laws have been strengthened although Mrs. Barbara Castle said they would be repealed. On the Right, we were not as successful in controlling public expenditure as we ought to have been, we were slow to get on to trade union law reform, we left surtax too high and estate duty at confiscatory levels. On both sides performance seemed to fall short of political philosophy—why? Economic realities and administrative difficulties are the two greatest modifiers of policies, but they are too readily used as an excuse. The reason why a particular policy has been delayed may be given as “No money” ; but it is more likely that the Government has preferred to spend money elsewhere. And “administrative impossibility” so often turns out to be possible under another Minister or Government. These factors make for a superficial similarity between the parties, but a deeper analysis of the system finds fundamental differences in approach. Consider the essential characteristics of British democracy. A democratic system of government rests in some measure on the consent of the governed. But consent will never be unanimous. There will be a majority for and a minority against. Consent does not therefore require that the Government be the Government of one's own choice. But it does require that a periodic choice be made. This in turn necessitates the development and discussion of rival philosophies and policies, and the free play of conflicting opinions. Now apply the consensus theory. If the parties between whom the choice is made become substantially similar the differences dwindle to insignificance and so there is no real choice. There could be no change of policy. Only a change of people responsible for those policies. But the majority reacts against policies as well as against politicians. Democracy therefore contains within itself the means of orderly change through choice and consent. Clash of opinion is the stuff of which democracy is composed. It therefore makes little sense to talk of taking the big issues “out of politics,” or to imply that different approaches to a subject involve “playing politics” with it. They don't; they merely involve using the system for the purpose for which it was intended. Take, for example, one of the great political issues, nationalisation and the extension of State control on the one hand versus free enterprise and reduction of State intervention on the other. The Left wing believes that State ownership coupled with central control enables its Government to plan the production of each product in relation to the other, e.g. gas, electricity and coal. The control on investment is so close that, for example, British Railways has to ask the Minister's permission before it can spend on capital requirements any sum larger than a quarter-of-a million pounds. And each of the nationalised industries has to submit its annual investment programme for approval to the sponsoring Minister. I marvel at the intellectual arrogance and conceit of any politician who thinks he knows so much that he can plan all this. But of course he doesn't. It is left to his officials; and those at the top are probably too busy with the general administration of the department. And as the job is passed down the line, and advice comes back through the hierarchy to a Cabinet Minister, the chances are that he doesn't spend more than the equivalent of two days a week, if that, on considering policy decisions; the rest is taken up with Cabinet meetings and committees, political speeches, Parliamentary and constituency work. The real decisions therefore are taken by unknown people removed from the practical realities and probably lacking that experience and judgment which make the difference between right and wrong decisions. Before the final decision is made, the plans may be changed for political or social reasons. Whatever happens, the decision may prove wrong because of inadequate data or false forward assessments, and the consequences of this error are then magnified throughout the entire public sector. Perhaps this explains some of the bad investment decisions. [end p1] Yet the old intellectual theories of nationalisation still remain. Aneurin Bevan once referred to an intellectual vested interest as the most stubborn of all. He said: It defends itself against criticisms with a morbid self-consciousness. It refuses to yield at any point because it sees, in every inch it gives up, not so much a concession to reality as a surrender to its enemy. The Conservative approach is different. We dislike monopoly and seek to break it up, we believe that competition is the best and the only final test of efficiency, that decisions should be made where the experience and knowledge are to be found, that the test of their correctness is the market-place and that the consequences of wrong decisions should not be borne by the taxpayer. How far can the Right-wing approach, which is to increase the private sector, be put into practice? To adopt the consensus theory would be to do nothing. To adopt the alternative policy approach would be to set about making those changes which would gradually reduce the public sector, thus saving the tax-payers' money and giving greater consumer choice. Certain things would need to be set in hand: 1 Before a buyer or buyers could be found, those parts of industries which could be denationalised would have to be reorganised into units that make them attractive and saleable. 2 Where utilities like electricity were concerned, we should investigate the possibility of increasing the amount of private generation. In Sweden—a country which has had a Left-wing Government for many years—less than half of the electricity is generated by the State; 3 Sell off many of the subsidiary companies which should never be owned by the nationalised industries. So far we have been dealing with broad issues. There are two other kinds of issues. First, those such as capital punishment and, second, those which concern a specific locality, such as the line of a motorway or the site of an airport. Neither of these, important though they are, raises questions of political philosophy. Nevertheless, any party may make a statement about them in its election manifesto. We therefore come to the position that the Government of the day governs by consent of the majority on political issues, but may be without majority consent on certain specific matters. This disproves the current doctrine that a party has a “mandate” to carry out everything in its election policy. The reason why specific promises of this kind should be honoured does not depend on a consent principle, but on the ground that they were promises and might have influenced someone's vote. Any party should be wary of making too many detailed promises of a non-political nature. A political alternative is more than a catalogue of specific promises. It is founded on a different conception of ways of life tempered by reality. Copyright © Margaret Thatcher Foundation 2024. All Rights Reserved.

right

speech etc real difference right leave argue conservative politician wrong talk take big issue politic politic certain word suddenly fashionable word reveal attitude mind influence development thought dangerous set false trail consensus not difficult popular politician postwar year government country tend compromising power policy opposition lead inexperienced observer expect left mr callaghan introduce wealth tax proclaim shadow chancellor mr wilson denegotiate nassau agreement kenneth robinsonthe health minister bring prescription charge immigration law strengthen mrs barbara castle say repeal right successful control public expenditure ought slow trade union law reform leave surtax high estate duty confiscatory level side performance fall short political philosophy economic reality administrative difficulty great modifier policy readily excuse reason particular policy delay give money likely government prefer spend money administrative impossibility turn possible minister government factor superficial similarity party deep analysis system find fundamental difference approach consider essential characteristic british democracy democratic system government rest measure consent governed consent unanimous majority minority consent require government government one choice require periodic choice turn necessitate development discussion rival philosophy policy free play conflicting opinion apply consensus theory party choice substantially similar difference dwindle insignificance real choice change policy change people responsible policy majority react policy politician democracy contain mean orderly change choice consent clash opinion stuff democracy compose make little sense talk take big issue politic imply different approach subject involve play politic not merely involve system purpose intend example great political issue nationalisation extension state control hand versus free enterprise reduction state intervention left wing believe state ownership couple central control enable government plan production product relation eg gas electricity coal control investment close example british railway ask minister permission spend capital requirement sum large quarterofa million pound nationalise industry submit annual investment programme approval sponsor minister marvel intellectual arrogance conceit politician think know plan course not leave official probably busy general administration department job pass line advice come hierarchy cabinet minister chance not spend equivalent day week consider policy decision rest take cabinet meeting committee political speech parliamentary constituency work real decision take unknown people remove practical reality probably lack experience judgment difference right wrong decision final decision plan change political social reason happen decision prove wrong inadequate datum false forward assessment consequence error magnify entire public sector explain bad investment decision end old intellectual theory nationalisation remain aneurin bevan refer intellectual vested interest stubborn say defend criticism morbid selfconsciousness refuse yield point see inch give concession reality surrender enemy conservative approach different dislike monopoly seek break believe competition good final test efficiency decision experience knowledge find test correctness marketplace consequence wrong decision bear taxpayer far rightwe approach increase private sector practice adopt consensus theory adopt alternative policy approach set make change gradually reduce public sector save taxpayer money give great consumer choice certain thing need set hand buyer buyer find part industry denationalise reorganise unit attractive saleable utility like electricity concern investigate possibility increase private generation sweden country leftwe government year half electricity generate state sell subsidiary company own nationalise industry far deal broad issue kind issue capital punishment second concern specific locality line motorway site airport important raise question political philosophy party statement election manifesto come position government day govern consent majority political issue majority consent certain specific matter disprove current doctrine party mandate carry election policy reason specific promise kind honour depend consent principle ground promise influence someone vote party wary make detailed promise nonpolitical nature political alternative catalogue specific promise found different conception way life temper reality copyright margaret thatcher foundation right reserve

This bill extends the permissible length of certain semitrailers or trailers operating in a truck tractor-semitrailer-trailer combination from 28 to 33 feet.

right

bill extend permissible length certain semitrailer trailer operate truck tractorsemitrailertrailer combination foot

This bill specifies that religious organizations are eligible to apply for and receive federal funds to provide services for social services programs (i.e., programs for low-income individuals) on the same basis as private, nonreligious organizations. Additionally, government entities may not discriminate against private organizations on the basis of religion when selecting funding recipients.

right

bill specify religious organization eligible apply receive federal fund provide service social service program ie program lowincome individual basis private nonreligious organization additionally government entity discriminate private organization basis religion select funding recipient

This bill allows penalty-free distributions from tax-exempt retirement plans for a federally declared disaster (i.e., a qualified disaster recovery distribution). The bill defines qualified disaster recovery distribution as any distribution within a 180 day period after a disaster declaration that is made to an individual whose principal residence is located in a qualified disaster area (an area for which a major disaster has been declared) and who has sustained an economic loss due to the disaster. The bill sets forth rules for the recontribution of withdrawals from a plan for first-time home purchases or for purchases or construction of a principal residence in a disaster area, and increases the limit on loans from a qualified employer plan that an individual may take in lieu of a distribution.

right

bill allow penaltyfree distribution taxexempt retirement plan federally declare disaster ie qualified disaster recovery distribution bill define qualified disaster recovery distribution distribution day period disaster declaration individual principal residence locate qualified disaster area area major disaster declare sustain economic loss disaster bill set forth rule recontribution withdrawal plan firsttime home purchase purchase construction principal residence disaster area increase limit loan qualified employer plan individual lieu distribution

Speeches, etc. Copyright © Margaret Thatcher Foundation 2024. All Rights Reserved.

right

speech etc copyright margaret thatcher foundation right reserve

Speeches, etc. Q1. Mr. Ashley asked the Prime Minister how many ministerial broadcasts he has made since taking office. The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan) One, Sir. Mr. Ashley When my right hon. Friend next makes a broadcast, will he care to refer to the responsible attitude of the trade unions which are now planning for a return to free collective bargaining, because, as David Basnett said yesterday, they want to avoid an atomic explosion of wages? Will he agree that that creative attitude is in direct contrast with the attitude of those in management who are now busily devoting their time and energy to schemes designed to evade taxation? The Prime Minister We shall have considerable problems next year when we discuss the ending of the agreement on pay which will expire in July 1977. It is generally recognised by trade unions and by the Government that there will have to be consultation about these matters, and we shall be ready to enter upon that as soon as seems appropriate. There may be a fringe element of management concerned with tax evasion. I want to emphasise, as I did yesterday, that we need the skill and good will of management if we are to solve some of the problems which lie ahead of us. I am satisfied that the great majority of management is helping in that direction. Mrs. Thatcher When he next makes a ministerial broadcast will James Callaghanthe Prime Minister explain what he proposes to do with the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill? Does he propose to redeem the broken pledge on the last vote on that Bill by dropping the measure? The Prime Minister I shall of course be very happy to discuss the Shipbuilding Bill on television or in any other forum if it seems appropriate. I must resist the right hon. Lady's view about the way in which the vote was conducted. I do not wish to exacerbate or add to the difficulties which exist in the House, but I am bound to say that some of the accounts which have appeared do not tally with my version or my understanding of what took place, and it is at least as likely that I am right as that the Opposition Chief Whip is right. Mrs. Hayman Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity of his next television broadcast to explain the value of the child benefit scheme to families in this country rather than allowing the Cabinet to retreat in panic from the most important social measure for families that we have? The Prime Minister The child benefit scheme has not been abandoned, but it has been partly implemented by giving £1 for the first child. It cannot be fully implemented, as I stated yesterday in the course of my long speech which my hon. Friend found sufficiently convincing to vote for. Mrs. Thatcher Having seen the Prime Minister before on this matter, may I just say to him that there is no question but that there was a broken pledge with a named pair—a pledge which was honoured in the first Division and not in the second? I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether as Prime Minister, he proposes to keep his ill-gotten gain at any price. The Prime Minister I do not agree with the right hon. Lady. It is not the case, as we understand the situation, that there was a broken pledge. On the evening I saw the right hon. Lady, when I had returned from Scotland and saw her within half an hour, I had not acquainted myself with the full facts, because I was anxious to see her quickly. Having acquainted myself with the full facts, I am afraid that I cannot accept her version of the matter. [Interruption.] The Chief Whip would probably like to say a lot about it, but what should restrain both sides of the House is the fact that we have to work together if parliamentary democracy is to continue. [column 1664] I do not think that it would help to have a public version of all that went on. I would prefer, if possible, to see the usual channels restored in other ways. After all, there will be an occasion in the decades to come when the Opposition will be in Government. [Hon. Members: “Never.” ] Well, some time. I should like to persuade the right hon. Lady that it is not our view that a pledge was broken on this occasion. Mrs. Thatcher indicated dissent. The Prime Minister If I cannot persuade the right hon. Lady, I am afraid that the issue must rest there for the time being. Mr. Heffer When my right hon. Friend next makes a ministerial broad-cast, will he explain to the nation why on every occasion that the Conservative Party has no policy to offer the nation it resorts to smears and slanders such as equating the Labour Party with either the Gestapo or East European countries? Is it not time that the nation was informed by a broadcast of what social democracy really means and how we are the greatest defenders of our democratic rights and liberties? The Prime Minister I listened to that part of the right hon. Lady's speech yesterday, but I do not think that the House took it very seriously. I am not at all sure that I should want to spend time on a broadcast on this matter. I am not aware that in the Iron Curtain countries to which the right hon. Lady referred there is a free Press with the kind of criticism of the Government that we see here every day. I am not aware that people can move freely about between their jobs nor—and this is the ultimate sanction which the right hon. Lady herself may be able to secure support for some time—are they free, as are the people of this country, to change their Government. If she really believes that we resemble an Iron Curtain country, all I can say is that that kind of exaggeration will be treated with derision. Mr. Montgomery When the Prime Minister next makes a ministerial broadcast, will he tell the British people that the Government will not accept the view being put forward by trade unions—that we should have non-elected local councillors? Will he reaffirm his belief again [column 1665]and state categorically, that all local councillors must be elected through the ballot box? The Prime Minister I have not studied that particular matter but, as the hon. Gentleman formulates it, I would accept what he says. Q2. Mr. Banks asked the Prime Minister when he next expects to meet the Secretary-General of NATO. The Prime Minister I have no plans to meet the Secretary-General in the near future. But my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary met him at the North Atlantic Council meeting in Oslo on 20th and 21st May; and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is seeing him today at the meeting of the NATO Defence Planning Committee in Brussels. Mr. Banks What assurance will the Prime Minister give the Secretary-General that he will not cheat the country out of its proper and vital defence rôle by implementing any part of the Labour Party programme on defence to appease the Marxist members in his party, an action for which he has no mandate and which the great majority of people will deplore? The Prime Minister When I have the pleasure of meeting Dr. Luns we do not conduct our conversations on that basis. I think that the general NATO attitude towards Britain is that she is making a full and proper contribution to a unified defence system. I have had no complaint on any other score; and I doubt that we shall be discussing those matters. Mr. Dalyell Will the Prime Minister have a word with Dr. Luns about the SNP commitment to a separate Scottish air force? He might even pass on some of the well informed speeches which my hon. Friends hope to make this afternoon on the operational efficiency and costs of a tartan air force. The Prime Minister When Dr. Luns and I meet we discuss matters of more immediate practical importance than that, but if the Scottish nationalists would like some assistance, I shall ask the Secretary [column 1666]of State for Defence to give them some idea of what the cost for a separate air force would be. It might frighten them a little. Mr. Tebbit When the Prime Minister meets the Secretary-General will he discuss with him the fact that in recent weeks it has emerged from his own Government's estimates that Russian spending on defence is very much higher than we believed it to be when we conducted our own defence reviews? In view of this, should we not conduct another review to see whether it is necessary for us to spend something faintly approaching the 11 per cent. or 12 per cent. of GNP that the Russians spend on defence? The Prime Minister I do not think that the Soviet defence capacity has been underestimated. What has been underestimated is the proportion of the Soviet GDP that it involves. According to the latest figures, it looks as though the Russians have had to absorb about 11 per cent. or 12 per cent. of their GDP per annum, but this does not make any difference to the assumption which has been made by the chiefs of staff and others of the actual size of the Soviet capability. It has been increasing in recent years, and this has not been disguised. Mr. Watt When the Prime Minister meets the Secretary-General, will he let him know that the proposed air force of the Scottish Parliament will be one that is relevant to the needs of Scotland and suitable for patrolling the fishing limits around our shores? Can he tell us when he will place some orders for Jetstream aircraft with Scottish Aviation Ltd. for aircraft suitable for such a purpose now? The Prime Minister I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has assumed the rôle of Shadow Minister of Defence, but if he has I salute him and congratulate him on his maiden speech. I would say to him that I hope that the people of Scotland will believe that their defence needs are adequately covered by the defence arrangements for the United Kingdom. I hope that they will not listen to the rather silly nonsense which is talked about setting up a separate defence service, presumably with another army, navy and air force, to protect the Scottish people. Q3. Mr. Watkinson asked the Prime Minister if he will meet the Governor of the Bank of England. The Prime Minister I have no plans to meet the Governor in the immediate future. But my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer maintains close contact with him. Mr. Watkinson When my right hon. Friend next meets the Governor of the Bank of England will he discuss with him the pivotal rôle of the Bank, the Government and industry in the oncoming upturn? Will he take care not to repeat the blunders of the Barber Administration and ensure complete control over the money supply during the coming period? Will he also issue the strongest directive to the banking system that investment funds should find their way into productive industry? The Prime Minister I take my hon. Friend's last point completely. I hope that with the upturn that is coming that will be so. As regards control of the money supply, I hope that we can learn from the mistakes and excesses of the previous Administration. The House should absorb the figures of the increase in the money supply last time because they hold a great lesson for us. In 1973 the increase in the money supply—[An Hon. Member: “Reading.” ] yes, I am reading—was 28.5 per cent.; in March 1974 it was 25.2 per cent.; in March 1975 it had been reduced to 10.7 per cent. and in March 1976 to 9.6 per cent. That is the reason why we had the terrible burst of inflation in 1974 and 1975 and why it is coming down so fast now—— Mr. Powell The right hon. Gentleman has got it right. The Prime Minister —aided by the pay policy. I do not want to make relations between the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and the Opposition Front Bench any worse. Mr. Lawson In view of the Prime Minister's great interest in and long experience of these matters and in view of [column 1668]his continued assertions that sterling is at present under-valued, will he tell the House precisely what he considers the right value of sterling to be? The Prime Minister There was a time when I used to read the hon. Gentleman with some interest. I never then heard him make such a suggestion, and he should not do so now. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that it would be foolish for me to make such an assumption. Copyright © Margaret Thatcher Foundation 2024. All Rights Reserved.

right

speech etc mr ashley ask prime minister ministerial broadcast take office prime minister mr james callaghan sir mr ashley right hon friend make broadcast care refer responsible attitude trade union plan return free collective bargaining david basnett say yesterday want avoid atomic explosion wage agree creative attitude direct contrast attitude management busily devote time energy scheme design evade taxation prime minister shall considerable problem year discuss ending agreement pay expire july generally recognise trade union government consultation matter shall ready enter soon appropriate fringe element management concern tax evasion want emphasise yesterday need skill good management solve problem lie ahead satisfied great majority management help direction mrs thatcher make ministerial broadcast james callaghanthe prime minister explain propose aircraft shipbuilding industry bill propose redeem break pledge vote bill drop measure prime minister shall course happy discuss shipbuilding bill television forum appropriate resist right hon ladys view way vote conduct wish exacerbate add difficulty exist house bind account appear tally version understanding take place likely right opposition chief whip right mrs hayman right hon friend opportunity television broadcast explain value child benefit scheme family country allow cabinet retreat panic important social measure family prime minister child benefit scheme abandon partly implement give child fully implement state yesterday course long speech hon friend find sufficiently convincing vote mrs thatcher having see prime minister matter question broken pledge name pair pledge honour division second ask right hon gentleman prime minister propose illgotten gain price prime minister agree right hon lady case understand situation broken pledge evening see right hon lady return scotland see half hour acquaint fact anxious quickly having acquaint fact afraid accept version matter interruption chief whip probably like lot restrain side house fact work parliamentary democracy continue column think help public version go prefer possible usual channel restore way occasion decade come opposition government hon member time like persuade right hon lady view pledge break occasion mrs thatcher indicate dissent prime minister persuade right hon lady afraid issue rest time mr heffer right hon friend make ministerial broadcast explain nation occasion conservative party policy offer nation resort smear slander equate labour party gestapo east european country time nation inform broadcast social democracy mean great defender democratic right liberty prime minister listen right hon ladys speech yesterday think house take seriously sure want spend time broadcast matter aware iron curtain country right hon lady refer free press kind criticism government day aware people freely job ultimate sanction right hon lady able secure support time free people country change government believe resemble iron curtain country kind exaggeration treat derision mr montgomery prime minister make ministerial broadcast tell british people government accept view forward trade union nonelected local councillor reaffirm belief column state categorically local councillor elect ballot box prime minister study particular matter hon gentleman formulate accept say mr bank ask prime minister expect meet secretarygeneral nato prime minister plan meet secretarygeneral near future right hon friend foreign commonwealth secretary meet north atlantic council meeting oslo right hon friend secretary state defence see today meeting nato defence planning committee brussels mr bank assurance prime minister secretarygeneral cheat country proper vital defence rôle implement labour party programme defence appease marxist member party action mandate great majority people deplore prime minister pleasure meet dr lun conduct conversation basis think general nato attitude britain make proper contribution unified defence system complaint score doubt shall discuss matter mr dalyell prime minister word dr lun snp commitment separate scottish air force pass inform speech hon friend hope afternoon operational efficiency cost tartan air force prime minister dr lun meet discuss matter immediate practical importance scottish nationalist like assistance shall ask secretary column state defence idea cost separate air force frighten little mr tebbit prime minister meet secretarygeneral discuss fact recent week emerge government estimate russian spending defence high believe conduct defence review view conduct review necessary spend faintly approach cent cent gnp russians spend defence prime minister think soviet defence capacity underestimate underestimate proportion soviet gdp involve accord late figure look russians absorb cent cent gdp annum difference assumption chief staff actual size soviet capability increase recent year disguise mr watt prime minister meet secretarygeneral let know propose air force scottish parliament relevant need scotland suitable patrol fishing limit shore tell place order jetstream aircraft scottish aviation ltd aircraft suitable purpose prime minister sure hon gentleman assume rôle shadow minister defence salute congratulate maiden speech hope people scotland believe defence need adequately cover defence arrangement united kingdom hope listen silly nonsense talk set separate defence service presumably army navy air force protect scottish people mr watkinson ask prime minister meet governor bank england prime minister plan meet governor immediate future right hon friend chancellor exchequer maintain close contact mr watkinson right hon friend meet governor bank england discuss pivotal rôle bank government industry oncoming upturn care repeat blunder barber administration ensure complete control money supply come period issue strong directive banking system investment fund find way productive industry prime minister hon friend point completely hope upturn come regard control money supply hope learn mistake excess previous administration house absorb figure increase money supply time hold great lesson increase money supply hon member reading yes read cent march cent march reduce cent march cent reason terrible burst inflation come fast mr powell right hon gentleman get right prime minister aid pay policy want relation right hon member south mr powell opposition bench bad mr lawson view prime minister great interest long experience matter view column continue assertion sterling present undervalue tell house precisely consider right value sterling prime minister time read hon gentleman interest hear suggestion hon gentleman know foolish assumption copyright margaret thatcher foundation right reserve

Ep. 1895 - How Elmo Unleashed Emotional Hell Published: 1/31/2024 (in RSS feed: 46m 37s) Why wait to see if you'll get something you like This Valentine's Day when you can go to blue nile.com and find something you'll love, whether you're looking to treat yourself to a little winter sparkle or show a gallatine how much you appreciate them. Blue Nile offers a wide selection of high quality designs, expert guidance, and free 30 day returns For the ultimate peace of mind. You can even design your own jewelry right now. Save up to 50 [email protected]. That's blue nile.com. Well folks, Elmo did it. He opened the Can of Worms, Elmo, you may know, as the red furry Muppet from Sesame Street. He made a big booboo yesterday. He went on the X, he went on Twitter's the X space and he, and he promptly tweeted. Elmo is just checking in. How is everybody doing? Oh no, the world Unleashed it's hell. Fire on with users from all across the political spectrum, immediately unloading on Elmo to tell him how disappointed, upset, and depressed they were. One user replied, Elmo, I'm suffering from existential dread over here. Another replied every morning, I cannot wait to go back to sleep every Monday. I cannot wait for Friday to come every single day and every single week for life. Rachel Ziegler, who recalls the actress from Snow White, they had to reshoot it because she made obnoxious comments about how terrible Snow White was. She tweeted that she was quote, resisting the urge to tell Elmo that I'm kind of sad. Okay, so it was really funny, right? This was the thing that was going on all over X yesterday. And it's a funny joke. It's a funny joke because a Muppet asking how everybody is doing and then everybody responding that they're experiencing existential angst and upset is really funny. So Elmo then replied, quote, wow, Elmo is glad he asked. Elmo learned that it is important to ask a friend how they're doing. Elmo will check again soon. Friends Elmo loves you hashtag emotional wellbeing. Okay, well, okay, that's, that's kind of a funny kind of not joke anymore. And then Joe Biden comes in from the wings with a chainsaw to massacre the joke. So Joe Biden tweets out quote, I know how hard it's some days to sweep the Clouds way and gets a sunnier days. Our friend Elmo is right. We have to be there for each other, offer our help to a neighbor in need and above all ask for help when we need it, even though it's hard, you're never alone. So here's my question today, what the hell happened to our sense of humor? Why can't we just laugh at this? It's really funny. Why can't we just laugh when Elmo asks Twitter how everyone is doing and people are answering with their suicidal thoughts? That's funny. Okay. It's just funny. It's okay for us to laugh at things, but it seems as though in the country it's not okay to laugh at pretty much anything anymore. Comedy, I believe, really died during the Obama administration when pretty much all of our comedic leaders decided that the, they were actually politicians and Barack Obama was actually a celebrity. The complete merger of celebrity and politics that occurred when Barack Obama became president totally ate comedy because comedians decided that they were going to effectively become spokespeople for Barack Obama's administration. You'll recall Chris Rock suggesting that Barack Obama was like his father. He was like a, a father figure to all of us. You'll recall that there were comedians who are suggesting that it was impossible to make fun of Barack Obama because he just, there was nothing funny about the man, which of course is in and of itself pretty funny. Barack Obama was a highly mock character. He thought that he was a transformative figure when in fact he was just kind of a corrupt Chicago politician with delusions of grandeur. But because comedy decided that it could not stay separate from politics, what that did is it totally undermined one of the common spaces that we have as a society. Comedy is a, is a space that we used to share as a society. And no matter where you were politically funny was funny. And that was the basic idea for decades in American life, it didn't matter where you were on the political spectrum. Richard Pryor was funny. It didn't matter where you were on the political spectrum. George Carlin was funny. Johnny Carson was funny. Jay Leno was funny. And then it turns out that as the social fabric breaks down, it is very difficult to laugh. Laughter becomes incredibly difficult because If, you believe that the person who is making the joke is laughing at you. You are no longer laughing along and If. you believe that the person who is making the joke is actually not joking. That underneath that joke is a, is ire and rage and wrath. That's not funny either. Sadness, depression, anger. These are not emotions that can coexist with laughing at things. and we as a society, we're having kind a mental breakdown, you know, that that's actually what's happening right here because we should all be able to laugh at this thing. This is, and and this is one of the things that I found so kind of hilarious about the rap song that Tom McDonald's and I released, which is now number one worldwide on the iTune charts, the number one song on the planet that's hilarious. I mean that's, that's like the best cultural troll of all time. and I don't mean to explain the joke guys, but look at me. I am not a rapper. I have no ambitions to be a rapper. In fact, if two weeks ago you had done a poll of people who knew even my name and asked what is the thing Ben sha put was least likely to do? It would probably be that song. That's why it's funny. And yet you are already starting to see people who are getting angry at the song. People who can't laugh at the very idea like it's, it's a joke. It's a jo. It's funny, again, I'm gonna chalk that up to the fact that social fabric is breaking down and that's having some really deleterious effects on all sides of the political aisle. Like across the political aisle. For example, the the weird cultural breakdown that we are having now over like Taylor Swift, what the hell? Okay, Taylor Swift and Travis Kelsey, their romance basically being a, a plant by the NFL or by her stage managers or whatever is a funny idea. It's funny, okay, it's a joke. We can all laugh at that because Taylor Swift has spent her entire life in music doing songs about how she has a horrible history with men and breaking up with very famous people. And so if she really is in a sincere romance at this point, and we all wish the best for her, and that's fine. and by the way, if Taylor Swift actually does marry Travis Kelsey and they end up having babies, there will be a Taylor Swift baby boom because that's how stupid our culture is. and we all take pop culture too seriously. So there'll be a bunch of 30-year-old women who suddenly decide that it's okay to put their feminist bonafides on the shelf and get married to a man and then have babies. If Taylor Swift decides that it's okay to do so and she stops acting like a 17-year-old girl in a 34-year-old woman's body. In any case, the whole shtick is really funny, right? That's why I've been making jokes about it. I've making jokes about it since the NFL started showing her up in the sky box and she was like, oh my God, I love football now. and I, it's just all ridiculous. It's super silly, but the joke can never just stay the joke because people hate each other too much. And so you can't even joke about like Taylor Swift. And so the politicization of Taylor Swift and Travis Kelsey is Amen. So I'll make a joke about Taylor Swift and Travis Kelsey or you will or someone else on the right wall and left will go 'cause you hate them, right? 'cause you hate them and think they're bad. No, because they're celebrities and celebrities are funny and the whole thing seems really stagey and maybe it's real. And again, if it is good for them. But I'm allowed to make a joke about Roger Godell assassinating Lamar Jackson to make sure that Travis Kelsey gets into the Super Bowl. So they get really high ratings as he proposes to Taylor Swift on one knee and then she rejects him and writes a breakup song like that's, that's okay. We'll get to more on this in just one second. First, if you're like me, there's not a day that goes by. You don't call or text someone you care about. My friends at Pure Talk are making it easier and more affordable to connect with the most important people in your life. Pure Talk gives you phenomenal coverage on America's most dependable 5G network. It's the same coverage you know and love, but for half the price of the other guys with unlimited plans starting just 20 bucks a month, the average family will save over a thousand dollars a year. I myself have been using Pure Talk for a couple of years now. They're great. Their coverage is excellent, and of course they don't hate our guts. A veteran owned company, Pure Talk will raise $10 million toward veterans debt last year alone. What's more Pure Talk's customer service team is located right here in the US and can help you make the switch in as little as 10 minutes. I challenge you to stand with the company that champions your values today. Go to Pure Talk dot com slash Shapiro right now. You'll save an additional 50% off your very first month of coverage. That's Pure Talk dot com slash Shapiro. Save on wireless with a company you can be proud to spend your money with. Again, that's Pure Talk dot com slash Shapiro. Go check them out right now, Pure Talk dot com slash Shapiro and save an additional 50% off your very first month of coverage. And then in response to people having no sense of humor, other people have no sense of humor in response to that, we now have members of like the Trump campaign who are reportedly angry about Taylor Swift because they're suggesting that Taylor Swift is like a plant. Like the CIA 20 years ago was like, we're gonna make Taylor Swift a star and you know what else we're gonna do? We're gonna craft an entire, an entire football league, and then we are going to, from youth breed, an incredibly talented tight end and then we are going to fix up these two in perfect alignment just in time to reelect a doddering old man Roomba. That is what we are going to do. Like what? Why, why can't we guys? Let's just laugh. It's okay. It's okay to just laugh. Everything is funny, okay? Yes. Politics and life in general is tragic comedy, right? Politics is hysterically funny when viewed from lum one lens and then deeply tragic when viewed from another because politics can have such an impact on all of our lives. But If, you lose the comedy that really is not because this isn't funny stuff. You're losing the comedy because you don't like the people who are around you. You don't like the country you're in, you don't like the people who are existing all like, this may be the funniest time in the history of American politics. Just on a raw level. This thing is fricking hysterical. I'm sorry. Just like I'm gonna, it's all very serious and we're gonna get to the serious issues in a moment. But I'd like to say that it's okay for everybody to lighten up and laugh a little bit, okay? We have Donald Trump, who's a real estate magnate, who's president of the United States once and is a standup insult comic running against a vegetable. And in the middle of this, we have projected all of this onto a football star dating a pop star in the middle of the NFL playoffs and pretending this has world historical importance, which it does not the New York Times, by the way, jumping all over this, the culmination surrounding the world's biggest pop icon and girlfriend of Travis Kelsey, the chief star tight end, reached the stratosphere after Kansas City, made it to the Super Bowl for the fourth time in five years, and the first time since Ms. Swift joined the team's entourage, the conspiracy theories coming outta the Make America great again contingent. Were already Legion that Ms. Swift is a secret agent of the Pentagon and she's bolstering her fan base in preparation for endorsement of President Biden's reelect or that she and Mr. Kelsey are a contrived couple assembled to boost the NFL or Covid vaccines or Democrats or whatever. Okay, that last one I kind of, that that might be right, the the contrived couple part because again, Taylor Swift has sort of a history with this stuff. Apparently this has now taken the form there. There again, you, you always have to doubt these sort of anonymous reports, especially from Rolling Stone, which is not a credible source, but again, for the humor effect of it, I'm just gonna read it because it's, it's kind of hysterically funny. According to three people familiar with the matter, Trump loyalists working on or close to the former president's campaign, longtime Trump allies and right wing media and an array of outside advisors to the ex-president have long taken it as a given that Swift will eventually endorse Biden. But apparently members of Magdalene's upper crust are plotting to declare a Holy War on the pop megastar, especially if she ends up publicly backing the Democrats in the 2024 election. Behind the scenes, Trump has reacted to the possibility of Biden and Swift teaming up against him this year, not with alarm, both an instant projection of ego in recent weeks. The former president has told people in his orbit that no amount of a-list celebrity endorsements will save Biden. That of course is true. Trump has also privately claimed he's more popular than Taylor Swift. Okay? That part might be true. And if so, that's really funny. That's like super funny. So again guys, maybe the predicate to us rebuilding a social fabric in this country is to be able to laugh at funny things. But here's the thing, nobody's laughing and that by the way, is one of the reasons why Joe Biden is down in the dumps as the social fabric breaks down. Joe Biden doing the trust me routine when it comes to politics no longer helps. It no longer helps comedy requires trust and so does political success, and Joe Biden does not have trust right now. So comedy is on. And so by the way, our Joe Biden's 2024 prospects, there is a tough new swing state poll out for Joe Biden from Business Insider or or Bloomberg Business Rather, and Mourning at Consult that shows in the swing states Donald Trump is now up 48 to 42. 48 to 42. That is a big lead. The percentage of voters saying that immigration is their top issue, when up in six of the seven states, 61% of voters blame Joe Biden for the border crisis. Only 38% say Republicans in Congress. These are bad numbers for Joe Biden, like truly bad numbers. That same poll, again, this is a swing state poll. These are the states that matter because who cares what people in California think that state's already a foregone conclusion? Who cares what Alabama thinks already a foregone conclusion. It's the swing states that matter. Basically this election is gonna come down to three states as it usually does. Those three states, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, that's what it's gonna come down to. Donald Trump is going to win Arizona. Donald Trump is going to win Georgia. The other states, Michigan, right now he's in the lead Pennsylvania. He is trailing Wisconsin. It's an Ed dies. This is gonna be a very tight election. Anybody who thinks it's gonna be a blowout right now, the evidence is just not there for it. But the fact that it's tight is almost solely due to the fact that Joe Biden is a deeply unpopular president who has breached trust with Americans. We'll get to more on this in just one second. First window treatments can make an enormous difference in your home or office. Here in Florida it gets very, very hot when the sun comes glaring through the windows, which is why we got our blinds from blinds.com to help keep us cool throughout those hot summer months. You can do the same with over 40,005 star reviews. blinds.com is the number one online retailer of custom window coverings. It can measure and install them yourself or have blinds.com send local professionals to take care of the installation for you. There's no showroom, no retail markets, no matter how many you order. Installation is just one low cost If you don't have an eye. For Design blinds.com experts are always available to help choose the style and color that's right for you. Everything they sell is covered by their perfect fit and 100% satisfaction guarantee with hundreds of styles and colors to choose from. blinds.com is sure to have the perfect treatments for your windows shop blinds.com. Right now save up to 45% off. Get up to 45% off for a limited [email protected]. When you check out online, don't forget to tell them you heard about blinds.com from The Ben Shapiro Show Rules and restrictions may apply. Go check them out right now. Right now, this poll shows that in the swing states, would you say the economy is going in the right direction or going in the wrong direction for the country? Wrong track, 71%, only 29% think the economy is going in the right direction. Generally speaking, would you say the economy in each of the following places is going in the right direction or in the wrong direction? Your city or town, right? Direction, 52%. Wrong track, 48%. So what does that mean? That means that people kind of are okay with their local governance, but they're really unhappy with the national governance. Joe Biden's favorability rating in this poll in the swing states is currently at 38%. That is not a reelect number. That is not even remotely a reelect number. Donald Trump, by the way, is currently at a 46% approval rating, okay? Which is higher than Joe Biden in these swing states. So Joe Biden has a lot of problems and he's exacerbating those problems with bad governance, which of course is why the border continues to matter. Joe Biden continues to try it out there and suggest that the border of crisis, which continues to, to simmer, but that border crisis is about him not being given enough power, which of course is not true because that Border crisis did not exist while Donald Trump was president. And then Joe Biden came in, as we've explained many times, and as we explained in our new Border documentary available over a Daily, Wire Plus, Joe Biden has the executive authority to basically prevent the border from collapsing the way that it has. But Joe Biden is still trying to blame it on Republicans as though he needs to be given legislative power in order to do things. By the way, it's an amazing statement coming from the same president who has declared the unilateral executive ability to relieve student loan debt and force you to get a vaccine. Those are all things that Joe Biden says he can do with presidential power. But the one thing he can't do apparently is close the border, which is a specifically delegated power that he already has legal authority, NA legal obligation to fulfill here was Joe Biden telling a lie. Have you done everything you can do with executive authority with the more you could do after done? All I can do, gimme the power. I've asked the very day, I gotta oath. Gimme the border patrol, gimme the people, gimme the people to judge. Gimme the people who can stop this, make it worse rest, Okay? That that is not true. He has the power, he could do it literally right now, but he's not and everyone knows it, which is why his border numbers are absolutely horrifying. Now, Democrats are trying to make the claim that it's Republicans who are holding up more Border power for Joe Biden and it's not working particularly well. They're attempting to blame Donald Trump for it. They're trying to say that Trump is scuttling what would be an amazing border deal. Now here's the thing, I can't analyze the border deal because I haven't seen the Border deal, have you? You haven't. Correct? Because no one has. So how do you expect me to say whether the border deal is good or bad? It could be worse than the status quo if Joe Biden would just enforce a law, right? Perhaps the proper Republican play in the face of a bad deal is to walk away from the table and say that Joe Biden needs to enforce the laws that are currently on the books. That seems to be the current Republican play. Democrats are trying to claim that that's a Trump thing. That is not a Trump thing. If the border bill that's on the table is bad, then it's bad and you can't expect there. There are a bunch of senators who, frankly I, I kind of like, right? The Senator Kevin Kramer of North Dakota, for example. Good Senator Senator James Langford of Oklahoma, good senator on many issues. They keep saying things like, well, we need this border deal. I don't know whether we need it until I see it, I can, again, trust has been violated, trust has been broken. I have no clue whether the border deal that you want Joe Biden to sign is good or whether it is bad. So Republicans out there trying to stump for a border deal that no one has seen, that's not gonna make a lot of headway, which is why presumably speaker Mike Johnson is saying, listen, we're not stopping the border deal to help Trump. I have a majority in the house of like three seats, right? That, that, that Republican majority is extremely slim. And he says, I'm not going to bring a bill up that is going to get immediately rejected. We already proposed one. It's called HR two. It's a good bill. Just pass it. Here's the speaker of the house. Mike Johnson, The former president, has made it clear that he doesn't want you guys to move forward on this. And judging by his comments, he clearly wants to campaign on this issue. Have you spoken to him about the Senate proposal and are you simply trying to kill this to help him on the Campaign? No, Manu, that's absurd. We have a responsibility here to do our duty. Our duty is to do right by the American people to protect the people. The first and most important job of the federal government is protected citizens. We're not doing that under President Biden. We are, we have only a tiny, as, you know, razor thin, actually a one vote majority right now in the house. Our, our majority is small, we only have it in one chamber, but we're trying to, to use every ounce of leverage that we have to make sure that this issue is addressed. I have talked to, to the former President Trump a about this issue at length and, and he understands that he understands that we have a responsibility to do here. The president, of course, president Trump wants to secure the country. Again, the polls are against Joe Biden here, which is why you're not seeing Republicans give ground to Joe Biden and they should not give ground to Joe Biden. Meanwhile, Democrats are busy in the house trying to defend Alejandro Mayorca, the Secretary of Homeland Security, who keeps declaring that the border is in fact secure and is not in fact open. When in reality the catch and release policy pursued by this administration means that the border is effectively open. So Republicans have been pursuing an impeachment of Alejandro Mayorkas. Here was Representative Mark Green saying that Mayorkas has no respect for the law. Now, does that amount to a high crime or misdemeanor mean there no crime is really alleged? My general view of impeachment is that you should allege a crime however Democrats did impeach Donald Trump twice without actively alleging a crime. So there is that. So if we're just gonna use impeachment as a political tool, it's good for the goose is good for the gander, and Alejandro Mayorca is absolutely not fulfilling his constitutional oath to uphold the law. Today is a grave day. We have not approached this day or this process lightly. Secretary, mayor Marcus' actions have forced our hand. We cannot allow this border crisis to continue. We cannot allow Fentanyl to flood across our border, our criminals to waltz in undeterred, and we cannot allow a cabinet secretary with no regard for the separation of powers, of the rule of law to remain in office. That is why today we present this committee with the articles of Impeachment against Secretary Alejandro Maki. Meanwhile of have representative Dan Goldman, who, who was first and foremost on the Trump impeachment train, and this, this guy actively participated in the Trump impeachment, both of them actually, and he says it's demeaning to the institution to impeach Mayorca. I'm sorry. I think we're well beyond the demeaning of Congress. What you are upset about is that Secretary Mayorkas rescinded prior executive orders that were working and you have a right to be upset about that, and you have a right to talk about that. And you have a right to express your dissatisfaction in any way you, you choose. And you have a right to make that case to the American people so that they vote Secretary Mayorkas and this and this president out of office in November, if that's ultimately what the people believe. But you do not have a right to demean this institution to bastardize the impeachment clause of the Constitution, to belittle the standard of constitutional impeachment to such a degree that you can't even produce a legal memo in support of your articles of impeachment that do not exist in history and do not exist in the law. Okay, a again, you invoking the law when you literally did not even allege crimes against Donald Trump before. Impeaching him twice is a pretty astonishing display of hypocrisy. The border issue is cutting against Joe Biden bottom line, we'll get to more on this in just one second. First, are you having trouble sleeping or staying asleep? Is poor sleep negatively impacting your life? If so, you need to check out Beam beams. Dream Powder contains a powerful all natural blend of ingredients, including magnesium, l-theanine. It's not just a run-of-the-Mill sleep aid. It's a concoction carefully crafted to help you slip into the sweet embrace of rest without the grogginess that often accompanies other sleep remedies. Sleep is the foundation of our mental and physical health. You have to have a consistent nighttime routine to function at your best. Today, my Listeners get a special Discount on Beam's Dream powder, their bestselling hot cocoa for sleep with no added sugar. Now available in delicious flavors like cinnamon, cocoa, chocolate, peanut butter, and mint chip. Better Sleep has never tasted better. My team loves Beam Dream. When you work your employees as hard as we do here, it's important they get enough sleep at night so they can function at their best every single day. Some of them use it every night. It puts you to sleep fast, the ingredients aren't worrisome and you're not gonna wake up tired. Just mix beam dream into hot water or milk stir or froth and enjoy before bedtime. If, you wanna try beam's. Bestselling Dream powder, take advantage of their 40% off sale for a limited time. When you go to shop beam.com/ Ben, use code Ben and checkout, that's shop b bm.com/ Ben with my promo code Ben for up to 40% off your order. The other issues are also cutting against Joe Biden. The situation in Iran continues to bubble. It continues to be really bad there. There have been 165 attacks on American troops between October 17th and January 29th, ranging from Syria to Iraq to Jordan to the Red Sea, obviously. And Joe Biden really has no plans to do anything about it. Now, you wanna make the case that we don't need for deployment of all of these troops in these places. That's fine. I'm open to that argument. I'm open to the idea that we don't actually need as many bases as we have currently in, for example, Syria, and we don't need as many bases as we currently have in Iraq. But If, you are going to have troops on the ground. You defend the troops that you have on the ground. That's the way that it works. And then the other half of that equation is you allow America's allies to do the work that you are not capable of doing because you don't have the boots on the ground, the intelligence gathering, the terrorist fighting. You allow Saudi to go after the Houthis in Yemen. You allow Israel to go after Hezbollah, you'll you take the chains off of all of your allies and allow them to do the dirty work that you yourself do not want to do. That would be a a rational foreign policy. Joe Biden has decided to do the opposite of both of those. We're gonna forward, deploy a bunch of truths, but not defend them, and we're going to hamstring our allies in their pursuit of terrorism. That that's, that's apparently Joe Biden's plan now. He just keeps over and over and over kind of telegraphing exactly what he says he's going to do. So yesterday he said, I've decided what I'm gonna do. Well, why don't you just do it. I don't understand, like, is it, do you get points for like calling your shot? This is Babe Ruth at the World Series. Oh, yeah. I don't know what I'm gonna do now. Good for you, dude. Maybe you should just do it and not tell anyone. Are there any more punches that you'd love to telegraph? Apparently he told the press that he holds Iran responsible in the sense that they're supplying the weapons to the people who did it. Okay, thank you for that vague formulation. President Biden, here we go. I, I do hold Pon responsible the sense that they're supplying the weapons to the people who, All righty. Well, I'm just going to point out right now that your sense of responsibility has amounted to nothing so far. All you have done is exacerbated the problems with Iran. They continue to get more aggressive because you're doing nothing. Senator to Tom Cotton, who of course if I'm a member of the military from Arkansas. He says the the way that you actually do deterrence is through, you know, deterring people. I know it's super complicated. I've laid out the scenarios. Which option do we choose, Bill? You laid out four options for how we could retaliate against Iran. I'd add a fifth, which is all of the above. There has to be devastating military retaliation for the targeting of American troops in Jordan, a friendly nation across international borders, leaving three dead Americans and more than three dozen wounded. And some of those bill are in grave critical condition as well. This is not an anomaly for Iran, this is what they've been doing for 45 years, but they have amped it up under Joe Biden beforehand, Barack Obama, because they're the Obama Biden foreign policy has been one of appeasement and conciliation. We have to totally reverse that policy, starting with retaliatory strikes right now and continuing beyond that to ensure that we're no longer trying to bribe the Atos with billions of dollars. We're not looking the other way whenever they cheat on sanctions, and we're certainly not gonna tolerate even the slightest provocation against our troops in the Middle East. Anything el else, we'll simply invite more attacks. And by the way, I agree and so does Tom Cotton with Donald Trump. Donald Trump's policy was that after a US airbase in Iraq was attacked by Iranian proxy forces. In late 2019, early 2020, Donald Trump killed Q Soleimani, the top KUDs force, Iranian terror official. He killed him while he was in Iraq and Iran vowed massive retaliation and did nothing because it turns out, you know what, Iran doesn't like getting punched directly in the face. They do not like it at all. As I've been saying for quite a while here, it turns out that deterrence requires you to deter. Meanwhile, Joe Biden is resting his campaign on the supposed evils of Donald Trump. And a lot of that is predicated on the legal charges. And honestly, the more the headlines appear about Donald Trump's legal charges, the less effect they're going to have. Say, well, he is facing four cases with 91 charges. That looks like political prosecution. I'm sorry. That is what it looks like. And it looks particularly like political prosecution when several of these cases are clearly trumped up or falling apart. The January 6th case in Washington DC is a stretch of the law every which way. The Fannie Willis case in Georgia is in attention seeking ploy by Fannie Willis in a, in a legal stretch of Ricoh that doesn't even really allege the underlying organization to do the crime, which is what you require for a Ricoh charge. Not only that, Fannie Willis is now caught up in her own scandal because it turns out that she hired as a prosecutor, a person with no prosecutorial experience, who she happens to be tripping right now. So that that that turns out to be and then paid him a bunch of taxpayer dollars and went on cruises with them. So that happens to be really awkward. We'll get to more on this in just one second. First, our friends at ZipRecruiter conducted a recent survey and found the top hiring challenge. Employers Face 4 20 24 is not enough qualified candidates, but if you're an employer and you need to hire, the good news is ZipRecruiter has smart tools and features that help you find more qualified candidates quickly. And right now you can try it for free at ZipRecruiter dot com slash DailyWire. As soon as you post your job. ZipRecruiter's powerful matching technology shows you candidates whose skills and experience will match what you're looking for. ZipRecruiter has an invite to apply feature so you can actually send top candidates a personalized invite to encourage them to respond to your job post. When you use ZipRecruiter's rating tool, they'll send you more matches from new profiles that are created on the side. Let ZipRecruiter help you conquer the biggest hiring challenge of finding qualified candidates. See why four outta five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the very first day? Just go to this exclusive web address right now, Try ZipRecruiter for FREE ZipRecruiter dot com slash Daily Wire. Again, that is ZipRecruiter dot com slash D-A-I-Y-W-I-R-E ZipRecruiter dot com slash Daily. Wire ZipRecruiter is indeed the smartest way to hire. Go check them out right now. The only case that has any sort of merit at all is the classified docs case down in Florida. And in that case, Donald Trump can just point at Hillary Clinton. Politically speaking, all this looks like political persecute. Not only that, it looks thoroughly like this. DOJ is a political tool of the Biden administration. The most obvious and insane case of this is the charging of pro-life demonstrators over their blocking of an entry to a Tennessee abortion facility in 2021. So here's film of what it looked like when these supposedly evil, violent, terrible people were outside an abortion facility in Tennessee in 2021, they're being charged with charges that would give them up to 11 years in prison. They were accused by the Department of Justice of violating the so-called Face Act and Civil Rights Conspiracy violation of people's Civil rights for a protest that took place in a hallway outside of a Mount Juliet abortion provider. March 5th, 2021. As you'll see, this group of demonstrators gathered on a second floor of an office building in the hallway outside the Carum Health Center clinic. The group prayed and sang hymns and urged women showing up to the clinic not to get abortions. Here's what that looked like. Oh man, this is so threatening and violent. Wow. Wow. Frightening, terrifying stuff here. Absolutely terrifying. The verdict was delivered on the fifth day of the trial, which took place in Nashville. One of the government's key witnesses was Caroline Davis, a woman who was arrested with the group at Care fm. During her testimony, Davis claims she had a change of heart about attending the protest and that her rational side was in the toilet at the time of her participation. She said that she changed her mind over time, that being indicted by the federal government terrified her. Apparently some people talked to the police. One video showed one participant telling another to speak in love to a man with his girlfriend who'd shown up and then someone's baby was a gift from God. And so now these people are gonna face 11 years in prison for all of this, for this, for this brutal, violent, terrible activity. Steve Crampton, who's Thomas Moore Society, senior counsel and attorney for one of the people charged, said quote, we're disappointed with the outcome. This is a peaceful demonstration by entirely peaceful citizens, filled with prayer, hymn, singing and worship, oriented toward persuading, expecting mothers not to abort their babies. Unfortunately, the Biden Department of Justice decided to characterize these peaceful actions as a felony conspiracy against rights to intimidate and punish the people charged and other pro-life people and people of faith. Crampton suggested the Biden's do j's pattern of arresting and prosecuting peaceful pro-life advocates is disturbing. And of course that's true. Remember, this is the same administration that basically decided not to charge huge numbers of people who were involved in the Black Lives Matter riots that did $2 billion in damage in 2020. This is the same administration that is basically decided to facilitate shutting down of highways. I mean, the Democratic party has, has absolutely in major city facilitated the shutdown of airports, the shutdown of highways by protestors who then sometimes assault the police. But these anti-abortion protesters sitting in a hallway and singing, that's the violent stuff. That's the truly threatening, horrifying, terrible stuff. You wonder why so many Republicans and so many people generally are like this Biden DOJ, like if they're indicting Trump, okay, like, are we supposed to take that super seriously? This DOJ, the same DOJ that says that this sort of activity, IE standing outside an abortion clinic and non-violently singing hymns that deserves 11 years in prison. Or if you're grandma and you walked through the Capitol building on January 6th, you're not one of the people who's violent. You're not one of the people assaulting a police officer, you're just grandma and you are stupidly walking through the Capitol building on January 6th. We'll track you down and we will put you in jail and we'll put you in jail for as long as humanly possible because obviously you are an insurrectionist like this. DOJ is the one that ought to be trusted in going after Donald Trump, I think not. Meanwhile, speaking of people who ought to be prosecuted, it turns out that the Squad, the Hamas Squad, you know, the, the, the radicals in Congress we're talking about all the best people, the people, the media love, the people they put on the cover of Rolling Stone Magazine with Nancy Pelosi. It turns out that pretty much all of them have now been embroiled by either controversy or or actual outright criminal activity. We'll get to that in just one moment. First guys, this is a no-brainer If. you wanna protect your kids from left wing indoctrination that is rampant in the mainstream media. Here's how you do it. You start a 14 day free trial to Bentkey. It's the new Kids Entertainment app from The Daily. Wire Bentkey is the only streaming app that offers high quality, family friendly shows that reflect your values. Bentkey features amazing characters, timeless stories that'll spark your kids' imagination and curiosity. With hundreds of episodes your kids will love and you can trust. I trust my kids with Bentkey and it's really great. The material's great, my kids love it. They watch it and it's safe. I know because we cultivated it. You can try Bentkey for free for 14 days right now, no catch, no gimmick, no hidden fees, just awesome content your kids will love and you can trust. All you have to do is use code Unlock at Bentkey dot com. You'll get 14 days of unlimited access to Bent Key's, world of adventure. Go to Bentkey dot com right now, use code Unlock at signup to start your trial today. Okay, meanwhile, the Hamas Squad the radicals in Congress. They're having themselves quite a week here. So it now emerges that Congresswoman Cory Bush is under investigation for alleged misuse of security funds. You'll remember Cory Bush from pretty much every radical rally claiming America's a deeply racist, terrible place that we ought to defund the police. While simultaneously, by the way, she was claiming that pretty much everybody needed to pay for her security. Well now the DOJ is investigating Cory Bush. This may be the only good thing the DOJ is doing right now for allegedly misusing money intended for members of Congress and candidates to spend on private security. The scope of the investigation and allegations of wrongdoing were not immediately known. But in recent months, investigators have contacted multiple current and former staffers according to the Washington Post inquiring about the congresswoman's campaign spending. Apparently this has to do with her paying all of her friends and calling them security. She came under fire for using campaign money to hire her husband Courtney Merri as her security. But the Office of Congressional Ethics dismissed a complaint filed against Bush last fall alleging that her campaign's Employment of Merit was a violation of federal election law. She paid him over a hundred thousand dollars between 2022 and 2023, despite the fact that Merits had no private security license in either St. Louis or Washington dc And that of course is not the only member of security that she has, that she has put on payroll who really has very little to do with security as the and recur of the Washington free Beacon reported back in March of last year, one of the people working for her, her close friend and highest paid private security guard is a guy named Nathaniel Davis iii, who claims he can summon tornadoes at, will cause earthquakes with his hate and conduct blood rituals to bring ruin upon his enemies. Which by the way, awesome set of skills. First of all, you should get paid way more than you're getting paid If. you can actually do those things. That is, that is some awesome stuff right there. and by the way, anybody who can prove that they can do these things, we have a slot open for you right here at The Daily Wire perfectly happy to carve out a salaried position for anyone who can summon tornadoes at will cause earthquakes with your hate and conduct blood rituals to bring ruin upon your enemies. Apparently he's an intergalactic master of psychic self-defense born 109 trillion years ago, which is wild. So he's older than the universe by like in order of magnitude. His days he says are now spent tending to his crops in spreading anti-Semitic conspiracies, which may, I guess that makes sense. I mean that that is a, that is a dude that you should pay for your security if you're Cory Bush. So she then claims obviously that it's because Republicans are racist, that she's being targeted. The beautiful thing about being member of the diverse Squad is that you basically get to claim that everything is about racism. Since before I was sworn into office, I have endured relentless threats to my physical safety and life as a rank and file member of Congress. I am not entitled to personal protection by the house and instead have used campaign funds as permissible to retain security services. I have not used any federal tax dollars for personal security services. Any reporting that I have used funds for personal security, for personal security is simply false. In recent months, right wing organizations have lodged baseless complaints against me, peddling notions that I have misused campaign funds to pay for personal security services. That simply is not true. Oh, right wing forces, it's always the right wing forces. I have flashbacks to when Cory Bush suggested that nobody should be defended except for Cory Bush here. She was talking about how she pays her private security, but you should not have police to defend you. I'm gonna make sure I have security because I know I have had attempts on my life and I have too much work to do. There are too many people that need help right now for me to to allow that. So if I end up spending 200,000, if I spend 10, 10, 10 more dollars on it, you know what? I get to be here to do the work. So suck it up and defunding the police has to happen. Oh my gosh, have that lady made into Congress and we only get the representatives we deserve. When I said before that that politics is high comedy, it really, really is. Now that is only one member of the Squad having a really bad week. Another member of the Squad having a super bad week is Ilhan Omar. So Ilhan Omar apparently was giving a speech at some sort of event for local Somalis and during the speech she said some things, I'm gonna play a little bit of the clip. It's in Somali. I don't speak Somali obviously. She claimed that the transcription of the speech, the translation here in the clip that went viral was off. So we here at Daily Wire, we actually went to a translation service and paid ourselves to have it translated. and I'm gonna read you the transcript of the relevant portion of what she said because it's absolutely wild and pretty certainly violates her oath of office. Here is Ilhan Omar, the worst person in the American Congress, Haddi and, Okay, so I'm gonna read you our transcript that we got from an actual translation service because again, I wanna make sure that we're accurate in our representation of what Ilhan Omar actually said here. Here is the full translation of the segment of the clip that has been going viral on Acts quote. We are Somalis, we are people who love each other. We might talk behind each other's backs at times, but we are people who count on each other as brothers or sisters and know that they are Muslims and Somalis. We are people who help each other and others as well and take sides with each other. A few days ago we heard the news about some people claiming to be Somalis getting into an agreement with Ethiopia. Here she's talking about a breakaway portion of Somalia that is called Somali land. It's effectively been for the last 30 years a self-governing entity because Somalia is a disaster zone and Somalia land is actually pretty pro western Somaliland happens to be Democratic. It's kind of free market oriented. And there's been a lot of talk for a long time about Somaliland actually declaring independence and being given breakaway status. The US government so far has not done that. There's a strong case to be made that that actually should happen. She of course, opposes because as we'll see, she describes her own allegiance to Somalia. She says, I'm embracing the fact that Mohamad no knows more Somalia than I do. I got calls from a lot of people saying, Ilhan, you need to talk to the US government. What is the government of the US doing? My answer to their question was that the US government will do what we tell them to do about it. What now the US government will do what we tell them to do. That would be like the plural we of what she has already described. I mean, this are her words, right? Somalis and Muslims, they, the US government will do what we tell them to do about it. I mean like whatever conspiratorial nightmare BA she has put out there about Jews, she obviously engages in exactly that same kind of language with regard to her areas of orientation. And she says, oh, the Jews are like a hardcore group of people who control the American government. Also, we control the American government. Okay lady. She says, we need to be confident in ourselves. We live in this country. It is the country we pay tax to. It is the country that one of your daughters is in. As long as I'm in the US Congress, no one will take away in the Somali sea or water and I will not support the US government in supporting other people who rob us. Again, the first person plural here is pretty wild, right? Who rob the US government as opposed to us rob us. Now, she's not a she, she, she's a naturalized citizen of the United States. She's a member of Congress. Like she, she's not a member of the Somali political regime, but she talks like she is. She says, the lady who sends to Congress knows about you and she feels our interest like you all do to President Hassan Sheikh. We are happy about you and the good job you have done. Thank you Mr. President, for reminding everyone that even if Somali is in crisis, we are people of talent who know their country and whose country cannot be put in danger. I want to congratulate the Somalis in Minnesota and the Somalis everywhere on how you are all united and how you supported our president who needs our support. The president of the United States is Joe Biden. I'm just gonna point that out as a Republican. The president of the United States is in fact Joe Biden. He is my president because he's the president of the United States and I'm an American. Like that's, that's an amazing statement from Ilhan Omar. So people have talked about denaturalizing, deporting and all the rest. That's a pretty hard thing to do in the United States. There's a lot of free speech rights that attach to being an American citizen, even if you're saying a bunch of nonsense and bad, bad garbage. However, the oath of office does in fact require you to solemnly swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States to bear true faith and allegiance to the same, to take the obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. I mean, does this violate the oath of office? I think this is a pretty strong case. This, this violates the oath of office so bad week for Ilhan Omar, who continues to be just the worst person in Congress. That's not the end of the story, by the way. There's more from the Squad in the bad week. For the Hama. Squad continues. Jamal Bowman, who is a man so intelligent, he once mistook a fire alarm for a door opening apparatus. Apparently way back when he was promoting conspiracy theories about nine 11, not stock conspiratorial on the left and on the right has been growing in recent years. There are plenty of conspiracy theorists in Congress. Unfortunately. On Tuesday, the Daily Beast published a report about a blog that Bowman maintained during his days in education. This is where he was a principal of an actual public middle school. He published poems and brief essays there on personal, political, and pedagogical concerns. Through 2014, they found a May, 2011 post titled Recapitulate. It is a 137 line free verse poem. Sounds terrible. Which starts as a recollection of world events before transitioning heavily into meditations on various nine 11 conspiracy theories. Generally focused on claiming that they were not terrorist attacks, rather planned by some other entities just to precipitate the war on terror. So Bowman has now made a statement. He says, well, over a decade ago, as I was debating diving into a doctoral degree, I explored a wide range of books, films, and articles across a wide swath of the political spectrum and pro and processed my thoughts in a personal blog that few people ever read. Here is some of what he, what he suggested. He said 2001 planes used his missiles target the Twin Towers. 30 minutes later, both buildings collapsed onto themselves. Later in the day, building seven also collapsed. Hmm, multiple explosions heard before and during a collapse. Hmm, allegedly two other planes. The Pentagon, Pennsylvania, hijacked by terrorists, minimal damage on minimal debris found. Hmm. Watch Loose Change and Zeitgeist then share your thoughts. We blamed Osama. We went to warn Iraq, captured Sonam, killed him. Bin Laden is Afghan, so we went to war there too. Wow, that is amazing. Amazing deep thoughts there from Jamal Bowman. So again, the Squad having a bad week, but again, I don't blame the Squad for their own stupidity, malice and corruption. I blame the people who voted for them. It's their fault. They shouldn't have voted for them in the first place. And meanwhile, in the least shocking news of the day, it turns out that Harvard's diversity chief is also guilty of plagiarism. So remember that time that the Harvard President Cloud and Gay was guilty of lots and lots of plagiarism and then ended up losing her job. Well, it turns out now according to the New York Post, Harvard University's Chief Diversity and Inclusion officer has been hit with dozens of plagiarism allegations tied to her academic work, including one claim. She failed to properly cite her husband's study. She's plagiarizing her own husband. Oh no. The Ivy League school was handed an anonymous complaint on Monday, listing at least 40 examples of alleged plagiarism by Sherry Ann Charleston dating back to 2009. According to the Washington Free Beacon, according to the Beacon, Charleston allegedly quoted or paraphrased a dozen scholars without attribution in her 2009 dissertation at the University of Michigan, and actually took credit for a study that her husband wrote in 2012. So just well done to Harvard, which yeah, again, if you're making the case that diversity is our strength, you need to actually hire people who don't plagiarize that. That would be like the first, the first barrier to overcome the diversity is not. Our strength argument would be hire people who are competent in non plagiarist. That would be like the place that you start. But apparently that was too heavy a lift All folks coming up, we're going to jump into insane comments from the Foreign Secretary for the UK about what he plans to do, vis-a-vis Hamas. If you're not a member, become a member. Use Coach Shapiro Checkout for two months. Free and I'll annual plans. Click that link in the description and join us. We are happy to announce a new product. Jeremy's Razors for Women. Ladies, get a great smooth shave and enjoy knowing that your hard-earned money is going to accompany that celebrates and supports women being women. Get yours today at jeremy's Razors dot com.

right

ep elmo unleash emotional hell publish rss feed m wait ll like valentine day blue nilecom find ll love look treat little winter sparkle gallatine appreciate blue nile offer wide selection high quality design expert guidance free day return ultimate peace mind design jewelry right save percentbluenilecom s blue nilecom folk elmo open worm elmo know red furry muppet sesame street big booboo yesterday go x go twitter x space promptly tweet elmo check everybody oh world unleash hell fire user political spectrum immediately unload elmo tell disappointed upset depressed user reply elmo m suffer existential dread reply morning wait sleep monday wait friday come single day single week life rachel ziegler recall actress snow white reshoot obnoxious comment terrible snow white tweet quote resist urge tell elmo m kind sad okay funny right thing go x yesterday funny joke funny joke muppet ask everybody everybody respond experience existential angst upset funny elmo reply quote wow elmo glad ask elmo learn important ask friend elmo check soon friend elmo love hashtag emotional wellbeing okay okay s s kind funny kind joke anymore joe biden come wing chainsaw massacre joke joe biden tweet quote know hard day sweep cloud way get sunny day friend elmo right offer help neighbor need ask help need hard here question today hell happen sense humor not laugh funny not laugh elmo ask twitter people answer suicidal thought s funny okay funny okay laugh thing country okay laugh pretty anymore comedy believe die obama administration pretty comedic leader decide actually politician barack obama actually celebrity complete merger celebrity politic occur barack obama president totally eat comedy comedian decide go effectively spokespeople barack obamas administration ll recall chris rock suggest barack obama like father like father figure ll recall comedian suggest impossible fun barack obama funny man course pretty funny barack obama highly mock character think transformative figure fact kind corrupt chicago politician delusion grandeur comedy decide stay separate politic totally undermine common space society comedy space share society matter politically funny funny basic idea decade american life not matter political spectrum richard pryor funny not matter political spectrum george carlin funny johnny carson funny jay leno funny turn social fabric break difficult laugh laughter incredibly difficult believe person make joke laugh long laugh believe person make joke actually joke underneath joke ire rage wrath s funny sadness depression anger emotion coexist laugh thing society having kind mental breakdown know s actually s happen right able laugh thing thing find kind hilarious rap song tom mcdonald release number worldwide itune chart number song planet s hilarious mean s s like good cultural troll time not mean explain joke guy look rapper ambition rapper fact week ago poll people know ask thing ben sha likely probably song s funny start people get angry song people not laugh idea like joke jo funny m go to chalk fact social fabric break s have deleterious effect side political aisle like political aisle example weird cultural breakdown have like taylor swift hell okay taylor swift travis kelsey romance basically plant nfl stage manager funny idea funny okay joke laugh taylor swift spend entire life music song horrible history man break famous people sincere romance point wish good s fine way taylor swift actually marry travis kelsey end have baby taylor swift baby boom s stupid culture pop culture seriously ll bunch woman suddenly decide okay feminist bonafide shelf married man baby taylor swift decide okay stop act like girl woman body case shtick funny right s ve make joke ve make joke nfl start show sky box like oh god love football ridiculous super silly joke stay joke people hate not joke like taylor swift politicization taylor swift travis kelsey amen ill joke taylor swift travis kelsey right wall leave cause hate right cause hate think bad celebrity celebrity funny thing stagey maybe real good m allow joke roger godell assassinate lamar jackson sure travis kelsey get super bowl high rating propose taylor swift knee reject write breakup song like s s okay second like s day go not text care friend pure talk make easy affordable connect important people life pure talk give phenomenal coverage america dependable g network coverage know love half price guy unlimited plan start buck month average family save thousand dollar year pure talk couple year great coverage excellent course not hate gut veteran own company pure talk raise million veteran debt year s pure talk customer service team locate right help switch little minute challenge stand company champion value today pure talk dot com slash shapiro right ll save additional month coverage s pure talk dot com slash shapiro save wireless company proud spend money s pure talk dot com slash shapiro check right pure talk dot com slash shapiro save additional month coverage response people have sense humor people sense humor response member like trump campaign reportedly angry taylor swift suggest taylor swift like plant like cia year ago like go to taylor swift star know go to go to craft entire entire football league go youth breed incredibly talented tight end go fix perfect alignment time reelect doddering old man roomba go like not guy let laugh okay okay laugh funny okay yes politic life general tragic comedy right politics hysterically funny view lum lens deeply tragic view politic impact life lose comedy not funny stuff lose comedy not like people not like country not like people exist like funniest time history american politic raw level thing fricke hysterical m sorry like m go to go to issue moment d like okay everybody lighten laugh little bit okay donald trump s real estate magnate s president united states standup insult comic run vegetable middle project football star date pop star middle nfl playoff pretend world historical importance new york times way jump culmination surround world big pop icon girlfriend travis kelsey chief star tight end reach stratosphere kansas city super bowl fourth time year time ms swift join team entourage conspiracy theory come outta america great contingent legion ms swift secret agent pentagon s bolster fan base preparation endorsement president biden reelect mr kelsey contrived couple assemble boost nfl covid vaccine democrat okay kind right contrived couple taylor swift sort history stuff apparently take form doubt sort anonymous report especially roll stone credible source humor effect m go to read kind hysterically funny accord people familiar matter trump loyalist work close president campaign longtime trump ally right wing medium array outside advisor expresident long take give swift eventually endorse biden apparently member magdalene upper crust plot declare holy war pop megastar especially end publicly back democrats election scene trump react possibility biden swift teaming year alarm instant projection ego recent week president tell people orbit alist celebrity endorsement save biden course true trump privately claim s popular taylor swift okay true s funny s like super funny guy maybe predicate rebuild social fabric country able laugh funny thing here thing nobodys laugh way reason joe biden dump social fabric break joe biden trust routine come politic long help long help comedy require trust political success joe biden trust right comedy way joe biden prospect tough new swing state poll joe biden business insider bloomberg business mourn consult show swing state donald trump big lead percentage voter say immigration issue seven state voter blame joe biden border crisis republicans congress bad number joe biden like truly bad number poll swing state poll state matter care people california think state foregone conclusion care alabama think foregone conclusion swing state matter basically election go to come state usually state wisconsin michigan pennsylvania s go to come donald trump go win arizona donald trump go win georgia state michigan right s lead pennsylvania trail wisconsin ed die go to tight election anybody think go to blowout right evidence fact tight solely fact joe biden deeply unpopular president breach trust americans second window treatment enormous difference home office florida get hot sun comes glare window get blind blindscom help cool hot summer month star review blindscom number online retailer custom window covering measure install blindscom send local professional care installation s showroom retail market matter order installation low cost not eye design blindscom expert available help choose style color s right sell cover perfect fit satisfaction guarantee hundred style color choose blindscom sure perfect treatment window shop blindscom right save limited timeblindscom check online not forget tell hear blindscom ben shapiro rule restriction apply check right right poll show swing state economy go right direction go wrong direction country wrong track think economy go right direction generally speak economy follow place go right direction wrong direction city town right direction wrong track mean mean people kind okay local governance unhappy national governance joe biden favorability rating poll swing state currently reelect number remotely reelect number donald trump way currently approval rating okay high joe biden swing state joe biden lot problem s exacerbate problem bad governance course border continue matter joe biden continue try suggest border crisis continue simmer border crisis give power course true border crisis exist donald trump president joe biden come ve explain time explain new border documentary available daily wire plus joe biden executive authority basically prevent border collapse way joe biden try blame republicans need give legislative power order thing way amazing statement come president declare unilateral executive ability relieve student loan debt force vaccine thing joe biden say presidential power thing not apparently close border specifically delegate power legal authority na legal obligation fulfill joe biden tell lie executive authority gimme power ve ask day get to oath gimme border patrol gimme people gimme people judge gimme people stop bad rest okay true power literally right s know border number absolutely horrify democrats try claim republican hold border power joe biden work particularly attempt blame donald trump try trump scuttle amazing border deal here thing not analyze border deal not see border deal not correct expect border deal good bad bad status quo joe biden enforce law right proper republican play face bad deal walk away table joe biden need enforce law currently book current republican play democrats try claim s trump thing trump thing border bill s table bad bad not expect bunch senator frankly kind like right senator kevin kramer north dakota example good senator senator james langford oklahoma good senator issue say thing like need border deal not know need trust violate trust break clue border deal want joe biden sign good bad republicans try stump border deal see s go to lot headway presumably speaker mike johnson say listen stop border deal help trump majority house like seat right republican majority extremely slim say m go bring bill go immediately reject propose call hr good bill pass here speaker house mike johnson president clear not want guy forward judge comment clearly want campaign issue speak senate proposal simply try kill help campaign manu s absurd responsibility duty duty right american people protect people important job federal government protect citizen president biden tiny know razor thin actually vote majority right house majority small chamber try use ounce leverage sure issue address talk president trump issue length understand understand responsibility president course president trump want secure country poll joe biden see republican ground joe biden ground joe biden democrats busy house try defend alejandro mayorca secretary homeland security keep declare border fact secure fact open reality catch release policy pursue administration mean border effectively open republicans pursue impeachment alejandro mayorkas representative mark green say mayorkas respect law high crime misdemeanor mean crime allege general view impeachment allege crime democrats impeach donald trump twice actively allege crime go to use impeachment political tool good goose good gander alejandro mayorca absolutely fulfil constitutional oath uphold law today grave day approach day process lightly secretary mayor marcus action force hand allow border crisis continue allow fentanyl flood border criminal waltz undeterred allow cabinet secretary regard separation power rule law remain office today present committee article impeachment secretary alejandro maki representative dan goldman foremost trump impeachment train guy actively participate trump impeachment actually say demeaning institution impeach mayorca m sorry think demeaning congress upset secretary mayorkas rescind prior executive order work right upset right talk right express dissatisfaction way choose right case american people vote secretary mayorkas president office november s ultimately people believe right demean institution bastardize impeachment clause constitution belittle standard constitutional impeachment degree not produce legal memo support article impeachment exist history exist law okay invoke law literally allege crime donald trump impeach twice pretty astonishing display hypocrisy border issue cut joe biden line second have trouble sleep stay asleep poor sleep negatively impact life need check beam beam dream powder contain powerful natural blend ingredient include magnesium ltheanine runofthemill sleep aid concoction carefully craft help slip sweet embrace rest grogginess accompany sleep remedy sleep foundation mental physical health consistent nighttime routine function good today listener special discount beam dream powder bestselle hot cocoa sleep add sugar available delicious flavor like cinnamon cocoa chocolate peanut butter mint chip well sleep taste well team love beam dream work employee hard important sleep night function good single day use night put sleep fast ingredient not worrisome go to wake tired mix beam dream hot water milk stir froth enjoy bedtime wanna try beam bestselle dream powder advantage sale limited time shop beamcom ben use code ben checkout s shop b bmcom ben promo code ben order issue cut joe biden situation iran continue bubble continue bad attack american troop october january range syria iraq jordan red sea obviously joe biden plan wanna case not need deployment troop place s fine m open argument m open idea not actually need basis currently example syria not need basis currently iraq go troop ground defend troop ground s way work half equation allow america ally work capable not boot ground intelligence gather terrorist fighting allow saudi houthis yemen allow israel hezbollah ll chain ally allow dirty work want rational foreign policy joe biden decide opposite go to forward deploy bunch truth defend go hamstre ally pursuit terrorism s s apparently joe bidens plan keep kind telegraph exactly say s go yesterday say ve decide m go to not not understand like point like call shot babe ruth world series oh yeah not know m go to good dude maybe tell punch d love telegraph apparently tell press hold iran responsible sense supply weapon people okay thank vague formulation president biden hold pon responsible sense supply weapon people righty m go point right sense responsibility amount far exacerbate problem iran continue aggressive senator tom cotton course m member military arkansas say way actually deterrence know deter people know super complicate ve lay scenario option choose bill lay option retaliate iran d add fifth devastating military retaliation targeting american troop jordan friendly nation international border leave dead americans dozen wound bill grave critical condition anomaly iran ve year ampe joe biden barack obama obama biden foreign policy appeasement conciliation totally reverse policy start retaliatory strike right continue ensure long try bribe ato billion dollar look way cheat sanction certainly go to tolerate slight provocation troop middle east el simply invite attack way agree tom cotton donald trump donald trumps policy airbase iraq attack iranian proxy force late early donald trump kill q soleimani kud force iranian terror official kill iraq iran vow massive retaliation turn know iran not like getting punch directly face like ve say turn deterrence require deter joe biden rest campaign suppose evil donald trump lot predicate legal charge honestly headline appear donald trumps legal charge effect go face case charge look like political prosecution m sorry look like look particularly like political prosecution case clearly trump fall apart january case washington dc stretch law way fannie willis case georgia attention seek ploy fannie willis legal stretch ricoh not allege underlie organization crime require ricoh charge fannie willis catch scandal turn hire prosecutor person prosecutorial experience happen trip right turn pay bunch taxpayer dollar go cruise happen awkward second friend ziprecruiter conduct recent survey find hire challenge employer face qualified candidate employer need hire good news ziprecruiter smart tool feature help find qualified candidate quickly right try free ziprecruiter dot com slash dailywire soon post job ziprecruiter powerful match technology show candidate skill experience match look ziprecruiter invite apply feature actually send candidate personalized invite encourage respond job post use ziprecruiter rating tool ll send match new profile create let ziprecruiter help conquer big hiring challenge find qualified candidate outta employer post ziprecruiter quality candidate day exclusive web address right try ziprecruiter free ziprecruiter dot com slash daily wire ziprecruiter dot com slash daiywire ziprecruiter dot com slash daily wire ziprecruiter smart way hire check right case sort merit classified docs case florida case donald trump point hillary clinton politically speak look like political persecute look thoroughly like doj political tool biden administration obvious insane case charging prolife demonstrator blocking entry tennessee abortion facility here film look like supposedly evil violent terrible people outside abortion facility tennessee charge charge year prison accuse department justice violate socalled face act civil right conspiracy violation people civil right protest take place hallway outside mount juliet abortion provider march ll group demonstrator gather second floor office building hallway outside carum health center clinic group pray sing hymn urge woman show clinic abortion here look like oh man threatening violent wow wow frightening terrify stuff absolutely terrify verdict deliver fifth day trial take place nashville government key witness caroline davis woman arrest group care fm testimony davis claim change heart attend protest rational toilet time participation say change mind time indict federal government terrify apparently people talk police video show participant tell speak love man girlfriend d show someone baby gift god people go to face year prison brutal violent terrible activity steve crampton s thomas moore society senior counsel attorney people charge say quote disappoint outcome peaceful demonstration entirely peaceful citizen fill prayer hymn singing worship orient persuade expect mother abort baby unfortunately biden department justice decide characterize peaceful action felony conspiracy right intimidate punish people charge prolife people people faith crampton suggest biden js pattern arrest prosecute peaceful prolife advocate disturb course s true remember administration basically decide charge huge number people involve black life matter riot billion damage administration basically decide facilitate shut highway mean democratic party absolutely major city facilitate shutdown airport shutdown highway protestor assault police antiabortion protester sit hallway singing s violent stuff s truly threaten horrify terrible stuff wonder republican people generally like biden doj like indict trump okay like suppose sup seriously doj doj say sort activity ie stand outside abortion clinic nonviolently singe hymn deserve year prison grandma walk capitol building january people s violent people assault police officer grandma stupidly walk capitol building january track jail jail long humanly possible obviously insurrectionist like doj ought trust go donald trump think speak people ought prosecute turn squad hamas squad know radical congress talk good people people medium love people cover rolling stone magazine nancy pelosi turn pretty embroil controversy actual outright criminal activity moment guy nobrainer wanna protect kid left wing indoctrination rampant mainstream medium here start day free trial bentkey new kid entertainment app daily wire bentkey streaming app offer high quality family friendly show reflect value bentkey feature amazing character timeless story ll spark kid imagination curiosity hundred episode kid love trust trust kid bentkey great material great kid love watch safe know cultivate try bentkey free day right catch gimmick hidden fee awesome content kid love trust use code unlock bentkey dot com ll day unlimited access bent key world adventure bentkey dot com right use code unlock signup start trial today okay hamas squad radical congress have week emerge congresswoman cory bush investigation allege misuse security fund ll remember cory bush pretty radical rally claim america deeply racist terrible place ought defund police simultaneously way claim pretty everybody need pay security doj investigate cory bush good thing doj right allegedly misuse money intend member congress candidate spend private security scope investigation allegation wrongdoing immediately know recent month investigator contact multiple current staffer accord washington post inquire congresswoman campaign spending apparently pay friend call security come fire campaign money hire husband courtney merri security office congressional ethic dismiss complaint file bush fall allege campaign employment merit violation federal election law pay thousand dollar despite fact merit private security license st louis washington dc course member security payroll little security recur washington free beacon report march year people work close friend high pay private security guard guy name nathaniel davis iii claim summon tornado cause earthquake hate conduct blood ritual bring ruin enemy way awesome set skill pay way getting pay actually thing awesome stuff right way anybody prove thing slot open right daily wire perfectly happy carve salaried position summon tornado cause earthquake hate conduct blood ritual bring ruin enemy apparently s intergalactic master psychic selfdefense bear trillion year ago wild s old universe like order magnitude day say spend tend crop spread antisemitic conspiracy guess make sense mean dude pay security cory bush claim obviously republican racist s target beautiful thing member diverse squad basically claim racism swear office endure relentless threat physical safety life rank file member congress entitle personal protection house instead campaign fund permissible retain security service federal tax dollar personal security service reporting fund personal security personal security simply false recent month right wing organization lodge baseless complaint peddle notion misuse campaign fund pay personal security service simply true oh right wing force right wing force flashback cory bush suggest defend cory bush talk pay private security police defend m go to sure security know attempt life work people need help right allow end spend spend dollar know work suck defunde police happen oh gosh lady congress representative deserve say politic high comedy member squad have bad week member squad have super bad week ilhan omar ilhan omar apparently give speech sort event local somalis speech say thing m go to play little bit clip somali not speak somali obviously claim transcription speech translation clip go viral daily wire actually go translation service pay translate m go to read transcript relevant portion say absolutely wild pretty certainly violate oath office ilhan omar bad person american congress haddi okay m go to read transcript get actual translation service wanna sure accurate representation ilhan omar actually say translation segment clip go viral act quote somalis people love talk back time people count brother sister know muslim somalis people help side day ago hear news people claim somalis get agreement ethiopia s talk breakaway portion somalia call somali land effectively year selfgoverne entity somalia disaster zone somalia land actually pretty pro western somaliland happen democratic kind free market orient s lot talk long time somaliland actually declare independence give breakaway status government far s strong case actually happen course oppose describe allegiance somalia say m embrace fact mohamad know somalia get call lot people say ilhan need talk government government answer question government tell government tell like plural describe mean word right somalis muslims government tell mean like conspiratorial nightmare ba jews obviously engage exactly kind language regard area orientation say oh jews like hardcore group people control american government control american government okay lady say need confident live country country pay tax country daughter long m congress away somali sea water support government support people rob person plural pretty wild right rob government oppose rob s s naturalized citizen united states s member congress like s member somali political regime talk like say lady send congress know feel interest like president hassan sheikh happy good job thank mr president remind somali crisis people talent know country country danger want congratulate somalis minnesota somalis united support president need support president united states joe biden m go to point republican president united states fact joe biden president s president united states m american like s s amazing statement ilhan omar people talk denaturalize deport rest s pretty hard thing united states s lot free speech right attach american citizen say bunch nonsense bad bad garbage oath office fact require solemnly swear support defend constitution united states bear true faith allegiance obligation freely mental reservation purpose evasion mean violate oath office think pretty strong case violate oath office bad week ilhan omar continue bad person congress s end story way s squad bad week hama squad continue jamal bowman man intelligent mistake fire alarm door open apparatus apparently way promote conspiracy theory stock conspiratorial left right grow recent year plenty conspiracy theorist congress unfortunately tuesday daily beast publish report blog bowman maintain day education principal actual public middle school publish poem brief essay personal political pedagogical concern find post title recapitulate line free verse poem sound terrible start recollection world event transition heavily meditation conspiracy theory generally focus claim terrorist attack plan entity precipitate war terror bowman statement say decade ago debate diving doctoral degree explore wide range book film article wide swath political spectrum pro process thought personal blog people read suggest say plane missile target twin tower minute later building collapse later day build seven collapse hmm multiple explosion hear collapse hmm allegedly plane pentagon pennsylvania hijack terrorist minimal damage minimal debris find hmm watch loose change zeitgeist share thought blame osama go warn iraq capture sonam kill bin laden afghan go war wow amazing amazing deep thought jamal bowman squad have bad week not blame squad stupidity malice corruption blame people vote fault not vote place shocking news day turn harvard diversity chief guilty plagiarism remember time harvard president cloud gay guilty lot lot plagiarism end lose job turn accord new york post harvard universitys chief diversity inclusion officer hit dozen plagiarism allegation tie academic work include claim fail properly cite husband study s plagiarize husband oh ivy league school hand anonymous complaint monday list example allege plagiarism sherry ann charleston date accord washington free beacon accord beacon charleston allegedly quote paraphrase dozen scholar attribution dissertation university michigan actually take credit study husband write harvard yeah make case diversity strength need actually hire people not plagiarize like barrier overcome diversity strength argument hire people competent non plagiarist like place start apparently heavy lift folk come go jump insane comment foreign secretary uk plan visavis hamas member member use coach shapiro checkout month free ill annual plan click link description join happy announce new product jeremys razor woman lady great smooth shave enjoy know hardearne money go accompany celebrate support woman woman today jeremys razor dot com

Speeches, etc. 4.45 p.m. Mrs. Margaret Thatcher (Finchley) I will follow the Minister in trying to be brief because I know that a large number of my Friends wish to speak. Many of their constituents are affected by this Bill. There is another reason why I need not speak for too long. As the Minister pointed out, the Bill is the same as that introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), to whom I must pay tribute. He handled this subject magnificently while he was in power, and I know that the right hon. Gentleman will understand when I say I am sorry he could not see it through. The then Under-Secretary, Keith Speed, made a very clear introduction of the Bill on 5th December. We have only to read that to see what it is all about. As an old parliamentarian—— Mr. Eric Ogden (Liverpool, West Derby) Oh! Mrs. Thatcher As one who has been in this House for some considerable time, may I make a preliminary point. We all understand that the right hon. Gentleman may find himself in a little difficulty today. We have changed sides in this House and unfortunately there have been times when changing sides has appeared to change opinions. That is one of the things which has led to a certain amount of cynicism on the part of the public [column 967]towards politicians. I noted that last time we debated the matter the right hon. Gentleman said, I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's partial conversion and hope that in the end it will be a complete conversion. I am sure that he will begin to understand that this is one of the exciting big projects on the political agenda. We are going through a period in politics when it seems that all the exciting big projects are stopped and politics appears to have become about bread and cheese. There are more things in life than that. [Interruption.] Bread and cheese are also important but so are some of the more visionary ideas to the abilities and resourcefulness of our people. The first issue I want to raise is that of compensation for those affected by works associated with the tunnel. One of the most encouraging things about the whole project has been the way in which Members whose constituencies are most affected have refused to be limited in their vision by a specifically parochial view but have been prepared to look at the wider national outlook. Part of this is due to the action taken by successive Governments, particularly the last one, to see that those whose properties and lives were affected should have generous compensation. It is also due to the strenous efforts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil to see the people concerned, to meet points put to him and to meet hon. Members who care on behalf of their constituents. It is due, too, to the willingness of the companies concerned to help in these matters. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will continue this and will be anxious to see that those affected receive full and generous compensation. Mr. Mulley May I echo the right hon. Lady's tribute to her right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) for the way in which he met local authorities and Members concerned. I will try to follow that lead. Mrs. Thatcher We are most grateful. The White Paper said that the provisions of the Land Compensation Act 1973 would apply to those whose property was to be affected by the proposals. Although that paragraph comes shortly after the paragraphs headed “The Railway Link and Installations” , I understand there is some doubt as to whether the Act applies to railway works, since it was drafted with roadworks and airports in mind. May I ask the Minister specifically whether it does apply to the rail link, because that is obviously one of the most important questions for a number of my hon. Friends. Further, will the noise insulation regulations of 1973 apply? If not, will steps be taken to ensure that they do? This is particularly important for Members representing Kent and Surrey, where much land and property will be affected. My hon. Friends who represent Surrey and Kent constituencies, particularly my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), are very anxious about this. I was a little confused by what the Minister said about the timetable. I do not see the timetable stretching ahead as clearly as he seems to see it. I understand that phase 2 ends in July next year, 15 months from now. The teams who are working on the project will want a decision whether the project will continue three or four months before that. We do not want the design and working teams on a big project like this wondering three or four months in advance whether the scheme has a future, so that we must have a decision at least a clear three or four months before the end of phase 2. That will bring the timetable back to about March. In a statement made a few weeks ago Anthony Croslandthe Secretary of State for the Environment said that the reassessment would be complete by the end of next summer. I challenged him on it at the time and asked whether that was time enough to make the reassessment, and the more I look at it the more it seems an insufficient time for making the sort of reassessment he had in mind. I understood that the Secretary of State was to consider whether the existing traffic could be provided for by alternative means. There is not time for that to [column 969]be done and for a judgment to be made by the early months of next year. The treaty has to be ratified by 1st January. In the meantime we have to go ahead drafting Agreement No. 3, and that draft must be deposited by 1st April. Between those times we must have received the report from the independent consultants, considered it, debated it and made a decision upon it. Are we going to ratify the treaty before a final decision is made? When do we expect to make a final decision? Before doing so we must have time to consider the report. Mr. Mulley We need to ratify the treaty that was signed in November by 1st January so as to allow phase 2 to continue. If we do not do that the project is abandoned. That is why the Bill is so important. We do not—and under the treaty we cannot—have in mind any change in the timetable set by the previous Government. My hon. Friend in winding up the debate will deal with the complexities at greater length. Mrs. Thatcher My recollection is that the Conservative Government intended that the final decision should be made by about the time of the Third Reading of the Bill—although I may not be quite right about that. But there is this totally new factor of the reassessment. I hope that the Minister who winds up the debate will give more details about what that reassessment includes. The Secretary of State was vague. His few words were more a cloak to what he meant than a revelation. We should also like to know a little more about the road-to-rail orientation. The whole costing of the tunnel is based upon the rolling motorway as well as the rail concept. I understood that the right hon. Gentleman had rejected the rail-only link. If that part of the time-table can be sorted out I shall be grateful. There are two matters about the British railways timetable which concern me. The first is the short-term timetable which particularly affects my hon. Friends who represent constituencies on the shores of the rail link. The right hon. Gentleman said, rightly, that no decision about the precise route had yet been taken. Of course it has not. The plans have been available to the people [column 970]affected only for a few weeks, and many have not yet seen them. We are worried about the shortness of the timetable. If the plans for the Private Bill are to be deposited by 1st November, the full details of every property affected will have to be worked out by about June. Remembering the summer holidays, that does not leave much time for the appropriate consultations, particularly as Surrey has produced a plan of four different routes. People will be alarmed if they feel that their interests are not being properly protected and that they are not to have full consultations before the decision is made. Some of my hon. Friends will need a great deal of reassurance on that. On the longer-term British Railways timetable, is the right hon. Gentleman confident that the money made available by his Government to British Railways will be adequate and that British Railways will be able to construct the rail links in time? The treaty contains a penalty clause in Article 5.6.2 to the effect that, if neither road nor rail links are properly constructed by the date of the operation of the tunnel, the Government in default must pay to the authority a sum equal to the net loss of income to the authority resulting from the absence of the road or rail link. To settle the route, to have the capital sums made available and to get all the construction work completed within a six-year period is a large undertaking, and I should like to hear that the right hon. Gentleman is confident that it can be done. In considering alternatives to the tunnel, will the right hon. Gentleman take into account that Kent—with which I have had connections for many years—already has problems caused by the volume of traffic and heavy freight passing through it. It already urgently needs the requisite roads to be constructed. A great deal of expenditure will be needed whatever view is taken about the Channel Tunnel. There are several reasons why the costs of any project may rise. First, they may rise because the design is substantially altered during the project. That happens with an unknown project in which new technologies are involved. One would not expect much of the design of the tunnel to be changed. There may be one or two minor variations arising from [column 971]the technical work that is now being done on the tunnel, but no substantial design alterations. There may also be one or two decisions which we cannot yet cost on the design of the rolling stock, but I do not believe that many increases will come from the alteration of the design of the project. Secondly, there may be increases in cost because of insufficient allowance for contingencies. Sufficient allowance for these has probably been made in this project. The third reason is the difficult one. I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman referred to the real cost, which is the usual convention by which we cost projects in which the Government have a hand. There could be differences in the out-term cost because of the level of inflation used in the calculations. That level is just as much a decision for the Government to take as those connected with the project, and the Government must be prepared to take it, if we are to get a realistic cost assessment. I say that, knowing how difficult it is to take an economic view in these matters for any length of time ahead as the economic climate changes so quickly. If we are in difficulties about the precise outturn cost, this is one of the reasons for it. I understand that there is a new assessment of the cost of the project amounting to £970 million, based on the following three factors—a higher construction cost escalation averaging 8.5 per cent. per annum, compared with the former figure of 7 per cent.; a higher interest rate during the construction and the remuneration period averaging 10 per cent. per annum, compared with the previous figure of 9 per cent.; and a delay of three months in the completion of the construction. Any delay is very expensive in terms of cost. On that basis the total estimate is £970 million. Therefore, I hope that before a final costing is reached, the Government will make it clear that they understand and agree with the levels of inflation put into the actual projections. This does not mean that they are committed to this level of inflation; indeed we hope that it will come down. When all those assumptions have been made and the sets of figures calculated, [column 972]the Government will have at last to come to a final, positive decision. I believe that will have to be well before Easter next year. I hope that there will be no question of putting off the decision by the classic method of having further inquiries. In the end that process turns out to be a way of saying “No” by a slow strangulation process. I believe that between January and Easter next year we shall have to take the decision and that the facts from the new assessment will have to be available by that time. It is possible that the Bill may be obtained this side of a General Election. It is also possible that it will be a question of “third time lucky” for the introduction of this Bill. If that is the case, then I should like the Minister to know that I shall not adopt his tactics in any way. I shall be as happy to support the Bill in opposition as we were to support it when we were in government—and the same will apply when our places are reversed. Copyright © Margaret Thatcher Foundation 2024. All Rights Reserved.

right

speech etc pm mrs margaret thatcher finchley follow minister try brief know large number friend wish speak constituent affect bill reason need speak long minister point bill introduce right hon friend member yeovil mr peyton pay tribute handle subject magnificently power know right hon gentleman understand sorry undersecretary keith speed clear introduction bill december read old parliamentarian mr eric ogden liverpool west derby oh mrs thatcher house considerable time preliminary point understand right hon gentleman find little difficulty today change side house unfortunately time change side appear change opinion thing lead certain cynicism public column politician note time debate matter right hon gentleman say welcome right hon gentleman partial conversion hope end complete conversion sure begin understand exciting big project political agenda go period politic exciting big project stop politic appear bread cheese thing life interruption bread cheese important visionary idea ability resourcefulness people issue want raise compensation affect work associate tunnel encouraging thing project way member constituency affected refuse limit vision specifically parochial view prepare look wide national outlook action take successive government particularly property life affect generous compensation strenous effort right hon friend member yeovil people concern meet point meet hon member care behalf constituent willingness company concern help matter sure right hon gentleman continue anxious affect receive generous compensation mr mulley echo right hon ladys tribute right hon friend member yeovil mr peyton way meet local authority member concern try follow lead mrs thatcher grateful white paper say provision land compensation act apply property affect proposal paragraph come shortly paragraph head railway link installation understand doubt act apply railway work draft roadwork airport mind ask minister specifically apply rail link obviously important question number hon friend noise insulation regulation apply step take ensure particularly important member represent kent surrey land property affect hon friend represent surrey kent constituency particularly right hon learn friend member surrey east sir g howe anxious little confused minister say timetable timetable stretch ahead clearly understand phase end july year month team work project want decision project continue month want design work team big project like wonder month advance scheme future decision clear month end phase bring timetable march statement week ago anthony croslandthe secretary state environment say reassessment complete end summer challenge time ask time reassessment look insufficient time make sort reassessment mind understand secretary state consider exist traffic provide alternative mean time column judgment early month year treaty ratify january meantime ahead draft agreement draft deposit april time receive report independent consultant consider debate decision go ratify treaty final decision expect final decision time consider report mr mulley need ratify treaty sign november january allow phase continue project abandon bill important treaty mind change timetable set previous government hon friend wind debate deal complexity great length mrs thatcher recollection conservative government intend final decision time reading bill right totally new factor reassessment hope minister wind debate detail reassessment include secretary state vague word cloak mean revelation like know little roadtorail orientation costing tunnel base rolling motorway rail concept understand right hon gentleman reject railonly link timetable sort shall grateful matter british railway timetable concern shortterm timetable particularly affect hon friend represent constituency shore rail link right hon gentleman say rightly decision precise route take course plan available people column week see worried shortness timetable plan private bill deposit november detail property affect work june remember summer holiday leave time appropriate consultation particularly surrey produce plan different route people alarm feel interest properly protect consultation decision hon friend need great deal reassurance longerterm british railway timetable right hon gentleman confident money available government british railway adequate british railway able construct rail link time treaty contain penalty clause article effect road rail link properly construct date operation tunnel government default pay authority sum equal net loss income authority result absence road rail link settle route capital sum available construction work complete sixyear period large undertaking like hear right hon gentleman confident consider alternative tunnel right hon gentleman account kent connection year problem cause volume traffic heavy freight pass urgently need requisite road construct great deal expenditure need view take channel tunnel reason cost project rise rise design substantially alter project happen unknown project new technology involve expect design tunnel change minor variation arise column technical work tunnel substantial design alteration decision cost design rolling stock believe increase come alteration design project secondly increase cost insufficient allowance contingency sufficient allowance probably project reason difficult notice right hon gentleman refer real cost usual convention cost project government hand difference outterm cost level inflation calculation level decision government connect project government prepare realistic cost assessment know difficult economic view matter length time ahead economic climate change quickly difficulty precise outturn cost reason understand new assessment cost project amount million base follow factor high construction cost escalation average cent annum compare figure cent high interest rate construction remuneration period average cent annum compare previous figure cent delay month completion construction delay expensive term cost basis total estimate million hope final costing reach government clear understand agree level inflation actual projection mean committed level inflation hope come assumption set figure calculate column government come final positive decision believe easter year hope question put decision classic method have inquiry end process turn way say slow strangulation process believe january easter year shall decision fact new assessment available time possible bill obtain general election possible question time lucky introduction bill case like minister know shall adopt tactic way shall happy support bill opposition support government apply place reverse copyright margaret thatcher foundation right reserve

This joint resolution nullifies the final rule issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service titled Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Lesser Prairie-Chicken; Threatened Status With Section 4(d) Rule for the Northern Distinct Population Segment and Endangered Status for the Southern Distinct Population Segment and published on November 25, 2022. The rule adds the Northern Distinct Population Segment of lesser prairie-chicken to the list of threatened species and the Southern District Population Segment of lesser prairie-chicken to the list of endangered species.

right

joint resolution nullify final rule issue fish wildlife service title endanger threaten wildlife plant less prairiechicken threaten status section rule northern distinct population segment endangered status southern distinct population segment publish november rule add northern distinct population segment less prairiechicken list threaten specie southern district population segment less prairiechicken list endanger specie

Ep. 1812 - Bidenomics Is A Disaster Area Published: 9/19/2023 We break down the latest effects of Bidenomics. the White House gives the Iranian government access to $6 billion while touting their dealmaking prowess and sexual harassment allegations emerge against Tim Ballard, the inspiration behind Sound of Freedom. I'm Ben Shapiro. This is The Ben Shapiro Show The Ben Shapiro Show is sponsored by Express VPN Protect, your online Privacy today at ExpressVPN dot com slash Ben. The polls are really bad for Joe Biden on the economy. In fact, the polls are really bad for Joe Biden pretty much across the board. A CCB S news poll that came out over the weekend shows that the qualities that most Americans are looking for are just not present in Joe Biden. According to the latest C B SS news u gov poll, it shows that 67% of Americans want a president who is tough. 66% want a president who's caring. 62% want a president who's no nonsense. Only 61% want calm and 58% want energetic. Among people. Asked about Joe Biden's leadership style, 63% say that he's calm, but only 50% say that he's caring, and only 35% say that he has no nonsense. Meanwhile, Donald Trump's leadership style is seen as provocative by 71%. By tough, it would seem as tough by 67%, energetic by 65%, no nonsense by 55% and entertaining by 55%. Even more importantly, despite the fact that Americans are really dissatisfied with this matchup, this Trump versus Biden perspective matchup with 64% of Americans saying that that rematch would make the them feel that the political system is totally broken on the economy. The numbers are awful for Joe Biden as well. They should be according to this poll, it shows that only 20% of Americans say they're better off today than they were before the pandemic. 45% say they're worse off today, and 35% say they're at about the same level, which is to say only 20% are pleased as punch as far as the choice for president. If finances are worse now than before the pandemic, 71% say they would vote for Trump. So if you said that your finances are worse than they were before the pandemic, which is like 45% of Americans, seven in 10 of those voters say they're going to vote for President Trump. One of the administration's efforts according to C B SS news has been to tell what it teases Biden's accomplishments. A lot of voters do know about some key efforts and it apparently matters. For example, independents who have heard about the Biden administration investing in infrastructure are backing him, but those independents represent a small minority of people, and here's the reality. The vast majority of people who are thinking about the economy either think that they are no better off or significantly worse off than before the pandemic, and that has to do with Joe Biden's policy. The fact of the matter is that Joe Biden's Easy Money policy, which has been combined with a extraordinarily restrictive regulatory environment, massive subsidies to his union buddies, green boondoggles and all the rest is making people feel pretty insecure. Their wages are not stacking up the same way they were before. The pandemic prices have risen dramatically and it doesn't look as though an end is in sight. Even people in the business sector who are supposedly doing amazing thanks to the stock market, boom, even those people are holding their money on the sidelines, not sure exactly where to put it, and you can hear the inability to handle the economy in the voice of Treasury secretary Janet Yellen, who's supposed to be the big expert on this sort of stuff. So Janet Yellen did an interview on C N B C yesterday in which she basically explained that she has no clue what to do next because they don't, they have no clue what to do next. The problem with Keynesian stimulus is that when the stimulus doesn't work, you have no more bullets to fire. See, the thing about innovation is that innovation is done by individual entrepreneurs who have ideas and then look for the funding in order to go and build those ideas, but stimulus doesn't make the ideas magically happen. This is the equivalent of suggesting that some kid who gets straight C's, if you just give him an extra juice box, suddenly he's gonna get A's. That's not the way any of that works. The reality is that the only way to truly stimulate an economy is with innovation and growth. It is not simply by helicoptering money everywhere, but that is the entire premise of all left-wing economic policies that if you simply hoover up money from the private sector and then you blow it out, or you don't even do that, you hoover it up from the future and you blow it out in the present somehow this is going to lead to long-term economic growth and innovation. The proof just ain't in the pudding. So Janet Yellen was asked on CNBC's at Squawk Box about the gas prices. Gas prices continue to be extraordinarily high, significantly higher than when Joe Biden took office and Jenny Ellis is like, look, we don't, we don't know. There's nothing we can do about it. The Saudis are extending the production cuts through the end of the year. Are you looking at taking any action on this front? Well, the president wants to make sure that gas prices remain affordable for Americans. Americans care a great deal about the price of gas. They're still down a dollar 20 off their highs last summer, although they have gone up recently, we're monitoring this situation very closely. The president has taken action over the last year. Certainly the releases of oil from the Strategic Petroleum reserve have been important in holding down oil prices and will continue to monitor that closely. Well, no, Actually I just wonder how much, Actually, no. The two things that Joe Biden has done that have tremendously affected gas prices, really three inflation affects the gas price. Two massive regulations placed on oil and gas companies, and the notion that Joe Biden spins out at every turn that he's going to kill off gas, he's going to just destroy oil production in this country. And then he is like, why don't you invest in the oil refineries today? Well, because you've said that you're gonna destroy the industry over the course of the next five to 10 years. That's factor number two, regulation and incentivization. And factor number three, Joe Biden has decided to make enemies of many of the biggest oil producers on planet earth, including the Saudi royal government. Right before he came into office, he basically said that he was gonna cut off the Saudis at the knees, and they returned the favor by saying, we'll cut you off at the knees, which presumably is why the gas prices in 2021, January, 2021 when this tool took over were $2 and 42 cents, and today they're $3 and 70 cents or thereabouts, and they've really never sunk below that in any serious way. Meanwhile, Janet Yellen is claiming that we really shouldn't worry about this U a w strike. So we currently have a massive strike, the biggest strike against the Detroit car makers in modern American history. It's against all three Detroit car makers, and she's pretending that this is gonna have no economic impact to slow down at these plans Because you have to be worried about inflation. I would think just as it's starting to come down, supply chain disruptions are a risk here, aren't they? Well, You know I I think it's premature to be making forecast about what it means for the economy. It would depend very much on how long the strike lasts and exactly who's affected by it. But the important point I think, is that the two sides need to narrow their disagreements and to work for a win-win a contract that's good, good for the workers and for the industry as well. Okay? But the entire reason this strike is happening, like all the other strikes that have happened on Joe Biden's watch is because everyone in Union World thinks that Joe Biden is on their sides. They're now all taking advantage of the easy money policies and the inflation of the Biden administration in order to strike against their employers, hoping that the Biden administration is gonna come in and ram down some sort of beneficial deal to them that will in the end, bankrupt these car companies. Again, remember the car companies went bankrupt the first time because of rich Union contracts, including defined benefits pension plans. That's exactly what the U a w is seeking right now. All of this can be laid at the footstep of this White House, all of this stuff, we'll get tomorrow on this in a second. First, there is a company looking out for you right now. That company is Pure Talk. First of all, they don't hate your Gus like a lot of the other phone companies, but Pure Talk also has just added data to every plan, and they include a mobile hotspot with no price increase whatsoever. If you've considered Pure Talk before, but you haven't made the switch, take a look again for just 20 bucks a month, you get unlimited talk text and now 50% more five G data plus their new mobile hotspot. This is why I love Pure Talk. They're veteran owned. They only hire the best customer service team located right here in the great United States of America. Most families are saving almost $1,000 a year while enjoying the most dependable five G network in the country. Remember, you go with how you spend your cash stop supporting woke wireless companies that don't actually support you. When you go to Pure Talk dot com slash Shapiro, you'll save an additional 50% off your very first month because they actually do value you. That's Pure Talk dot com slash Shapiro. Pure Talk is wireless for Americans by Americans. I've been using Pure Talk for all my business calls for months and months and months now, they're great. They share one of the tower networks with the big guys, which means that your coverage is excellent, and again, you're giving money to a company that doesn't hate your guts. Go to Pure Talk dot com slash Shapiro, save an additional 50% off your very first month of coverage. That's Pure Talk dot com slash Shapiro. Okay, so these strikes, these UAW strikes again are just part of a broader whole picture here, which is that the unions have paid off Joe Biden and the Democratic Party for literally decades on end, and finally they got their man in the White House, the most pro-union president since Barack Obama and probably pro more, more pro-union even than Barack Obama who's too elitist. Joe Biden has been in the pocket of the union since day one in Wilmington's, Delaware. Well, now all of these unions are seeing their moment to shine according to Politico, the UAWs walkout Friday at three four General Motors Andell Anis plans. Stell Anis, by the way, is Chrysler they got sold to a European conglomerate could become the most politically and economically disruptive strike since President Joe Biden took office, but it's hardly the only significant labor management clash during his administration made. Part of that is because you actually appointed a union man head of your labor department and your national Labor relations board, an absolute frankensteinian monster in terms of its pathetic effect on the American government, the N L R B. It's a disgrace to American government. Bye by all rules and regulations of the N L R B. I have to say that every time because literally one time I made a joke and they sent us a threat letter. This is what they do for a living is just threaten businesses that are not in violation of the law workers according to Politico, armed with the power of a tight labor market and at times angered by how employers treated them during the pandemic, have organized with new energy from Hollywood to U P Ss to Starbucks. There's only one problem. The money ain't there to go around. You can pretend it is But. it ain't. If all of the left wingers over in Hollywood are not signing the Rich Union contracts, You know why that is. 'cause if they do, they'll go bankrupt. You're seeing this, by the way, in the stock prices of a lot of the major entertainment conglomerates ranging from Netflix to Disney. They're taking it directly on the chin and meanwhile they got their writers striking. When it comes to the auto manufacturers, they're all getting their lunch eaten by Tesla, which is a non-union shop. It is amazing how we can keep relearning the same lessons over and over and over again. You know all the, all the adults who suggest that it's unions that made American life so wonderful during the 1950s, 1960s. It was the union job, the union job where you sat there for 10 hours a day doing riveting or whatever and neglect the fact that a lot of those jobs You know now is you sitting in an air conditioned office doing another kind of job and that your grandfather who had to sit out there in the factory doing the riveting would kill for your job right? Now, put that aside. The fact is that the real reason America boomed during the 1950s is because every other place on earth was on fire during the 1940s. It's not because the unions did such stellar work. They effectively bankrupted the car industry, which was the single greatest industry in the United States in the 1930s, forties, fifties and sixties. By the beginning of the 1970s, everybody was moving over to the cheap Toyotas. There's a reason for that crap union contracts, the first auto bailouts were happening by the eighties But. it says Political Biden has worked hard to brand himself as the most pro-labor president in American history and relied on union's political muscle to help him win the presidency. So when there's even the threat of a major strike, he's in the spotlight. More than other presidents have been, again, they know they've got him over the barrel in the showdown between the U a w and automakers. Biden has publicly stepped carefully as the administration engages primarily behind the scenes But, it hasn't always been the case. Biden was able to intervene directly in talks between railroads and rail workers because federal law gives the government a big say in that industry's relations because of its economic importance. His top labor department official was involved in a deal this year between west coast ports and dock workers. When it came to rail negotiations, Biden's had a rail strike, without a doubt would've been an economic catastrophe at a very bad time in the year. The contract did not include paid sick leave for more than a hundred thousand workers who had threatened to strike the administration weeks before had broke a deal to avert an earlier strike. But four of the 12 labor unions involved representing more than half of the union workforce rejected the proposals, sending both congress and the administration into a frenzy to get involved before the holiday shipping rush. The same thing happened with regard to the U P Ss and Teamsters as well as Westport Coast, as the West Coast port negotiations because this administration is basically owned by the union's lock stock and barrel unions know that and they are pressing while the iron is hot. Meanwhile, you can hear Bernie Sanders out there mimicking U A W's demands, including I kid you not u a w wants for its workers. Get ready for this a 32 hour work week, a 32 hour work week. Now your math is not deceiving you. That is a four day work week. That is eight hours a day, four days a week, a 32 hour work week. This is what they're seeking the U A W. Of course, Bernie is big in favor of it. The this push from the U A W for a four day work week, is that a negotiating tactic or do you see that as the future of labor in the US a four day work week? Well, I'll tell you what I think and thanks for raising that question, Jake. We are looking at an explosion in this country of artificial intelligence and robotics, and that means that the average worker is going to be much more productive pro worker productivity is going to increase significantly. The question as a nation that we have got to ask ourselves is who's gonna benefit from that increased productivity? Is all of that new income and wealth being created by worker productivity gonna go to the people on top or are workers going to benefit? So right now, in my view, I happen to believe that as a nation we should begin a serious discussion, and the U A W is doing that about substantially lowering the work week. Okay, so first of all, we should point out here the word of pro worker productivity in the United States has largely been a result of investing in better machinery. It's not 'cause workers suddenly got massively better at their jobs. It's because their jobs themselves are more productive. Thanks to the uzeWf, for example, capital equipment. This has brought down prices which has benefited workers or would have if there had not been massive inflation. You know one way to reverse all the product, all the productivity gains. One way to do that is to artificially increase wages and lower the hours. That is one way to do that, and by the way, it's always short-term gain versus long-term pain when it comes to these union negotiations, the U AAW right now is negotiating for all of this stuff because they see that all the car companies did real well because of the boosting inflation prices of cars, right? Car prices went up dramatically over the course of the last couple of years because of supply chain woes. Well, now those supply chain woes are going away and now the easy money policies of the United States are gonna have to be curbed. What happens when the car sales drop off? What happens when Joe Biden's push to force car companies to spend extraordinary amounts of cash shifting from gas powered vehicles, which represent 97% of all Detroit sales to EVs electric vehicles? Who's gonna absorb those costs? It's not gonna be the workers if they get their contract from Joe Biden, but Joe Biden won't care because again, it's all a corrupt bargain. The union spend billions of dollars every election cycle to back Democrats. This is why I always scoff when they say that Democrats wanna get money outta politics. My ass Democrats wanna get money outta politics. Who do you think is paying for Joe Biden's bills? It's the unions. When they say big business runs Republican politics, first of all, that ain't true, but second of all, unions run democratic politics like in direct bribery fashion. They hire effectively Democrats to then negotiate with them at the table. It's an amazing scam that's been going on for decades on end. Another part of the scam is that the only employers in the United States who right now are benefiting our wait fort, wait fort, wait for it, the government. So we are getting rid of job creation in the private sector through Rich Union contracts, but we are definitely boosting more employment in the government sector, which of course is what Joe Biden would like. If you'd like to work for the government, now is an excellent time. We'll get to that momentarily. First, everybody knows I love my Helix mattress. Have you checked out their most high-end collection? The Helix Elite Helix has harnessed years of extensive mattress expertise to bring their customers a truly elevated sleep experience. The Helix Elite Collection includes six different mattress models, each tailored four specific sleep positions and firmness preferences. I've had my Helix sleep mattress for I dunno, seven, eight years at this point. It's incredibly durable. It was made just for me, which means that it's firm but breathable, which is precisely what I need. If the mattress is too soft, I get back pain. I tend to heat up a lot at night, so I really need a breathable mattress. Helix made that happen for me. You can do the same with your own Helix sleep quiz. Just head on over to Helix sleep.com/ Ben. Take their two minute sleep quiz, find the perfect mattress for your body and sleep type. Your mattress will come directly to your door ship for free. Plus Helix has a 10 year warranty. You can try it out for a hundred nights at risk free. They'll even pick it up for you if you don't love it, but you will. Helix has over 12,005 star reviews their financing options. Flexible payment plans make it so a great night's sleep is never far away. Helix Labor Day Sale is still going on. They're currently offering 25% off all mattress orders plus two free pillows from Allers. Go to Helix sleep.com/ Ben. Use code Helix partner 25. That's the best offer yet it's not gonna last long with Helix. Better sleep. It starts right now. Well, there is one sector of the employment market that is growing by leaps and bounds, and that is government employment. Aren't you glad that you get to pay the taxes so the government can hire lots of people? According to the Wall Street Journal, while many companies have been cutting staff and freezing new hires this year, the government is laying out the welcome mat. Public sector jobs at the federal, state and local level have risen by 327,000 positions so far in 2023, according to the Bureau of labor statistics, that is approaching one fifth of all new American jobs created in the first eight months of the year. In contrast, public sector jobs accounted for 5% of employment growth during the during the equivalent period last year. If you look at public sector jobs as a percentage of payroll gains, this is the biggest number that we have seen in any given year since 2007. 2006 I mean it doesn't even go back that far. The chart, the Wall Street Journal is showing. So what we are watching here is the government basically subsidizing a bunch of people to come work for the government. Some of this is worthwhile because you actually need people working for US Customs and Border Protection as we'll see, the administration isn't allowing them to do their job, but they are hiring there. But there's also a ton of people who are just working in kind of make work programs for the government. Private sector employment is now 3.2 per two nine 9% over its pre pandemic level, but the public sector is struggling to shore up staffing and so they're just ratcheting up. They're ratcheting up the amount of money that they're paying people. So Joe Biden's Future Economy here is one in which you have a government job working a 32 hour work week with a public sector union pension paid for by the American taxpayer. A growing public sector at the expense of a shrinking private sector is the future of this economy. And then you wonder why many Americans seem dissatisfied with this arrangement because it's basically the arrangement that lengthened the Great Depression by eight years during F D R tenure is the same arrangement that led to economic turmoil in the 1960s and 1970s under L B J and then under Richard Nixon that that would be the reason. So bad economic policy is, is part and parcel of what Joe Biden is doing right here. Combine that with Joe Biden's crappy immigration policy and you have a real, you have a real tempest on your hands at the same time that Joe Biden is making an unaffordable for people to live in this country, particularly at the lower end of the income scale. He continues to ship in millions of illegal immigrants and then release them into the interior over the weekend. Fox's Griff Jenkins posted video of the so-called Pharaoh Max Train. It's an amazing video. These are all people who are headed up to the American border. They're coming from Zaka Mexico and they're cheering on route to the United States. Earlier the summer, the Biden administration, according to Mediaite ended the Donald Trump era immigration policy remained in Mexico, which required asylum seekers to wait in Mexico and the the administration has successfully incentivized literally thousands of people to hop on trains just head right for that border. Here's the video, why not Joe Biden is going to process them and release them into the interior of the United States. That's what's going to happen here. We all know that These are not all people who are attempting to escape from tyranny countries. These are a lot of people who are looking for jobs and they're gonna come and welfare benefits and they're gonna come into the United States and that is what they're going to take advantage of. And meanwhile, by the way, Ima images of immigrants in cages are emerging from Tucson, Arizona thanks to Bill Mulligan. don don't, I don't see a o c crying anywhere near these cages. Anywhere you see these giant cages filled with people, all these people will be processed and let into the interior of the United States. That's Joe Biden's immigration policy. So if you are a low wage American, just understand that Joe Biden is importing an entire labor pool to take your job away from you in the private sector, simultaneously paying a bunch of middle class people in Northern Virginia to work for the federal government, blowing out the spending so as to increase inflation and paying off his union cronies. And then you wonder why Americans aren't super fond of his economic policies. I can't imagine why in just one second we'll get to Joe Biden's absolutely discombobulated and immoral foreign policy. First, we have a lot on our schedules with how much we have to do every day. We've got the soccer practice and the science fairs and the prepping for the holidays and all of that. The good news is you can take one giant thing off your plate by putting great meat on your plate. With Good Ranchers, you care about what your family eats so, so does Good Ranchers. That's why they've spent years building relationships with local farms to source the best 100% American beef, chicken, pork canal, wild caught seafood as well. The best of the land and sea can now get conveniently delivered directly to your door. Right now, they're offering two years of free ground beef to anybody who subscribes. That is a $480 value. That is two years of free, high quality ground beef and a locked in price. No other meat company guarantees you 100% American meat and a locked in price because no one else is Good Ranchers. By the way, they made me a kosher steak one time. Lemme tell you, it's one of the best steaks I've ever eaten in my entire life. Go to Good Ranchers dot com today. Use my code Ben for 25 bucks off and free ground beef for two years. Remember, subscribe to any box and lock in your price on America's best meat for two whole years as well. That's Good Ranchers dot com Today. Use my code Ben for over 500 bucks in savings. Subscribe to Good Ranchers. It is indeed American Meat delivered. Go check them out right now. Good Ranchers dot com. Use code Ben. Get 25 bucks off and free ground beef for two years, a hell of a deal. Okay, meanwhile, the Biden administration has now gone forward with its exchange, $6 billion in funding released to the Iranian Mullahs to the tyranny of Iran in exchange for five Americans. According to the UK Daily Mail. The five US prisoners released by Iran today as part of a controversial prisoner swap, have arrived in Doha, Qatar to begin their journey back to America, where one says he's eager to visit an Apple store to find out what the latest phones are. After eight years behind bars, the prisoners were flown first from Tehran to Doha on a Qatar Airways jet. Today they're greeted on the tarmac at Doha by the US Ambassador to Qatar, Timmy Davis, the price of their freedom, $6 billion in frozen funds, the US seizes from Iran in 2018. Now that we claim that it'll be used for humanitarian purposes only, which is a complete lie. The the president of Iran said it as much recently. He was recently on with, with Lester Holt And. he was asked specifically about whether there are any restrictions on the uzeWf, the funds. He's like, Nope, we're gonna use it for whatever we damn well, please. Meanwhile, the administration continues to deny that there's anything to this at all. John Kirby, who's the national security spokesperson, he says, don't worry, we're not ignoring Iran's terrorist activities. We're just ignoring Iran's terrorist activities. How is US national security better today because of this deal and not worse off? As I've heard many Republicans say, First of all, what's really better off are five families. So true. And I think that's really important to remember. Number two, as I said earlier, we, well, we just executed more sanctions on entities in Iran today, specifically for the offense of wrongfully detaining Americans. And just in the last couple of weeks we've upped our military presence in the Gulf region. We added some additional sanctions on Iran just a few days ago. I mean we are holding Iran to account and we are mindful of our national security interests in the region and we're doing everything we can, not just on the economic space, but even in the military space, to protect our troops, to protect our interests, to protect our allies and partners in that part of the world. No one should take away from today's events any idea that we are somehow turning a blind eye to what Iran is doing in the region or around the world. Not at all. Quite the contrary. Well, I mean quite the contrary. You'd be the second straight Democratic president to ship pallets of cash over to the Iranians. Effectively speaking, by the way, we also released a bunch of Iranian prisoners in the United States who are actual criminals, including one Iranian who was sentenced to 63 months in prison in 2021 for obtaining equipment that could be used in missiles, electronic warfare, nuclear weapons, and other military gear. Another Iranian and permanent residents of the United States who was charged in 2019 with allegedly stealing engineering plans from his employer to send to Iran, as well as another one who was arrested in February and sentenced to 30 months in prison for purchasing sophisticated top tier US electronic equipment and software through com front companies in the u a e. Meanwhile, John Kirby continues to maintain, don't worry, the regime is never gonna get their hands on this money, which is weird because they totally are. That's what happens when you release money to criminals. What can the United States do if it is seen that they're using this money not for food, not for medicine, for bad reasons, lock It back down. We can stop a transaction. It's important to remember, Kate, that the, Yeah, I believe that The regime doesn't get the money, that they can request a withdrawal for humanitarian goods, agricultural products, medical supplies, food, and then we will run a process through which those goods are contracted for. The Iranians don't even get to let the contracts. We'll make sure that the contracts are let with vendors that we know we can trust, and then that material will be delivered to the Iranian people. The Iranian regime does not get hands on this money. There's nothing that America does better than foreign aid going directly to the sources that we're seeking to get it to. I'm being incredibly sarcastic right now. The amount of money that we waste every year on fraud and graph that goes directly to dictators all over the world is insane. It's hundreds of millions of dollars. There's a reason that Yassar Raffa ended up the richest guy in the Palestinian authority. He wouldn't give that money to all of his, all of his subjects. And the same thing is happening over and around. By the way, money is fungible. Let's assume for a second that he's right. Let's assume that $6 billion goes for humanitarian aid, that $6 billion, Iran now doesn't have to spend on that stuff and they now spend on giving missiles to Hezbollah. It. It's just an absurdity. But this administration on foreign policy is an absurdity in terms of other absurdities in this administration. By the way, Joe Biden continues to mock Republicans on the impeachment stuff. Now our Republicans gonna be able to achieve the impeachment of of Joe Biden. Now, don don't know whether they're gonna be able to even achieve it in the house. don don't know whether they have a majority in the house. I would assume that at the end of the day, McCarthy is somehow gonna wrangle a bare majority to impeach Biden and You know that'll, that'll have an impact on Biden. Is he gonna actually be removed from office by a Democratic Senate? Of course not. Of course not. But that's not the point. The point is there's gonna be a lot of damaging material about Joe's corruption from now up till election day. And Joe Biden is absolutely blind about the whole time thing, which is, which is pretty shocking. Moments ago, the President reacting with defiance when asked about the new House impeachment inquiry as he arrived back at the White House, God, he can't even walk Impeachment inquiry into you Luck's luck. That's what it's luck, by the way now, now that I watch Joe Biden walking around, I, I cannot get Donald Trump's description of Joe Biden outta my head. It is an excellent description. He says he always looks like he's walking on a bed of toothpicks. Yep, he definitely, definitely does. By the way, Hunter has somehow come up with the money to sue the I r s, which is exciting stuff. Remember, he doesn't have enough money to pay his baby mama, but he does have enough money to sue the I r s alleging his Privacy rights were violated when agents aired concern to Congress in the media about the handling of the investigation into his taxes and business dealings. Well, that's actually whistleblowers coming forward to allege bad behavior. That is a thing that is happening. You know whose actual tax returns were leaked to the media. Donald Trump's you recall, it turns out there wasn't anything particularly untoward in them. But, it is totally crazy to me how the i r s routinely leaks tax records of various people on the right to ProPublica or wherever, but Hunter is mad apparently that Hunter is, is angry that whistleblowers pointed out that he was getting a sweetheart deal from the i r s pretty amazing stuff. And a second we'll get to Republicans, be clowning themselves. Speaking of people be clowning themselves, the medical establishment has been be clowning itself on the issue of abortion for literally decades, many doctors won callous because it seems surreal to think that over 64 million babies have been killed. PreBorn will not stand silent, nor should we. We can't stand by and let babies die at the hands of abortion. This is why PreBorn exists to stand up for those who cannot defend themselves. The only defense for these precious babies is their heartbeat, which begins at just three weeks and can be heard on ultrasound by five weeks. When a mom making that ultimate choice, here's her baby's heartbeat and seizes the precious life in her. The majority of the time. She will choose life by sponsoring an ultrasound for mom. You are being the voice of the PreBorn. Please join PreBorn in the cause of life for just 28 bucks. You can be the difference between the life and death of a child. These ultrasounds, they're basically magic I mean they're amazing. The technology is incredible. We met all four of our kids long before they were born. It changes your perspective on what life is like in the womb when you can actually see your baby's face. To donate Dow pound two 50, say keyword baby. That's pound two five zero baby. Or go to PreBorn dot com slash Ben. That's PreBorn dot com slash Ben once more, PreBorn dot com slash Ben. Okay. Meanwhile, the G p i I'm not sure if they're running out of rakes to step on. You would imagine at some point they might, I have some bad news from the world of love. Apparently, Lauren Bobert, the congressman from Colorado, who is lasting, barely winning a, a reelect to her Colorado seat. Well now she has broken up with, with her beloved, not, not her husband of 18 years with whom she has multiple children. No, no, no. We're talking about the Democrat bar owner who runs like gay pride events and drag queen story hour over there. And you'll recall that she went to the musical Beatle Jews where she proceeded to vape and then proceeded to get herself groped and then grop her date in return pleasuring him over You know, I'm not going to get more, more detail, but that is a thing that happened in public. She was then kicked out to which she apparently said, You know who I am and denied that anything like this had happened to which they then released all of the camera footage. Well, now sadly, romance is dead. Folks, I regret to inform you that if this romance can't last, I'm not sure what romance can. Lauren Bobert has now parted ways with the man seen groping her during a frisky date at a Colorado theater while enjoying a family friendly performance of the musical Beetlejuice. He's self-described eccentric politician is exec. It's eccentricity now to, to grope your date in the middle of a performance of Beetlejuice. Guys, that's now eccentric. That's good to know. All future date nights have been canceled between her and bar owner Quinn Gallagher. She said, I learned to check party affiliations before you go on a date. Although she alluded to her date's affiliation as a Democrat, the G, o p stalwarts said the breakup had nothing to do with the various reports on Gallagher in recent days. She said he's a wonderful man who's a great time to go out and have dinner and enjoy part of a show. Nothing to do with anything that anyone reported. Honestly, he's a private citizen. We peacefully parted. Great man, great friend. I wish him all the best. Now I have a question. There were some reports that they had not been dating very long, and when I say not very long, there was one report suggesting that this was like their first date, which oh boy. Like wow, wow. Family value's taking it right on the shin right there. Not good stuff there. That, that, that is bad. Meanwhile, in other not good for the G o p news, apparently President Trump wrote to-do lists for his assistant on White House documents marked classified Don don't know man. I, I I dunno what to tell you. I don. Yes, Hillary Clinton mistreated classified documents. Yes, she should have been prosecuted. And yes, Donald Trump should not be writing to-do lists on the back of like, here's our ran attack plan. Also, I would like more Diet Coke, please. Three Diet Cokes on the back of the run attack plan. According to a b, C news, one of former President Trump's longtime assistants told federal investigators that Trump repeatedly wrote to-do list for her on documents from the White House that were marked classified. Maybe just wander a cycle. He's just too much of an environmentalist. You know, got a bunch of paper, gotta do something with it. As described to a b c news, the aid, Molly Michael told investigators that more than once she received requests or taskings from Trump that were written on the back of note cards, she later recognized those note cards as sensitive White House materials with visible classification markings used to brief Trump while he was still in office about phone calls with foreign leaders or other international related matters. And so that, that's just, that's spectacular. That's spectacular. In 2018, Michael became Trump's executive assistant in the White House. She continued to work for him when Trump left office. She resigned last year in the wake of Trump's alleged refusal to comply with the federal request in the FBI's subsequent search of Mar-a-Lago. Michael recounted by late 2021 as many of 90 boxes materials from Trump's time as president were moved into a basement storage room at Mar-a-Lago. And apparently they say like, this is very easily disprovable, but yeah, this is my but, and no one's disproved it yet. That's that. Oh yeah, yeah. That's how important the classified documents were. Had to write some shopping lists on it. Okay? But don't worry, the clowning doesn't end there. Republicans are hell bent on running directly into a wall at full speed, which is presumably many of the Republicans plan on this government shutdown. Again, if you are asking for like a moderate cut and you might get part of that moderate cut in a government shutdown negotiation, alright? But if your plan is let's just run directly into a government shutdown, get blamed for everybody by that for that, and then lose the house on the basis of that, which is very likely what could happen. I'm wondering about your strategic choices. Again, I'm, I'm gonna point out again, I'm more fiscally conservative than pretty much anyone in Congress. I'm certainly more conservative than many of the people who consider themselves mag or Republicans, right? I wanna restructure social security. I restructure Medicare and I make no bones about it. That's why it's gonna bankrupt the United States. But there's also such a thing as tactical, as tactical competence. And it turns out that the tactics that are currently being used are not particularly smart. According to the New York Times, the Speaker Kevin McCarthy's bid to gain the upper hand in a battle over federal spending hit stiff opposition from within his own ranks on Monday, leaving him with dwindling options and little time to find his way out of a funding impasse that could lead to a government shutdown in less than two weeks, roughly a dozen Republicans made it clear they were staunchly opposed to the proposal unveiled on Sunday, which combines a stopgap spending measure with steep funding cuts and new border controls indicating they could not be induced to change their votes through leadership pressure. The measure wasn't gonna pass the Democratic controlled Senate anyway, but McCarthy was then gonna use that as the basis for some sort of compromise with Democrats. It, it doesn't matter. We're just gonna run directly into a wall and the only loser here presumably will be the Republican party because Democrats are not gonna be punished for Republicans not even being able to come to an agreement on what they want the basis for negotiations to be. So all of this is going just amazingly, amazingly well. Okay, in just one second, we'll get to what is pretty obviously the worst story of the day. A breaking report on Tim Ballard, the inspiration for Sound of Freedom. First, my team knows I need to have my black Rifle Coffee every single morning. If you didn't know, I have four kids plus a dog, which means very low on the energy from time to time, which means I'm deeply reliant at this point on my Black Rifle Coffee. Not only do they have their ready to drink cans for people with no time to brew coffee in the traditional way, their coffee subscription gives you the chance to purchase limited edition flavors. Black Rifle Coffee subscription gives you nothing but the best. It's a Coffee of the Month Club where you get premium roast from the Best Farms worldwide. Every month you'll get a new exotic roast shipped to your door, each with a unique origin and killer bag designed with a matching sticker. Black Rle Coffee just launched their Halloween pumpkin spice collection featuring the headless horseman's roast and the ready to drink pumpkin spice espresso. Michael Knowles will be absolutely ecstatic with pumpkin spice flavor. So good it will haunt your taste buds for all eternity, stop running out of coffee. Sign up for a coffee club subscription. Have black Rifle Coffee delivered straight to your door on a schedule. Go to black Rifle Coffee dot com. Use promo code Shapiro, check out for 10% off your order. That is black Rifle Coffee dot com. Use promo code Shapiro for 10% off Black Rifle Coffee is indeed America's coffee. Go check them out right now. Again, black Rifle Coffee dot com use promo code Shapiro get 10% off. Also You know we have Jordan Peterson over here at Daily Wire plus he's got tons of amazing stuff. So go subscribe because again, Daily Wire Plus stacked with tons of Jordan Peterson content, you can't get it literally anywhere else. He's created a ton of new work including Vision and Destiny, marriage dragons, monsters, and men, all sorts of amazing stuff. He's got logos and literacy. He's got his groundbreaking series on the book of Exodus. That's only the beginning. We haven't even talked about his Beyond Order lecture series. For everything Jordan Peterson related, like Infinite Jordan Peterson content, go to Daily Wire Plus right now, become a member. You'll embark on an unforgettable experience that will fuel your thirst for knowledge, inspire personal growth like never before. Head over to Daily Wire dot com slash subscribe and become a member today, alrightyy. So meanwhile, worst story of the day, Tim Ballard is of course a person we've interviewed on the show. Tim Ballard was the man who's the inspiration for the fantastic film Sound of Freedom. Well now, according to vice.com, Tim Ballard's exit from Operation Underground Railroad earlier this year followed an investigation into claims of sexual misconduct, including seven women according to sources with direct knowledge of the organization. Again, we're gonna have to see if all these charges are confirmed. I always create that caveat because you just don't know until the facts are all out there. Sources familiar with the situation said the self-styled anti-slavery activist who appears to be preparing for a Senate run, invited women to ask Act as his wife on undercover overseas missions ostensibly aimed at rescuing victims of sex trafficking, who would then allegedly coerced those women to sharing a bed or showering together, claiming that it was necessary to full traffickers Ballard, who's played by Jim in the hit film. Sound of Freedom is said to have sent at least one woman a photo of himself in his underwear, feto with fake tattoos, and to ask another how far she was willing to go to save children. Those sources requested anonymity because they fear retaliation. The total number of women involved is believed to be higher than seven. One source close to the organization has detailed knowledge, Ballard making sexual advances to a volunteer using methods similar to those he allegedly used with employees. Those methods are also consistent with his conduct toward another former employee who spoke to Vice News, a spokesperson for Operation Underground Railroad told Vice Tim Ballard resigned from the organization on June 22nd, 2023. Three. He has permanently separated from O U R O U R is not gonna make any further than public comments at this time to preserve the integrity of its investigation. This obviously is a horrifying report and You know we'll see the details as they, as they come out. According to an anonymous letter that's been circulating in the Utah philanthropic community, they say, quote, it was ultimately revealed through disturbingly specific and parallel accounts that Tim has been deceitfully and extensively grooming and manipulating multiple women for the past few years with the ultimate intent of coercing them to participate in sexual acts with him under a premise of going where it takes and doing whatever it takes to save a child. Women believe to be at the center of the investigation, have not respondent to request for comment at this point. So we have anonymous allegations at this point that are made to vice. We're going to, we're going to have to wait to see what comes out about this. And so I'm going to reserve further comment until more confirmation is presented at this time. For what it's worth, the the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the Mormon Church, they've removed all articles promoting at Ballard and the nonprofit that he founded when all this came out. This came out the same day, the church released a statement citing betrayal and condemning ballad for morally unacceptable behavior, which makes it sound a little more real than merely an anonymous report that is truly bad stuff. Glen Beck, who's one of Ballard's partners, indicated on social media that Ballard had been, quote, effectively excommunicated from the church through ambiguous but unquestionably damning statements without being given adequate notice or the ability to respond. So again, I'm gonna wait to see more come out before I comment more extensively on this particular subject. But obviously it's in the news and worthy of coverage. Meanwhile, in entertainment news that is essentially being ignored by, by pretty much everybody except for the Wright Hassan Minhaj, who is a, a pretty famous comedian. He apparently has basically just been making up stories about himself about how horrifying American racism is. As Alki points out a profile in the New Yorker of Minhaj says in Minhaj approach to comedy, he leans heavily on his own experience as an Asian American and Muslim American telling harrowing stories of law enforcement, entrapment and personal threats. For many of his fans, he's become an avatar of the power of representation and entertainment. But after many weeks of trying, I had been unable to confirm some of the stories he had told on stage. And then when the author confronted him and Minhaj admitted that the stories that he tells on stage are often exaggerated or made up, well, I mean some of these stories are just purely intended to paint America in the worst possible light. And they're completely made up. It's not resulting in tremendous blowback from Minhaj. One of his anecdotes apparently claims a white woman from high school stood him up for a prom because her family didn't want her to take pictures with a brown boy. Minhaj then disclosed identifiable details about the woman during his telling of the story, prompting his fans to harass her. The woman apparently addressed the threats with Minhaj, who then told her to scrub her social media presence to deter more threats. You know it. It's one thing to exaggerate You know family stories for comedic effect. It's something a lot of people do. It's another thing to make up out of whole cloth stories about the evils of American racism. Th th this, this You know effectively borders on emotional fraud and, and the fact that there are so many people out there in Hollywood who are making excuses for him. People like Whoopi Goldberg out there suggesting that this is totally fine again, would Whoopi Goldberg say that about anyone else? I have, I have a difficult time believing that she would Whoopi Goldberg's defense of him is that this is what we do, quote. That's what we do. We tell stories and we embellish them. Goldberg said that she recalled a time when a reporter called to fact check one of her standups, in which she said she had grief from N Y U. She told the reporter she did not have a grief from the university and never said she did before realizing he was referring to one of her standup characters. But that's not exactly what's happening here. Raymond Minhaj tells stories that are ostensibly about himself and those stories are false, and they're inherently tied to the idea that America's a deeply evil and racist place. If you're gonna make those sorts of claims, presumably you should have some sort of backing for them. And the fact that he had to make up the stories in the first place is pretty good evidence that America is not remotely as racist and horrifying as Minhaj suggests for laughs in profit. And leftism is a very, very lucrative point of view for comedians. That's how get a, that's how you get a comedy central special. That's how you end up being extremely rich and extremely famous. He says, every story in my style is built around a seat of truth. My comedy, Arnold Palmer is 70% emotional truth. This happened. And then 30% hyperbole, exaggeration, and fiction. He says, the punchline is worth the fictionalized premise, but You know how is there a punchline to my daughter was exposed to a substance that could have been anthrax, which is one of the things that he actually said at one point. Now, that's not something that you are supposed to fabricate, especially as a person who has received powder in the mail, at least twice, as far as I'm aware, the f b i is still investigating a case like this. That's not a story that you make up or embellish, that's just it. That's either a reality or it's not. And this is also part of the problem with our new comedic, our new comedic world, which plays kind of clown nose on clown nose off. I'm a comedian, but I'm telling deep and meaningful truths about the world to you. How about your comedian? You tell jokes every, you're a comedian, you tell funny stories, but that's not what comedy is anymore. Our com our comedians are supposed to be newscasters and our newscasters are supposed to be comedians. One of the great ironies of of John Stewart attack and crossfire back in the early two thousands, which at that point was Paul Bal and Tucker Carlson, is that this has led to the temptation for comedians to basically become newscasters and newscasters to play John Stewart. Everyone has become, they've converged on John Stewart. Basically Hassan Minhaj is now John Stewart telling meaningful stories about his life that are completely made up to expose the evils of the United States of America and how racist it is. And then when he is caught on that, we're all supposed to pretend that it's no big deal at all. Okay, speaking of things that are unbelievably stupid, the, the Senate Majority Leader has now declared that there will be no informal dress code for the Senate Chamber. Why? Because John Fetterman likes to wear the clothes of the homeless. Apparently we have to be nice to, to Mongo over here, and that requires that we, that, that there'd be no dress code in the Senate anymore. According to the New York Times and the tradition at bound halls of the Senate, customs die hard rules can be next to impossible to change on Monday with a potential government shutdown days away, a newly begun impeachment inquiry and lawmakers preparing for a visit from the President of Ukraine, A major change at the capital of Buzz for the first time in centuries, lawmakers are no longer expected to suit up, to conduct a business on the Senate floor. From now on, members are allowed to take a more business casual approach to the work wear. Not the staff by the way, and not guests. Only if you're a senator, do you get this, this special dispensation. The modification is in many ways about a reality. In recent years, there have been plenty of senators who have departed from the suit and tie uniform that for decades was considered the only acceptable attire and most clearly are flex. The influence of John Fetterman, the six foot eight tattooed brain damaged first term Democrat from Pennsylvania. He, he's on a suit and tie for his first months in Congress, but now he's just wearing around gym shorts and Carhartt sweatshirts. Now we're changing the entire rule of the Senate in order to make nice with a dude who does not want to actually You know, just wear a suit. Pretty ridiculous. But that is where we are in, in American public life because pretty much everything is a mockery at this point. Time for some things I like and some things that I hate. So things that I like. Today, a lot of states are now starting to cut ties with the American Library Association, which is utterly appropriate considering that the A L A is now a left-wing interest group. Like so many of our public institutions, Senator Mike Lee, according to the Washington Post, has now targeted the A l a. When it was his turn to question witnesses, he called up a video of Deborah Caldwell, Stone's, director of the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom. In a zoom call, Caldwell Stone had been recorded arguing book advocates should reframe the book challenges. This debate should not center on whether titles are sexually inappropriate for minors at Caldwell Stone. It should be about diverse materials that are about everyone's right to see themselves in their families reflected on bookshelves. Lee then said, the goal is to sexualize children to provide minors with sexually explicit material and then hide this content from parents. The A l A is now facing a partisan firefight, unlike anything in its almost 150 year history, says the Washington Post. I wonder who brought that up, who made that firefight happen? I love that. We now like it is a full-time sport. Now the, we will do something unbelievably terrible and provocative. And if you notice, you're the one starting a firefight. The once un uncontroversial organization, which says it's the world's largest and oldest library association and which provides funding, training, and tools to most of the country's 123,000 libraries has become entangled in the education culture wars, the raging debates over what and how to teach about race, sex, and gender, culminating in Tuesday's. Senatorial name check like Lee. Politicians and parents on the right increasingly paint the association known as the A l a as a defender of pornographic literature for children, tying their allegations into a broader conservative movement that asserts school libraries are filled with sexually explicit, inappropriate texts. A 2022 tweet in which the organization's president calls herself a Marxist lesbian added to the concerns. Well, you think you think I love that. So it's that the problem is not that the ALA's president calls herself a Marxist lesbian. The problem is that every anyone noticed that She tweeted that out publicly. Over the summer state libraries in Montana, Missouri, and Texas announced they were suffering ties with the A L A, which is good. They should. Meanwhile, librarians and those on the political left are defending the A l A as a key provider of money and skills for librarians in particular, they're setting an A l A report. Tracking 1,269 attempts to remove library books in 2022. The highest number of challenges to books since the A L A began compiling stats on the issue. What are the issues? They're all related to lfVtwK plus minus divided by sign books directed at kids. Well, good, good for parents for finally waking up and taking notice. The fact that this is somehow considered an instance of right-wing radicalism is truly an astonishing and silly thing. Okay, time for a quick thing that I hate. So for all of those people who believe that there is no correlation whatsoever between politics, ideology, religion, and sexual practice or sexual identity, I'm just gonna point out that that's completely false. That is a lie. It is untrue. It was always untrue. The notion that sexual activity or sexual identity are inherently written into the D n a unchangeable, unchanging, non-affected by environment, non-affected by by any other mode of human behavior. Just written in the same way that melanin level is written into your skin. That's a lie. Brand new study out from Brad Wilcox and the Fire and Ryan Burge. It shows sexual orientation by religion. And now here's what you would imagine. You imagine there would not be major gaps in terms of sexual identity by religion and you might imagine some gaps, but not massive gaps because after all, I mean like you would imagine that if it's biologically ingrained sexual identity and sexual behavior, biologic purely biologically ingrained, it would fall like the reign upon all equally. But that's not what you see. Now, the accounts are argument here is that people are leaving particular forms of religion. If they're L G B T Q for example, and they're moving into other categories, that's possible. I don't think it's totally plausible considering the size of these gaps. So for example, if you are Muslim, 85% of Muslims identify as straight 8%, identify as quote unquote something else. Don't dunno what something else amounts to, but a negligible percentage, right? That 85 plus eight is 93 7% identify as either gay and lesbian or bisexual. Among Protestants, 84% identify as straight Catholics, 83% identify as straight Hindu, 82% identify as straight L d s, 78% identify as straight. And then you start getting into the more atheistic groups. So Jewish is, is generally people who identify as Jewish. Very often they're not religious in any particular way. Only 65% identify as straight 15%, identify as bisexual, 6% identify as gay and lesbian, 21% plus 14 who identify as something else. If you are an atheist, fully, 45% of atheists say they're not straight. 45% tell me there's no linkage between environment, ideology and sexual behavior and identity. And it's all biologically ingrained. Sure, sure it is. It's You know that that lie, which is which lies at the root of the entire L G B T Q movement to equate itself with the racial civil rights movement has been a lie since inception and remains a lie today. That is purely a matter of genetics and never a matter of environment. And that behavior itself is exactly the same as a biological component like melanin and skin, absolute silliness. Okay, one more thing that I hate. So apparently the Rolling Stone co-founder, Jan Winter, has been removed from the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame board. Why? While he wrote a book and this book is about a bunch of great rock and roll artists. The problem is they picked seven white dudes to profile, which is bad, apparently you're not allowed to do that because he was asked about it and he was asked to quote, acknowledge the performers of color and women performers are just not in your zeitgeist. And winner said insofar as the women, just none of them were as articulate on this intellectual level. And then none of the female or black musicians met his criteria as philosophers of rock rather than just creative geniuses. This provokes a major reaction. He said at one point, You know, just for public relations sake, maybe I should have gone and found one black and one woman artist to include here that didn't measure up to that same historical standard. Just to avert this kind of criticism. Mr. Winter's comments, according to the New York Times, were an immediate reaction with his quotes mocked on social media and passed criticisms, unearth of Rolling Stone's, coverage of female artists under winner and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame has now effectively kicked him off. So that is, that is what they do now. So, so in other words, it turns out that the seven men that he picked, he thinks they're the best. They ended up being seven white men. He's not saying that women are not capable of being great artists. He's not saying that black people are not capable of being philosophers of rock. He's saying that the seven philosophers of rock who are the best, are not black and are not women. I'm not sure why that is like super duper crazy. Maybe that's the way he sees it. Others can obviously disagree, but that's like if you are asked to name today who are the greatest classical composers of all time, and you're like Beethoven, Bach, Brahms, Mozart, all white men, does this make you some sort of anti-feminist radical or anti-black radical? You're not even saying that if given the same opportunities, there wouldn't have been a black Beethoven. You're just saying that Beethoven was the best. I don don't, I don't even understand the critique, but that's the way that it works. He's right. By the way, if you had just placed one black woman in the compendium, everybody would've left him alone, which is truly an incredible thing. Alrighty, coming up, we're gonna jump into the Vaunted Ben Shapiro Show Mailbags and make sure that you're a subscriber over at Daily Wire plus.com. Become member Use Coach Shapiro checkout. Get two months free on all annual plans. Click that link in the description and join us.

right

ep bidenomic disaster area publish break late effect bidenomic white house give iranian government access billion tout dealmake prowess sexual harassment allegation emerge tim ballard inspiration sound freedom m ben shapiro ben shapiro ben shapiro sponsor express vpn protect online privacy today expressvpn dot com slash ben poll bad joe biden economy fact poll bad joe biden pretty board ccb s news poll come weekend show quality americans look present joe biden accord late c b ss news u gov poll show americans want president tough want president s care want president s nonsense want calm want energetic people ask joe bidens leadership style s calm s care nonsense donald trumps leadership style see provocative tough tough energetic nonsense entertain importantly despite fact americans dissatisfied matchup trump versus biden perspective matchup americans say rematch feel political system totally break economy number awful joe biden accord poll show americans well today pandemic bad today level pleased punch far choice president finance bad pandemic vote trump say finance bad pandemic like americans seven voter go vote president trump administration effort accord c b ss news tell tease biden accomplishment lot voter know key effort apparently matter example independent hear biden administration invest infrastructure back independent represent small minority people here reality vast majority people think economy think well significantly worse pandemic joe bidens policy fact matter joe biden easy money policy combine extraordinarily restrictive regulatory environment massive subsidy union buddy green boondoggle rest make people feel pretty insecure wage stack way pandemic price rise dramatically not look end sight people business sector supposedly amazing thank stock market boom people hold money sideline sure exactly hear inability handle economy voice treasury secretary janet yellen s suppose big expert sort stuff janet yellen interview c n b c yesterday basically explain clue not clue problem keynesian stimulus stimulus not work bullet fire thing innovation innovation individual entrepreneur idea look funding order build idea stimulus not idea magically happen equivalent suggest kid get straight cs extra juice box suddenly s go to s way work reality way truly stimulate economy innovation growth simply helicoptere money entire premise leftwe economic policy simply hoover money private sector blow not hoover future blow present go lead longterm economic growth innovation proof be not pudding janet yellen ask cnbc squawk box gas price gas price continue extraordinarily high significantly high joe biden take office jenny ellis like look not not know s saudi extend production cut end year look take action president want sure gas price remain affordable americans americans care great deal price gas dollar high summer go recently monitor situation closely president take action year certainly release oil strategic petroleum reserve important hold oil price continue monitor closely actually wonder actually thing joe biden tremendously affect gas price inflation affect gas price massive regulation place oil gas company notion joe biden spin turn s go kill gas s go destroy oil production country like not invest oil refinery today ve say go to destroy industry course year s factor number regulation incentivization factor number joe biden decide enemy big oil producer planet earth include saudi royal government right come office basically say go to cut saudi knee return favor say cut knee presumably gas price january tool take cent today cent thereabout ve sink way janet yellen claim not worry u w strike currently massive strike big strike detroit car maker modern american history detroit car maker s pretend go to economic impact slow plan worried inflation think starting come supply chain disruption risk not know think premature make forecast mean economy depend long strike last exactly s affect important point think side need narrow disagreement work winwin contract s good good worker industry okay entire reason strike happen like strike happen joe bidens watch union world think joe biden side take advantage easy money policy inflation biden administration order strike employer hope biden administration go to come ram sort beneficial deal end bankrupt car company remember car company go bankrupt time rich union contract include define benefit pension plan s exactly u w seek right lay footstep white house stuff tomorrow second company look right company pure talk not hate gus like lot phone company pure talk add datum plan include mobile hotspot price increase whatsoever ve consider pure talk not switch look buck month unlimited talk text g datum plus new mobile hotspot love pure talk veteran own hire good customer service team locate right great united states america family save year enjoy dependable g network country remember spend cash stop support wake wireless company not actually support pure talk dot com slash shapiro ll save additional month actually value s pure talk dot com slash shapiro pure talk wireless americans americans ve pure talk business call month month month great share tower network big guy mean coverage excellent give money company not hate gut pure talk dot com slash shapiro save additional month coverage s pure talk dot com slash shapiro okay strike uaw strike broad picture union pay joe biden democratic party literally decade end finally get man white house prounion president barack obama probably pro prounion barack obama s elitist joe biden pocket union day wilmington delaware union see moment shine accord politico uaw walkout friday general motors andell anis plan stell anis way chrysler get sell european conglomerate politically economically disruptive strike president joe biden take office hardly significant labor management clash administration actually appoint union man head labor department national labor relation board absolute frankensteinian monster term pathetic effect american government n l r b disgrace american government bye rule regulation n l r b time literally time joke send threat letter living threaten business violation law worker accord politico arm power tight labor market time anger employer treat pandemic organize new energy hollywood u p ss starbuck s problem money be not pretend be not left winger hollywood sign rich union contract know cause ll bankrupt see way stock price lot major entertainment conglomerate range netflix disney take directly chin get writer strike come auto manufacturer get lunch eat tesla nonunion shop amazing relearn lesson know adult suggest union american life wonderful union job union job sit hour day riveting neglect fact lot job know sit air condition office kind job grandfather sit factory riveting kill job right aside fact real reason america boom place earth fire union stellar work effectively bankrupt car industry single great industry united states forty fifty sixty beginning everybody move cheap toyota s reason crap union contract auto bailout happen eighty say political biden work hard brand prolabor president american history rely union political muscle help win presidency s threat major strike s spotlight president know ve get barrel showdown u w automaker biden publicly step carefully administration engage primarily scene not case biden able intervene directly talk railroad rail worker federal law give government big industrys relation economic importance labor department official involve deal year west coast port dock worker come rail negotiation biden rail strike doubt ve economic catastrophe bad time year contract include pay sick leave thousand worker threaten strike administration week break deal avert early strike labor union involve represent half union workforce reject proposal send congress administration frenzy involve holiday shipping rush thing happen regard u p ss teamster westport coast west coast port negotiation administration basically own union lock stock barrel union know press iron hot hear bernie sander mimic u ws demand include kid u w want worker ready hour work week hour work week math deceive day work week hour day day week hour work week seek u w course bernie big favor push u w day work week negotiate tactic future labor day work week ill tell think thank raise question jake look explosion country artificial intelligence robotic mean average worker go productive pro worker productivity go increase significantly question nation get ask s go to benefit increase productivity new income wealth create worker productivity go to people worker go benefit right view happen believe nation begin discussion u w substantially lower work week okay point word pro worker productivity united states largely result invest well machinery cause worker suddenly get massively well job job productive thank uzewf example capital equipment bring price benefit worker massive inflation know way reverse product productivity gain way artificially increase wage low hour way way shortterm gain versus longterm pain come union negotiation u aaw right negotiate stuff car company real boost inflation price car right car price go dramatically course couple year supply chain woe supply chain woe go away easy money policy united states go to curb happen car sale drop happen joe biden push force car company spend extraordinary amount cash shift gas power vehicle represent detroit sale evs electric vehicle s go to absorb cost go to worker contract joe biden joe biden will not care corrupt bargain union spend billion dollar election cycle democrats scoff democrats wanna money outta politic ass democrats wanna money outta politic think pay joe bidens bill union big business run republican politic be not true second union run democratic politic like direct bribery fashion hire effectively democrats negotiate table amazing scam s go decade end scam employer united states right benefit wait fort wait fort wait government getting rid job creation private sector rich union contract definitely boost employment government sector course joe biden like d like work government excellent time momentarily everybody know love helix mattress check highend collection helix elite helix harness year extensive mattress expertise bring customer truly elevate sleep experience helix elite collection include different mattress model tailor specific sleep position firmness preference ve helix sleep mattress dunno seven year point incredibly durable mean firm breathable precisely need mattress soft pain tend heat lot night need breathable mattress helix happen helix sleep quiz head helix sleepcom ben minute sleep quiz find perfect mattress body sleep type mattress come directly door ship free plus helix year warranty try night risk free ll pick not love helix star review financing option flexible payment plan great night sleep far away helix labor day sale go currently offer mattress order plus free pillow aller helix sleepcom ben use code helix partner s good offer go to long helix well sleep start right sector employment market grow leap bound government employment not glad pay taxis government hire lot people accord wall street journal company cut staff freeze new hire year government lay welcome mat public sector job federal state local level rise position far accord bureau labor statistic approach fifth new american job create month year contrast public sector job account employment growth equivalent period year look public sector job percentage payroll gain big number see give year mean not far chart wall street journal show watch government basically subsidize bunch people come work government worthwhile actually need people work customs border protection administration not allow job hire s ton people work kind work program government private sector employment pre pandemic level public sector struggle shore staffing ratchet ratchet money pay people joe biden future economy government job work hour work week public sector union pension pay american taxpayer grow public sector expense shrink private sector future economy wonder americans dissatisfied arrangement basically arrangement lengthen great depression year f d r tenure arrangement lead economic turmoil l b j richard nixon reason bad economic policy parcel joe biden right combine joe bidens crappy immigration policy real real tempest hand time joe biden make unaffordable people live country particularly low end income scale continue ship million illegal immigrant release interior weekend foxs griff jenkin post video socalled pharaoh max train amazing video people head american border come zaka mexico cheer route united states early summer biden administration accord mediaite end donald trump era immigration policy remain mexico require asylum seeker wait mexico administration successfully incentivize literally thousand people hop train head right border here video joe biden go process release interior united states s s go happen know people attempt escape tyranny country lot people look job go to come welfare benefit go to come united states go advantage way m image immigrant cage emerge tucson arizona thank bill mulligan don not not o c cry near cage giant cage fill people people process let interior united states s joe bidens immigration policy low wage american understand joe biden import entire labor pool job away private sector simultaneously pay bunch middle class people northern virginia work federal government blow spending increase inflation pay union crony wonder americans not super fond economic policy not imagine second joe biden absolutely discombobulate immoral foreign policy lot schedule day ve get soccer practice science fair prepping holiday good news giant thing plate put great meat plate good rancher care family eat good rancher s ve spend year build relationship local farm source good american beef chicken pork canal wild catch seafood good land sea conveniently deliver directly door right offer year free ground beef anybody subscribe value year free high quality ground beef lock price meat company guarantee american meat lock price good rancher way kosher steak time lemme tell good steak ve eat entire life good rancher dot com today use code ben buck free ground beef year remember subscribe box lock price america good meat year s good rancher dot com today use code ben buck saving subscribe good rancher american meat deliver check right good rancher dot com use code ben buck free ground beef year hell deal okay biden administration go forward exchange billion funding release iranian mullah tyranny iran exchange americans accord uk daily mail prisoner release iran today controversial prisoner swap arrive doha qatar begin journey america say s eager visit apple store find late phone year bar prisoner fly tehran doha qatar airway jet today greet tarmac doha ambassador qatar timmy davis price freedom billion frozen fund seize iran claim ll humanitarian purpose complete lie president iran say recently recently lester holt ask specifically restriction uzewf fund s like nope go to use damn administration continue deny s john kirby s national security spokesperson say not worry ignore iran terrorist activity ignore iran terrorist activity national security well today deal bad ve hear republican s well family true think s important remember number say early execute sanction entity iran today specifically offense wrongfully detain americans couple week ve up military presence gulf region add additional sanction iran day ago mean hold iran account mindful national security interest region economic space military space protect troop protect interest protect ally partner world away today event idea turn blind eye iran region world contrary mean contrary d second straight democratic president ship pallet cash iranian effectively speak way release bunch iranian prisoner united states actual criminal include iranian sentence month prison obtain equipment missile electronic warfare nuclear weapon military gear iranian permanent resident united states charge allegedly steal engineering plan employer send iran arrest february sentence month prison purchase sophisticated tier electronic equipment software com company u e john kirby continue maintain not worry regime go to hand money weird totally s happen release money criminal united states see money food medicine bad reason lock stop transaction important remember kate yeah believe regime not money request withdrawal humanitarian good agricultural product medical supply food run process good contract iranians not let contract sure contract let vendor know trust material deliver iranian people iranian regime hand money s america well foreign aid go directly source seek m incredibly sarcastic right money waste year fraud graph go directly dictator world insane hundred million dollar s reason yassar raffa end rich guy palestinian authority not money subject thing happen way money fungible let assume second s right let assume billion go humanitarian aid billion iran not spend stuff spend give missile hezbollah absurdity administration foreign policy absurdity term absurdity administration way joe biden continue mock republican impeachment stuff republicans go to able achieve impeachment joe biden don not know go to able achieve house don not know majority house assume end day mccarthy go to wrangle bare majority impeach biden know ll ll impact biden go to actually remove office democratic senate course course s point point s go to lot damaging material joe corruption till election day joe biden absolutely blind time thing pretty shocking moment ago president react defiance ask new house impeachment inquiry arrive white house god not walk impeachment inquiry luck luck s luck way watch joe biden walk donald trumps description joe biden outta head excellent description say look like s walk bed toothpick yep definitely definitely way hunter come money sue r s exciting stuff remember not money pay baby mama money sue r s allege privacy right violate agent air concern congress medium handling investigation taxis business dealing s actually whistleblower come forward allege bad behavior thing happen know actual tax return leak media donald trump recall turn not particularly untoward totally crazy r s routinely leak tax record people right propublica hunter mad apparently hunter angry whistleblower point get sweetheart deal r s pretty amazing stuff second republicans clown speak people clown medical establishment clown issue abortion literally decade doctor win callous surreal think million baby kill preborn stand silent not stand let baby die hand abortion preborn exist stand defend defense precious baby heartbeat begin week hear ultrasound week mom make ultimate choice here babys heartbeat seize precious life majority time choose life sponsor ultrasound mom voice preborn join preborn cause life buck difference life death child ultrasound basically magic mean amazing technology incredible meet kid long bear change perspective life like womb actually babys face donate dow pound keyword baby s pound zero baby preborn dot com slash ben s preborn dot com slash ben preborn dot com slash ben okay g p m sure run rake step imagine point bad news world love apparently lauren bobert congressman colorado last barely win reelect colorado seat break beloved husband year multiple child talk democrat bar owner run like gay pride event drag queen story hour ll recall go musical beatle jews proceed vape proceed grope grop date return pleasure know m go detail thing happen public kick apparently say know deny like happen release camera footage sadly romance dead folk regret inform romance not m sure romance lauren bobert part way man see grope frisky date colorado theater enjoy family friendly performance musical beetlejuice s selfdescribe eccentric politician exec eccentricity grope date middle performance beetlejuice guy s eccentric s good know future date night cancel bar owner quinn gallagher say learn check party affiliation date allude date affiliation democrat g o p stalwart say breakup report gallagher recent day say s wonderful man s great time dinner enjoy report honestly s private citizen peacefully part great man great friend wish good question report date long long report suggest like date oh boy like wow wow family value take right shin right good stuff bad good g o p news apparently president trump write todo list assistant white house document mark classified don not know man dunno tell don yes hillary clinton mistreat classified document yes prosecute yes donald trump write todo list like here ran attack plan like diet coke diet coke run attack plan accord b c news president trump longtime assistant tell federal investigator trump repeatedly write todo list document white house mark classify maybe wander cycle s environmentalist know get bunch paper get to describe b c news aid molly michael tell investigator receive request tasking trump write note card later recognize note card sensitive white house material visible classification marking brief trump office phone call foreign leader international relate matter s s spectacular s spectacular michael trumps executive assistant white house continue work trump leave office resign year wake trumps alleged refusal comply federal request fbis subsequent search maralago michael recount late box material trumps time president move basement storage room maralago apparently like easily disprovable yeah one disprove s oh yeah yeah s important classify document write shopping list okay not worry clowning not end republicans hell bent run directly wall speed presumably republicans plan government shutdown ask like moderate cut moderate cut government shutdown negotiation alright plan let run directly government shutdown blame everybody lose house basis likely happen m wonder strategic choice m m go to point m fiscally conservative pretty congress m certainly conservative people consider mag republicans right wanna restructure social security restructure medicare bone s go to bankrupt united states s thing tactical tactical competence turn tactic currently particularly smart accord new york times speaker kevin mccarthys bid gain upper hand battle federal spending hit stiff opposition rank monday leave dwindle option little time find way funding impasse lead government shutdown week roughly dozen republican clear staunchly oppose proposal unveil sunday combine stopgap spending measure steep funding cut new border control indicate induce change vote leadership pressure measure not go to pass democratic control senate mccarthy go to use basis sort compromise democrats not matter go to run directly wall loser presumably republican party democrat go to punish republicans able come agreement want basis negotiation go amazingly amazingly okay second pretty obviously bad story day break report tim ballard inspiration sound freedom team know need black rifle coffee single morning not know kid plus dog mean low energy time time mean m deeply reliant point black rifle coffee ready drink can people time brew coffee traditional way coffee subscription give chance purchase limited edition flavor black rifle coffee subscription give good coffee month club premium roast good farm worldwide month ll new exotic roast ship door unique origin killer bag design match sticker black rle coffee launch halloween pumpkin spice collection feature headless horseman roast ready drink pumpkin spice espresso michael knowle absolutely ecstatic pumpkin spice flavor good haunt taste bud eternity stop run coffee sign coffee club subscription black rifle coffee deliver straight door schedule black rifle coffee dot com use promo code shapiro check order black rifle coffee dot com use promo code shapiro black rifle coffee americas coffee check right black rifle coffee dot com use promo code shapiro know jordan peterson daily wire plus s get ton amazing stuff subscribe daily wire plus stack ton jordan peterson content not literally s create ton new work include vision destiny marriage dragon monster man sort amazing stuff s get logo literacy s get groundbreaking series book exodus s beginning not talk order lecture series jordan peterson relate like infinite jordan peterson content daily wire plus right member ll embark unforgettable experience fuel thirst knowledge inspire personal growth like head daily wire dot com slash subscribe member today alrightyy bad story day tim ballard course person ve interview tim ballard man s inspiration fantastic film sound freedom accord vicecom tim ballards exit operation underground railroad early year follow investigation claim sexual misconduct include seven woman accord source direct knowledge organization go to charge confirm create caveat not know fact source familiar situation say selfstyle antislavery activist appear prepare senate run invite woman ask act wife undercover overseas mission ostensibly aim rescue victim sex trafficking allegedly coerce woman share bed shower claim necessary trafficker ballard s play jim hit film sound freedom say send woman photo underwear feto fake tattoo ask far willing save child source request anonymity fear retaliation total number woman involve believe high seven source close organization detail knowledge ballard make sexual advance volunteer method similar allegedly employee method consistent conduct employee speak vice news spokesperson operation underground railroad tell vice tim ballard resign organization june permanently separate o u r o u r go to public comment time preserve integrity investigation obviously horrifying report know detail come accord anonymous letter s circulate utah philanthropic community quote ultimately reveal disturbingly specific parallel account tim deceitfully extensively groom manipulate multiple woman past year ultimate intent coerce participate sexual act premise go take take save child woman believe center investigation respondent request comment point anonymous allegation point vice go go wait come m go reserve comment confirmation present time worth church jesus christ latterday saint mormon church ve remove article promote ballard nonprofit found come come day church release statement cite betrayal condemn ballad morally unacceptable behavior make sound little real merely anonymous report truly bad stuff glen beck s ballard partner indicate social medium ballard quote effectively excommunicate church ambiguous unquestionably damning statement give adequate notice ability respond m go to wait come comment extensively particular subject obviously news worthy coverage entertainment news essentially ignore pretty everybody wright hassan minhaj pretty famous comedian apparently basically make story horrifying american racism alki point profile new yorker minhaj say minhaj approach comedy lean heavily experience asian american muslim american tell harrowing story law enforcement entrapment personal threat fan s avatar power representation entertainment week try unable confirm story tell stage author confront minhaj admit story tell stage exaggerated mean story purely intend paint america bad possible light completely result tremendous blowback minhaj anecdote apparently claim white woman high school stand prom family not want picture brown boy minhaj disclose identifiable detail woman telling story prompt fan harass woman apparently address threat minhaj tell scrub social medium presence deter threat know thing exaggerate know family story comedic effect lot people thing cloth story evil american racism th th know effectively border emotional fraud fact people hollywood make excuse people like whoopi goldberg suggest totally fine whoopi goldberg difficult time believe whoopi goldbergs defense quote s tell story embellish goldberg say recall time reporter call fact check standup say grief n y u tell reporter grief university say realize refer standup character s exactly s happen raymond minhaj tell story ostensibly story false inherently tie idea america deeply evil racist place go to sort claim presumably sort back fact story place pretty good evidence america remotely racist horrifying minhaj suggest laugh profit leftism lucrative point view comedian s s comedy central special s end extremely rich extremely famous say story style build seat truth comedy arnold palmer emotional truth happen hyperbole exaggeration fiction say punchline worth fictionalize premise know punchline daughter expose substance anthrax thing actually say point s suppose fabricate especially person receive powder mail twice far m aware f b investigate case like s story embellish s s reality problem new comedic new comedic world play kind clown nose clown nose m comedian m tell deep meaningful truth world comedian tell joke comedian tell funny story s comedy anymore com comedian suppose newscaster newscaster suppose comedian great irony john stewart attack crossfire early thousand point paul bal tucker carlson lead temptation comedian basically newscaster newscaster play john stewart ve converge john stewart basically hassan minhaj john stewart tell meaningful story life completely expose evil united states america racist catch suppose pretend big deal okay speaking thing unbelievably stupid senate majority leader declare informal dress code senate chamber john fetterman like wear clothe homeless apparently nice mongo require d dress code senate anymore accord new york times tradition bind hall senate customs die hard rule impossible change monday potential government shutdown day away newly begin impeachment inquiry lawmaker prepare visit president ukraine major change capital buzz time century lawmaker long expect suit conduct business senate floor member allow business casual approach work wear staff way guest senator special dispensation modification way reality recent year plenty senator depart suit tie uniform decade consider acceptable attire clearly flex influence john fetterman foot tattooed brain damage term democrat pennsylvania s suit tie month congress s wear gym short carhartt sweatshirt change entire rule senate order nice dude want actually know wear suit pretty ridiculous american public life pretty mockery point time thing like thing hate thing like today lot state start cut tie american library association utterly appropriate consider l leftwe interest group like public institution senator mike lee accord washington post target l turn question witness call video deborah caldwell stone director american library associations office intellectual freedom zoom caldwell stone record argue book advocate reframe book challenge debate center title sexually inappropriate minor caldwell stone diverse material everyone right family reflect bookshelf lee say goal sexualize child provide minor sexually explicit material hide content parent l face partisan firefight unlike year history say washington post wonder bring firefight happen love like fulltime sport unbelievably terrible provocative notice start firefight un uncontroversial organization say world large old library association provide funding training tool country library entangle education culture war rage debate teach race sex gender culminate tuesday senatorial check like lee politician parent right increasingly paint association know l defender pornographic literature child tie allegation broad conservative movement assert school library fill sexually explicit inappropriate text tweet organization president call marxist lesbian add concern think think love problem alas president call marxist lesbian problem notice tweet publicly summer state library montana missouri texas announce suffer tie l good librarian political left defend l key provider money skill librarian particular set l report track attempt remove library book high number challenge book l begin compile stat issue issue related lfvtwk plus minus divide sign book direct kid good good parent finally wake take notice fact consider instance rightwe radicalism truly astonishing silly thing okay time quick thing hate people believe correlation whatsoever politic ideology religion sexual practice sexual identity m go to point s completely false lie untrue untrue notion sexual activity sexual identity inherently write d n unchangeable unchanging nonaffecte environment nonaffecte mode human behavior write way melanin level write skin s lie brand new study brad wilcox fire ryan burge show sexual orientation religion here imagine imagine major gap term sexual identity religion imagine gap massive gap mean like imagine biologically ingrain sexual identity sexual behavior biologic purely biologically ingrain fall like reign equally s account argument people leave particular form religion l g b t q example move category s possible not think totally plausible consider size gap example muslim muslim identify straight identify quote unquote not dunno amount negligible percentage right plus identify gay lesbian bisexual protestant identify straight catholic identify straight hindu identify straight l d s identify straight start get atheistic group jewish generally people identify jewish religious particular way identify straight identify bisexual identify gay lesbian plus identify atheist fully atheist straight tell s linkage environment ideology sexual behavior identity biologically ingrain sure sure know lie lie root entire l g b t q movement equate racial civil right movement lie inception remain lie today purely matter genetic matter environment behavior exactly biological component like melanin skin absolute silliness okay thing hate apparently rolling stone cofounder jan winter remove rock roll hall fame board write book book bunch great rock roll artist problem pick seven white dude profile bad apparently allow ask ask quote acknowledge performer color woman performer zeitgeist winner say insofar woman articulate intellectual level female black musician meet criterion philosopher rock creative genius provoke major reaction say point know public relation sake maybe go find black woman artist include not measure historical standard avert kind criticism mr winter comment accord new york times immediate reaction quote mock social medium pass criticism unearth rolling stone coverage female artist winner rock roll hall fame effectively kick word turn seven man pick think good end seven white man s say woman capable great artist s say black people capable philosopher rock s say seven philosopher rock good black woman m sure like super duper crazy maybe s way see obviously disagree s like ask today great classical composer time like beethoven bach brahm mozart white man sort antifeminist radical antiblack radical say give opportunity not black beethoven say beethoven good don not not understand critique s way work s right way place black woman compendium everybody ve leave truly incredible thing alrighty come go to jump vaunted ben shapiro mailbag sure subscriber daily wire pluscom member use coach shapiro checkout month free annual plan click link description join

This bill requires the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services within the Department of Justice to report on one or more proposed programs to make treatment or preventative care available to public safety officers and public safety telecommunicators for job-related post-traumatic stress disorder or acute stress disorder. The report must also include draft legislative language related to each proposed program, as well as the estimated cost for administering each proposed program.

right

bill require office community orient policing service department justice report propose program treatment preventative care available public safety officer public safety telecommunicator jobrelate posttraumatic stress disorder acute stress disorder report include draft legislative language relate propose program estimate cost administer propose program

Speeches, etc. Q1. Mr. Terry Walker asked the Prime Minister if he will list his public engagements for 29th June. The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan) This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. Mr. Walker Will my right hon. Friend find time in a very busy day to reflect further on the talks that he had earlier in the week with American aircraft manufacturers? Does he appreciate that all those who want to see the development of the British aircraft manufacturing industry will be very pleased that he had those talks? Will he consider making a statement about his talks with the McDonnell Douglas Company, because it is very important that we hear the offer being made to Britain by the Americans? The Prime Minister I am obliged to my hon. Friend. The talks were valuable, certainly to me, and they revealed that there is a very big and rapidly growing market for air transport, especially in the United States. We shall have some difficult decisions to take as between the three corporations that we have, and certainly the facts must be laid before the House. I understand that my hon. Friend has the opportunity of a debate quite soon. If he chose this subject, I—and I am sure this applies to the Ministers concerned—would welcome it. Mrs. Thatcher Will James Callaghanthe Prime Minister say whether his Government have finally made up their minds about their Budget and, if so, exactly what changes [column 1568]they propose? Is not the only firmness shown so far his support for policies of high taxation and his determination to persist with a levy that will put a tax on exports, a tax on jobs, and a tax on food? The Prime Minister We made up our minds about the Budget in April. Unfortunately, we could not carry the House wholly with us on every proposal. However, if the right hon. Lady is now repenting of her vote and wishes to go back to the position that we announced in April, I shall be very happy to do that. As for the rest, I must say that it is very odd to say that we are in favour of high taxation, considering that over the last two Budgets we have reduced it steadily. Mrs. Thatcher Does the Prime Minister remember saying from that Dispatch Box a few weeks ago that the tax changes that the Opposition had chosen would reduce unemployment, whereas the tax changes that he had chosen will increase unemployment? Why does he persist in policies that increase unemployment, one of which is tax and the other defence policy, which has already cut jobs by 180,000? The Prime Minister As I have answered the right hon. Lady's first question, I quite understand her now moving on to another and entirely different one. I dare say that if she goes on biting for the entire 15 minutes of Prime Minister's Questions, she will score a scratch somewhere. The Government's economic policy is well understood in the country, and it is meeting with increasing satisfaction there. Mr. Freud In his busy schedule will the Prime Minister find time to visit the Cafeteria, where the loyal and unhappy staff have been ordered by their unions to strike, which does little credit to the House of Commons in general? Will he consider opening the catering facilities of No. 10 Downing Street to right hon. and hon. Members who are deprived of catering? The Prime Minister I cannot say that I entirely recommend the second proposal. Hon. Members might find themselves a little hungry now and again. On the catering facilities generally, I have no comment to make, as I have not studied the matter. I am sure that the Lord President will make a statement if necessary. Mr. Jay To be fair, are not the efforts of the Tory Opposition to unbalance the Budget this summer entirely consistent with their profligate financial policies of 1972–73? The Prime Minister Yes, but the Opposition show no signs of recalling that or learning from that, as is shown by their attitude to wage increases and to industrial relations generally. Q2. Mr. Noble asked the Prime Minister when he expects next to meet the TUC and CBI. The Prime Minister I met representatives of the TUC and CBI when I took the chair at a meeting of the NEDC on 1st February. Further meetings will be arranged as necessary. Mr. Noble When my right hon. Friend next meets the TUC and the CBI will he remind them that the scale of tax cuts proposed by the Opposition could be achieved only through cuts in public expenditure, which would be damaging to industry, to the regions and particularly to the lower-paid? Will he also remind them that their chances of consultation on these matters would be very remote if the Opposition were in power, in view of the fact that the former Shadow Foreign Secretary has indicated that the Leader of the Opposition refused to consult him on foreign affairs? Is that not indicative of the contempt in which she holds everyone who happens to disagree with her? The Prime Minister I do not wish to comment on the internal relationships on the Conservative Front Bench, past or present. There are too many painful sores there. On the general position, the country will have to make up its mind how far it believes that cuts in taxation, which would have a damaging effect on employment throughout the country, would be worth while. We take the view that if there is a choice betwen tax cuts for the better-off and jobs for those who are out of work, we choose the second. Mr. Cormack Before the Prime Minister next meets the TUC and CBI will he reflect that it is now nine years since [column 1570]he sabotaged “In Place of Strife” ? In those nine years the purchasing power of the pound has fallen by 65p and there are another 800,000 people out of work. Does he think that the price that the country has had to pay for him as leader is worth it? The Prime Minister The answer to the last part of the question is definitely “Yes” . Q3. Mr. Wrigglesworth asked the Prime Minister when he expects next to meet the TUC and CBI. The Prime Minister I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble). Mr. Wrigglesworth Will the Prime Minister discuss with the TUC and the CBI the development of the Government's regional policies? In the Northern Region we have once again the highest level of unemployment in the country, excluding Northern Ireland. Is he aware that on Teesside, despite the highest levels of investment and productivity, there is still severe unemployment? Will he consider carefully the suggestion of the Cleveland County Council and the North of England Development Corporation for the introduction of selective assistance to employment intensive industries and for help to service industries in the northern area? The Prime Minister I am aware that the North-East has suffered particularly, because of the structural decline in industries such as coal, steel and shipbuilding. Opportunities for the expansion of service industries should be considered. I believe that the Minister of State, Department of Industry met the Cleveland County Council recently, and he has written the council a long reply in response to its representation. Perhaps I could ask my hon. Friend to study that reply. Mr. Gow When the Prime Minister next meets the TUC will he remind trade union leaders of his own words when he said that he would find it “intolerable and not at all acceptable” that people should lose their jobs because of their political opinions? How does he reconcile that advice with the dismissal by British Rail, without compensation, of 42 [column 1571]employees, two of whom have 39 years of faultless service? The Prime Minister I am not aware of this. Is the hon. Member referring to new dismissals, or is this an old issue? Mr. Gow Forty employees who had been employed when the closed shop came in were dismissed, and two were dismissed when they resigned from the union after the closed shop agreement came in. The Prime Minister This issue has been debated on numerous occasions. It does not alter my general view that people should not be dismissed for their political opinions. However, I am not going into a particular dispute on this matter, any more than I shall do on any others. Q4. Mr. Canavan asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 29th June. The Prime Minister I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker). Mr. Canavan Will the Prime Minister find time today to give an assurance that the Government will do everything possible next week to repair the damage done to the Scotland Bill by the House of Lords? Does he agree that one of the many advantages of the Scottish Assembly will be that devolved legislation will not have to go through the House of Lords, where many a good Bill has been wrecked beyond recognition by a crowd of political vandals and hooligans? The Prime Minister I can promise my hon. Friend and the House as a whole that the Government intend to ensure as far as possible that the Scotland Bill will be on the statute book by the end of the current Session. The House of Lords has behaved irresponsibly in a number of matters, but I look to the House of Commons to put them right. Mr. Tebbit On an earlier question the Prime Minister made the silly statement that Tory tax cuts benefited only the rich and would not do any good for [column 1572]the men and women who were out of jobs. If that is so, why is he on the record as saying on 8th June in column 366 of Hansard “The Tory tax cuts will reduce unemployment” ? When was he right and when was he wrong? The Prime Minister The hon. Member has quoted me incorrectly. I said that if it was a choice between tax cuts and— Mr. Tebbit No. The Prime Minister It is no use the hon. Member shouting “No” . I know what I said. I said that if it was a choice between tax cuts and seeking jobs we would choose jobs. I do not know what the hon. Member would do, but that is our attitude. Of course it is true that there would have been a small reduction in unemployment as a result of tax cuts, but if we had been able to stick to our original Budget there would have been no change at all and unemployment would have fallen further. Mr. Heffer On the matter of silly statements, does the Prime Minister agree that statements from the Conservative Front Bench, particularly in speeches in the country, are becoming increasingly silly every day? Does he further agree that we have had a speech by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) which suggested that we on the Government side of the House are Nazis, and we have had speeches by the Leader of the Opposition suggesting that we are trying to bring about an East European State? Does he agree that the silliest speech of all was by the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), who wants to set up some sort of spiv outfit in the inner cities? The Prime Minister I am not sure whether the most dangerous speech has not been the one in which the Leader of the Opposition promised free collective bargaining for private industry but suggested that public industries should be kept within some sort of cash limits. If she really does not understand the degree of comparability between skilled workers in public industry and those in private industries I am sure that if she ever has any responsibility, she has a wonderful disillusionment coming. Mr. Churchill Will the Prime Minister earn his award for statesmanship by [column 1573]repudiating the harebrained suggestion of his Foreign Secretary that the multi-racial security forces of Rhodesia should be stood down and replaced by the terrorist thugs of Mr. Mugabe, who continue to slaughter black and white civilians alike in Africa? Is it still the Government's policy that they should go ahead along those lines? The Prime Minister Yes, Sir. There is no change in the policy. It is important that those who are engaged in fighting outside the country and who at the same time are members of that country should be brought into reconciliation with the forces that exist inside the country. There will be no long-term peace in Rhodesia until that is achieved. That is the situation which the country must follow up. I hope that the Opposition will give some support to the idea of getting the two groups together if blacks and whites in Rhodesia are to have a future. Copyright © Margaret Thatcher Foundation 2024. All Rights Reserved.

right

speech etc mr terry walker ask prime minister list public engagement june prime minister mr james callaghan morning preside meeting cabinet addition duty house shall hold meeting ministerial colleague mr walker right hon friend find time busy day reflect talk early week american aircraft manufacturer appreciate want development british aircraft manufacturing industry pleased talk consider make statement talk mcdonnell douglas company important hear offer britain americans prime minister oblige hon friend talk valuable certainly reveal big rapidly grow market air transport especially united states shall difficult decision corporation certainly fact lay house understand hon friend opportunity debate soon choose subject sure apply minister concern welcome mrs thatcher james callaghanthe prime minister government finally mind budget exactly change column propose firmness show far support policy high taxation determination persist levy tax export tax job tax food prime minister mind budget april unfortunately carry house wholly proposal right hon lady repent vote wish position announce april shall happy rest odd favour high taxation consider budget reduce steadily mrs thatcher prime minister remember say dispatch box week ago tax change opposition choose reduce unemployment tax change choose increase unemployment persist policy increase unemployment tax defence policy cut job prime minister answer right hon ladys question understand move entirely different dare go bite entire minute prime minister question score scratch government economic policy understand country meet increase satisfaction mr freud busy schedule prime minister find time visit cafeteria loyal unhappy staff order union strike little credit house common general consider open catering facility down street right hon hon member deprive cater prime minister entirely recommend second proposal hon member find little hungry catering facility generally comment study matter sure lord president statement necessary mr jay fair effort tory opposition unbalance budget summer entirely consistent profligate financial policy prime minister yes opposition sign recall learn show attitude wage increase industrial relation generally mr noble ask prime minister expect meet tuc cbi prime minister meet representative tuc cbi take chair meeting nedc february meeting arrange necessary mr noble right hon friend meet tuc cbi remind scale tax cut propose opposition achieve cut public expenditure damaging industry region particularly lowerpaid remind chance consultation matter remote opposition power view fact shadow foreign secretary indicate leader opposition refuse consult foreign affair indicative contempt hold happen disagree prime minister wish comment internal relationship conservative bench past present painful sore general position country mind far believe cut taxation damaging effect employment country worth view choice betwen tax cut betteroff job work choose second mr cormack prime minister meet tuc cbi reflect year column sabotage place strife year purchasing power pound fall people work think price country pay leader worth prime minister answer question definitely yes mr wrigglesworth ask prime minister expect meet tuc cbi prime minister refer hon friend reply give hon friend member rossendale mr noble mr wrigglesworth prime minister discuss tuc cbi development government regional policy northern region high level unemployment country exclude northern ireland aware teesside despite high level investment productivity severe unemployment consider carefully suggestion cleveland county council north england development corporation introduction selective assistance employment intensive industry help service industry northern area prime minister aware northeast suffer particularly structural decline industry coal steel shipbuilding opportunity expansion service industry consider believe minister state department industry meet cleveland county council recently write council long reply response representation ask hon friend study reply mr gow prime minister meet tuc remind trade union leader word say find intolerable acceptable people lose job political opinion reconcile advice dismissal british rail compensation column year faultless service prime minister aware hon member refer new dismissal old issue mr gow employee employ closed shop come dismiss dismiss resign union closed shop agreement come prime minister issue debate numerous occasion alter general view people dismiss political opinion go particular dispute matter shall mr canavan ask prime minister list official engagement june prime minister refer hon friend reply give early today hon friend member kingswood mr walker mr canavan prime minister find time today assurance government possible week repair damage scotland bill house lord agree advantage scottish assembly devolve legislation house lord good bill wreck recognition crowd political vandal hooligan prime minister promise hon friend house government intend ensure far possible scotland bill statute book end current session house lords behave irresponsibly number matter look house common right mr tebbit early question prime minister silly statement tory tax cut benefit rich good column man woman job record say june column hansard tory tax cut reduce unemployment right wrong prime minister hon member quote incorrectly say choice tax cut mr tebbit prime minister use hon member shout know say say choice tax cut seek job choose job know hon member attitude course true small reduction unemployment result tax cut able stick original budget change unemployment fall mr heffer matter silly statement prime minister agree statement conservative bench particularly speech country increasingly silly day agree speech hon member abingdon mr neave suggest government house nazi speech leader opposition suggest try bring east european state agree silly speech right hon learn member surrey east sir g howe want set sort spiv outfit inner city prime minister sure dangerous speech leader opposition promise free collective bargaining private industry suggest public industry keep sort cash limit understand degree comparability skilled worker public industry private industry sure responsibility wonderful disillusionment come mr churchill prime minister earn award statesmanship column harebraine suggestion foreign secretary multiracial security force rhodesia stand replace terrorist thug mr mugabe continue slaughter black white civilian alike africa government policy ahead line prime minister yes sir change policy important engage fight outside country time member country bring reconciliation force exist inside country longterm peace rhodesia achieve situation country follow hope opposition support idea get group black white rhodesia future copyright margaret thatcher foundation right reserve

Speeches, etc. Cheers and wolf whistles greeted Mrs. Margaret Thatcher, MP for Finchley and Friern Barnet, when she visited St. Barnabas Young People's Fellowship on Wednesday last week. Mrs. Thatcher spoke to the members about her work as Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and told them that in their lives she was a terribly important person. The reason—that she spends £1,100 million of their money every year. “I spend it on your behalf on the elderly, needy and young.” Mrs. Thatcher stressed that everyone was asking for more all the time. “People like you have to pay up. Up to now we have had something someone else has had to pay for. Now we have to pay. You cannot have something out without putting something in.” After Mrs. Thatcher had spoken to them the members continued dancing and Mrs. Thatcher spoke to some of the people who help to run the club which started five years ago with a membership of seven. Now the membership is well over 200. The club has also succeeded in winning the Finchley and District Football League for two years. Last year they won division two, this year division one. Next year the team hopes to be promoted to the premier division. Copyright © Margaret Thatcher Foundation 2024. All Rights Reserved.

right

speech etc cheer wolf whistle greet mrs margaret thatcher mp finchley friern barnet visit st barnabas young people fellowship wednesday week mrs thatcher speak member work joint parliamentary secretary ministry pension tell life terribly important person reason spend million money year spend behalf elderly needy young mrs thatcher stress ask time people like pay pay pay put mrs thatcher speak member continue dancing mrs thatcher speak people help run club start year ago membership seven membership club succeed win finchley district football league year year win division year division year team hope promote premier division copyright margaret thatcher foundation right reserve

Speeches, etc. [Mr. H. Hynd in the Chair] New Clause.—(Benefit in respect of sickness outside Great Britain. (1) Notwithstanding anything in section twenty-nine of the National Insurance Act, 1946 (which provides for disqualification or suspension of benefit in cases of absence abroad or imprisonment) section sixty of the said Act (which provides for regulations to modify the provisions of that Act in relation to insured persons outside Great Britain) shall have effect with the addition at the end of subsection (2) of the words: “and, if he suffers from such sickness as in Great Britain would have entitled him to sickness benefit, shall be entitled on his return to Great Britain to receive sickness benefit” . (2) Section forty-six of the said Act (which relates to the administration of benefit) shall apply to matters arising under this section and in particular (but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing) regulations may be made providing for or modifying any administrative requirements and limiting the benefit payable under this section to benefit for a period of not more than eight weeks in a year. (3) Regulations made under section sixty-three (which relates to arrangements with Northern Ireland for a unified system) or under section sixty-four (which relates to Dominions, colonies and foreign countries) of the said Act may make or include provision for co-ordinating this section and those sections or either of them and for securing that double benefit is not payable in respect of the same matter under this section and either of those sections.—[Mr. McKay.] Brought up, and read the First time. Motion moved [5th December], That the Clause be read a Second time. 10.30 a.m. Mr. John McKay When I began to move this new Clause at the last sitting of the Committee, I started by saying that it was breaking into new ground and to that extent might not have the approval of the Minister. It is a Clause which does not need a great amount of explanation or advocacy, and I therefore do not intend to take up much time with it. It may be that there are objections to it because of the fact that it breaks [column 206]new ground and may be making an addition of consequence to the provisions of the original Act. I suggest that it is not what is contained in a new Clause that matters so much as the way in which its provisions are interpreted. I am here suggesting that this new Clause should be added to the Bill to enable the payment of benefit to be made to anyone in a foreign country who is there taken ill and if that person, had he been in his own country, would have received benefit. It will not affect the kind of thing for which the benefit can be paid, but is only related to the foreign country in which such cases may happen. It might be said on occasions that to add a new Clause of this character to a Bill might create many complications. That might be true if it provided no limitation on the time for payment of benefit. The very fact that the new Clause has been so drafted that where these benefits are granted to our people who have gone abroad they are limited to a period of eight weeks, removes that difficulty, and I conclude that there could be no complications because of the fact that it is so limited to eight weeks. The whole question, therefore, is whether this is a matter of sufficient importance to be worth while making this change in the Act. The ordinary man in the street, in a case like this, wonders why this embargo should be placed on the payment of benefit because he happens to be on holiday for a fortnight or so abroad. He knows that he will be paying his contributions for the time which he is on holiday, and because of that he wonders why he is not allowed the benefit in such cases. It may be argued that the Clause may affect a great number of cases and thus create a great liability, but in the ordinary course of events I cannot see that that point could be substantiated. The Wallsend miners had a case of this kind, in which a man was taken ill abroad and was not able to get back home for about eight weeks. When he applied for his sickness benefit in regard to the time when he was in France, it was not allowed, though the claim was acknowledged in respect of the period of illness sustained after he returned to this country. The number of people [column 207]going to other countries for their holidays has greatly increased. This is now a common practice and is far more widespread than used to be the case. There is the possibility that if, at the time the original Act was passed, increasing numbers of people were going to foreign countries on holiday, as they are now, they would have been covered in the Act. I therefore have great hope that this new Clause will be accepted, because it seems to me that a very small liability would be incurred if it were inserted in the Bill. I do not know what this concession would cost, but it cannot be very much, and the very fact that we do not get very many cases of this kind seems to support that view. I have known of only one case like this, because it happened in my own locality and I was asked to follow it up. The ordinary man will no doubt imagine that this proposition is so reasonable that we shall have no difficulty in approving the new Clause today. This is the viewpoint of the Wallsend miners, and I hope that it will also be the viewpoint of this Committee. This is not a provision likely to raise difficulties in its future effects, because of the stipulation of the eight weeks' limit in the payment of benefit, and, to that extent, I invite the Committee to give the matter due consideration. I am wondering whether it will receive that due consideration, whether we in this Committee are prepared to examine a case of this kind on its actual merits, or whether the Committee may take the view that because this is a new Clause which breaks new ground we ought not to accept it. As to its ultimate effect, in twenty, thirty or forty years' time, I do not think that the liability created will be very large. Perhaps the Minister could tell us how many such cases have been brought forward during, say, the last ten years. If we had that information it would, I think, help the Committee. Let us suppose that there have been 1,000 cases in the last ten years and that in the next ten years there will be another 1,000. What is the national liability involved? I should like to know that from the Minister before we come to a decision on the Clause. [column 208] For instance, let us take the case of a man who is ill for eight weeks and who will be paid the benefit that he would receive had he stayed in this country. What would be the liability in such a case? To take an ordinary single man, who in this country would receive £3 per week benefit, the maximum amount of benefit to be obtained in the majority of cases by any individual would be £24. If there are 100 cases a year, the liability would be £2,400, and if there were 1,000 cases it would be £24,000. If the financial liability is, as it is admittedly, very small, the only question remaining is whether there is any justifiable reason why we should not make this change in the law. Let us try to put ourselves in the place of this man Gilligan, an ordinary working man who, in the usual course of things, finds that it is all he can do to keep his affairs financially sound. He needs a little help, especially if he takes a holiday abroad where there is no reciprocal arrangement for sickness benefit to be paid unless the change which I am proposing is made. In the cases of ordinary men and women, is not this a concession which we should encourage? Is it asking for such a great change that we cannot estimate the future liability? I admit that one of the vital factors in this discussion should concern the question of what the financial obligation is likely to be, and, if it is admittedly small, the next thing we have to do is to say to ourselves, “Here are men and women going abroad to enjoy themselves for a little time each year and who are taken ill. In 75 out of 100 such cases they would probably have been taken ill if they had never gone out of the country.” Taking these simple factors into consideration, I believe that most people would agree that ordinary people who have heavy liabilities and not a great deal of financial backing should be helped as far as we possibly can help them. That is the simple position, which I think would appeal to almost anyone on grounds of humanity, especially when such a small item of expenditure is involved. This would give satisfaction to the men who have to pay the money regularly week by week, and even when they are on holiday. [column 209] The position is so simple that I hope that hon. Members on both sides of this Committee will give it serious consideration, as we are supposed to be representing not only the good will of the nation out to be helping, as far as it is possible, the people who are insured under this Act. 10.45 a.m. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher) I have, of course, checked up on the case of the Wallsend colliery worker to which the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay) made reference. I believe that he was injured in a car crash in France this summer, on the third day of his holiday there. He was in hospital there for just over three weeks. He returned to this country, received sickness benefit from the day after his return and for the remainder of his incapacity, which was some two months, but not for the period during which he was abroad. I should like to explain to the hon. Member, and to the Committee, the terms and conditions upon which we allow sickness claims to be payable abroad. We do not make universal provision for such sickness claims to be allowed but only where we can make certain supervisory arrangements. It is not entirely new to us to pay sickness benefit abroad, but we have to watch very carefully that we can supervise those claims for benefit in exactly the same way as we supervise similar claims when they arise in this country. We feel that we cannot pay sickness benefit abroad, as a general rule, unless we can exercise a similar degree of control to that which we exercise here. The hon. Member will perhaps be familiar with the kind of control that we exercise here. He will know that benefit is paid on the basis of certificates of incapacity for work signed by a doctor and submitted by a claimant week by week. If the Department has any doubt about the soundness of the claim, then it can refer the claimant to an independent doctor, to a Ministry of Health doctor, and we know that all of these doctors are familiar with the scheme and the kind of standards which the scheme adopts. So, in fact, over here we exercise fairly close supervision over the 8 million to 9 million claims which [column 210]we receive annually for sickness benefits. We think that in fairness to the general body of the contributors we must keep an eye on claims to see that the fundamental conditions for benefit are, in fact, fulfilled. That is our general view here, and what we try to do is to pay sickness benefit abroad in those circumstances where we are certain that we can exercise a similar degree of supervision. Those cases, broadly speaking, fall into two separate classes. The technical point is that we do this under Sections 29 and 64 rather than under the Section which the hon. Member has found and to which he seeks to introduce his Clause. We have certain powers which enable us to allow sickness claims arising abroad, and we do so in two broad general classes. In the first class, under the Residents and Persons Abroad Regulations, we allow sickness benefit when a person is absent abroad temporarily and is there for the specific purpose of being treated for an incapacity which began before he left Great Britain. If the hon. Member examines this closely, he will see that before the person left Great Britain we knew that he was ill and we knew the kind of incapacity that he had. We pay the benefit where we know that he is being treated abroad by a doctor and is not merely going abroad for convalescence, and where that doctor is, in fact, prepared to send us certificates of the man's incapacity. That applies anywhere, to any country, provided that those conditions are satisfied in the particular case. The second class under which we allow sickness claims abroad is where we have reciprocal agreements with other countries. The reciprocal agreements vary, as the hon. Member knows. Some of them, in fact, provide that sickness benefit should be payable when the person is on holiday abroad; others provide only for claims which arise when the person going from this country works for a United Kingdom employer, when special provision is made for him to remain within the scope of our scheme for up to twelve months, or, alternatively, when he goes to the other country to work for an employer resident there. There are those three types of provisions within the various reciprocal agreements. But before we [column 211]sign a reciprocal agreement, we are, of course, certain—and the other country is certain—that both of us are prepared to make proper provision for the supervision of these claims. So that we are satisfied that they are properly supervised by doctors in the other country, and the other country is satisfied about similar circumstances prevailing here. Naturally, the reciprocal agreements are not, in fact, signed unless that basic condition can be fulfilled. In fact, we have reciprocal agreements with Cyprus, Malta, the Irish Republic, and fourteen foreign countries which make provision for sickness benefit abroad when one of our people is working either for a foreign employer or for a United Kingdom employer abroad. The holiday provisions are not quite so wide. We have not been able to get them with quite as many countries. The hon. Member may be interested to know that we have agreements with Cyprus, Malta, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, West Germany, Turkey and Yugoslavia, so if his Wallsend colliery workers have holidays in those countries and fall ill whilst they are there, then, because we are certain that those countries have adequate provision for supervising the claims, they will, in fact, be permitted to make a claim for sickness benefit here, and it will be granted subject to the approval of the Minister. So it is not entirely breaking new ground to say that we should provide for sickness benefit abroad. My right hon. John Boyd-CarpenterFriend feels, however, in fairness to the general body of contributors, that he must be sure that those claims can properly be supervised. In the countries of which I have given details, and in the general instances under Section 29 to which I have made reference, we can be certain and, where we can be certain, we do in fact make the provision. I will not deal with any technical points as, obviously, they are not really very material. We already have the powers to do this. As far as France is concerned, we do not have a reciprocal agreement relating to sickness benefit while on holiday abroad. We do have the provisions relating to people working for ‘employers, but we do not have the extra one. So far as we could get it [column 212]with France—we are not able to do it at the moment—we already have the power, so we really do not need the special power which the hon. Member seeks to give us. I would ask the Committee, in view of the extensive provision which we have made and which we continually try to make, to say that it is not necessary to give this Clause a Second Reading and that it would be inavisable to do so. Mr. McKay Am I to understand, then, that without this Clause being passed at all, if any man, whether he is on holiday or not, can get substantial evidence of the fact that he is ill, and has been ill and under medical supervision, there is no necessity for the Clause at all? If the whole medical position can be substantiated and proper evidence given, then, as I understand what the hon. Lady has said, in those particular cases, the Ministry will pay benefits. Is that so? Mrs. Thatcher No. I am sorry if I have not made it entirely clear to the hon. Member. We could not possibly do that in every individual case, regardless of the country from which the claim came. We have set up systems throughout the world, but a person can claim only where we have a reciprocal agreement or, alternatively, in the specific instance to which I referred, where he is absent abroad temporarily, specifically for the purpose of being treated for an incapacity which arose before he left Great Britain. But apart from that general case, he can claim only where we have reciprocal agreements, and we only sign reciprocal agreements where we are certain that the country concerned makes proper provision for the supervision of all sickness benefit claims. Mr. McKay I understand, therefore, that if we are to help the Wallsend miners and others who support me there needs to be a new Clause. Is it correct to say that the Ministry is only prepared to give benefit where we have reciprocal arrangements? That is what I understood the hon. Lady to say and, therefore, I think that there is a necessity for an addition to the Bill. It is not a question of the Wallsend miner or of any particular individual; it is a question of principle. The whole point is that a man or woman who suffers disease [column 213]or accident has to pay in this country, and benefit should be paid for at least eight weeks whatever country he or she may be in. I think that this Clause should be accepted. Mr. Douglas Houghton After listening to the hon. Lady's very clear explanation I am not sure, although a new Clause may be necessary to do something, that this new Clause does what needs to be done. This is a very complicated matter, and I am subject to correction, but, as I understand the position, if the Wallsend miner had been ill before he started, and if the Ministry had known that he was ill before he started, and he had gone to France for treatment under proper medical supervision, then he would have been covered by the regulations which extend the sickness benefit to a person who goes for treatment to another country under those circumstances. That is not, of course, what the Wallsend miner did. He started off on a holiday and he was unfortunate enough to suffer a motor accident while on holiday. The reciprocal agreement with France does not cover sickness benefit for a person who is taken ill or suffers an injury while on holiday, but if the Wallsend miner had been sent over to France by the National Coal Board to do a job of work and had been taken ill, then I understand that he would have been covered by the reciprocal agreement. I think we are all in the difficulty that when we hand over our intentions to our draftsmen it is sometimes not very clear when we see the result whether the draftsmen are doing what we want them to do. But I should pay them this tribute, that if we had not got our draftsmen we should be in a pretty poor pass. The present position seems to enable sickness benefit to be paid to the Wallsend miner not whilst he was in France but on his return to England. Mrs. Thatcher I am so sorry. The man in question did receive sickness benefit after he returned to England. It was not retrospective. It was for the period during which he was ill in England, but not for the three weeks when he was away. Mr. Houghton I am very grateful, because that shows that I have not got it right either. The new Clause wants [column 214]sickness benefit to be paid up to eight weeks for the period of sickness while abroad, and to be payable on return to England. Then the question arises as to whether the man has been really ill and properly certified to be ill during the period for which he would claim sickness benefit while on holiday. It seems that that can only really be covered by reciprocal agreements. Where there is a wide exchange of holiday makers between one country and another, that would seem the most satisfactory way of dealing with this. For instance, a holiday maker from France may be taken ill in this country and we would wish him to receive from his national insurance scheme the sort of benefits that we should like our people holiday-making in that country to have. 11.0 a.m. This represents a sort of new international change of social security, and very laudable it is. It means that we each take each other's burdens and we each render certain services—of certification, and so on—although I understand that these reciprocal agreements differ in scope. I should like more information on this matter because I should not have thought that there would be any difficulty in having a reciprocal arrangement with France. As I say, I realise that these agreements differ—in regard to holiday makers going to Communist countries, for example—and I also understand that we have better reciprocal agreements with some countries than with others. Mrs. Thatcher The broad answer is that we have provisions for holiday-makers only in the later signed reciprocal agreements. This is probably because of later social developments and the fact that more people are going abroad. That with France is one of the earlier signed agreements. From time to time we make supplementary agreements and when this is done, providing the other country shares the same views as do we—and that is not always the case—we try to include this provision. The reciprocal agreements do not differ in scope because we want them to. They differ because of differences in what we are able to agree with the other country. Question, That the Clause be read a Second time, put and negatived. [column 215]New Clause.—(Extension of benefit in respect of special hardship.) For the purposes of section fourteen of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946, a person shall not be precluded from an award of benefit within the terms of the section by the fact that his assessment for disablement benefit is nil, if it is established by medical evidence that his return to his regular occupation, would be likely to lead [column 216]to a recurrence of the relevant loss of faculty or would be inadvisable for reasons arising from the relevant loss of faculty.—[Mr. Prentice.] Brought up, and read the First time. Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:— The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 15. Division No. 12.] Finch , Harold Houghton , Douglas Jones , T. W. (Merioneth) McCann , John McKay , John (Wallsend) Prentice , R. E. Robertson , John (Paisley) Ross , William Silverman , Julius (Aston) Bossom , Clive Boyd-Carpenter , J. Browne , Percy (Torrington) Chichester-Clark , R. Fisher , Nigel Gammans , Lady Hill , Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe) Holland , Philip Johnson , Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Marten , Neil Sharples , Richard Steward , Harold (Stockport, S.) Tapsell , Peter Taylor , F. (Mich'ter, Moss Side) Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret Copyright © Margaret Thatcher Foundation 2024. All Rights Reserved.

right

speech etc mr h hynd chair new clause benefit respect sickness outside great britain notwithstanding section twentynine national insurance act provide disqualification suspension benefit case absence abroad imprisonment section say act provide regulation modify provision act relation insured person outside great britain shall effect addition end subsection word suffer sickness great britain entitle sickness benefit shall entitle return great britain receive sickness benefit section fortysix say act relate administration benefit shall apply matter arise section particular prejudice generality forego regulation provide modify administrative requirement limit benefit payable section benefit period week year regulation section sixtythree relate arrangement northern ireland unified system section sixtyfour relate dominion colony foreign country say act include provision coordinate section section secure double benefit payable respect matter section section mr mckay bring read time motion move december clause read second time mr john mckay begin new clause sitting committee start say break new ground extent approval minister clause need great explanation advocacy intend time objection fact break column ground make addition consequence provision original act suggest contain new clause matter way provision interpret suggest new clause add bill enable payment benefit foreign country take ill person country receive benefit affect kind thing benefit pay relate foreign country case happen say occasion add new clause character bill create complication true provide limitation time payment benefit fact new clause draft benefit grant people go abroad limit period week remove difficulty conclude complication fact limited week question matter sufficient importance worth make change act ordinary man street case like wonder embargo place payment benefit happen holiday fortnight abroad know pay contribution time holiday wonder allow benefit case argue clause affect great number case create great liability ordinary course event point substantiate wallsend miner case kind man take ill abroad able home week apply sickness benefit regard time france allow claim acknowledge respect period illness sustain return country number people column country holiday greatly increase common practice far widespread case possibility time original act pass increase number people go foreign country holiday cover act great hope new clause accept small liability incur insert bill know concession cost fact case kind support view know case like happen locality ask follow ordinary man doubt imagine proposition reasonable shall difficulty approve new clause today viewpoint wallsend miner hope viewpoint committee provision likely raise difficulty future effect stipulation week limit payment benefit extent invite committee matter consideration wonder receive consideration committee prepared examine case kind actual merit committee view new clause break new ground ought accept ultimate effect thirty year time think liability create large minister tell case bring forward year information think help committee let suppose case year year national liability involve like know minister come decision clause column instance let case man ill week pay benefit receive stay country liability case ordinary single man country receive week benefit maximum benefit obtain majority case individual case year liability case financial liability admittedly small question remain justifiable reason change law let try place man gilligan ordinary work man usual course thing find affair financially sound need little help especially take holiday abroad reciprocal arrangement sickness benefit pay change propose case ordinary man woman concession encourage ask great change estimate future liability admit vital factor discussion concern question financial obligation likely admittedly small thing man woman go abroad enjoy little time year take ill case probably take ill go country take simple factor consideration believe people agree ordinary people heavy liability great deal financial backing help far possibly help simple position think appeal ground humanity especially small item expenditure involve satisfaction man pay money regularly week week holiday column position simple hope hon member side committee consideration suppose represent good nation help far possible people insure act joint parliamentary secretary ministry pension national insurance mrs margaret thatcher course check case wallsend colliery worker hon member wallsend mr mckay reference believe injure car crash france summer day holiday hospital week return country receive sickness benefit day return remainder incapacity month period abroad like explain hon member committee term condition allow sickness claim payable abroad universal provision sickness claim allow certain supervisory arrangement entirely new pay sickness benefit abroad watch carefully supervise claim benefit exactly way supervise similar claim arise country feel pay sickness benefit abroad general rule exercise similar degree control exercise hon member familiar kind control exercise know benefit pay basis certificate incapacity work sign doctor submit claimant week week department doubt soundness claim refer claimant independent doctor ministry health doctor know doctor familiar scheme kind standard scheme adopt fact exercise fairly close supervision million million claim column receive annually sickness benefit think fairness general body contributor eye claim fundamental condition benefit fact fulfil general view try pay sickness benefit abroad circumstance certain exercise similar degree supervision case broadly speak fall separate class technical point section section hon member find seek introduce clause certain power enable allow sickness claim arise abroad broad general class class resident person abroad regulation allow sickness benefit person absent abroad temporarily specific purpose treat incapacity begin leave great britain hon member examine closely person leave great britain know ill know kind incapacity pay benefit know treat abroad doctor merely go abroad convalescence doctor fact prepare send certificate man incapacity apply country provide condition satisfied particular case second class allow sickness claim abroad reciprocal agreement country reciprocal agreement vary hon member know fact provide sickness benefit payable person holiday abroad provide claim arise person go country work united kingdom employer special provision remain scope scheme month alternatively go country work employer resident type provision reciprocal agreement column reciprocal agreement course certain country certain prepared proper provision supervision claim satisfied properly supervise doctor country country satisfied similar circumstance prevail naturally reciprocal agreement fact sign basic condition fulfil fact reciprocal agreement cyprus malta irish republic fourteen foreign country provision sickness benefit abroad people work foreign employer united kingdom employer abroad holiday provision wide able country hon member interested know agreement cyprus malta norway sweden denmark west germany turkey yugoslavia wallsend colliery worker holiday country fall ill whilst certain country adequate provision supervise claim fact permit claim sickness benefit grant subject approval minister entirely break new ground provide sickness benefit abroad right hon john boydcarpenterfriend feel fairness general body contributor sure claim properly supervise country give detail general instance section reference certain certain fact provision deal technical point obviously material power far france concern reciprocal agreement relate sickness benefit holiday abroad provision relate people work employer extra far column france able moment power need special power hon member seek ask committee view extensive provision continually try necessary clause second reading inavisable mr mckay understand clause pass man holiday substantial evidence fact ill ill medical supervision necessity clause medical position substantiate proper evidence give understand hon lady say particular case ministry pay benefit mrs thatcher sorry entirely clear hon member possibly individual case regardless country claim come set system world person claim reciprocal agreement alternatively specific instance refer absent abroad temporarily specifically purpose treat incapacity arise leave great britain apart general case claim reciprocal agreement sign reciprocal agreement certain country concern make proper provision supervision sickness benefit claim mr mckay understand help wallsend miner support need new clause correct ministry prepared benefit reciprocal arrangement understand hon lady think necessity addition bill question wallsend miner particular individual question principle point man woman suffer disease column accident pay country benefit pay week country think clause accept mr douglas houghton listen hon ladys clear explanation sure new clause necessary new clause need complicated matter subject correction understand position wallsend miner ill start ministry know ill start go france treatment proper medical supervision cover regulation extend sickness benefit person go treatment country circumstance course wallsend miner start holiday unfortunate suffer motor accident holiday reciprocal agreement france cover sickness benefit person take ill suffer injury holiday wallsend miner send france national coal board job work take ill understand cover reciprocal agreement think difficulty hand intention draftsman clear result draftsman want pay tribute get draftsman pretty poor pass present position enable sickness benefit pay wallsend miner whilst france return england mrs thatcher sorry man question receive sickness benefit return england retrospective period ill england week away mr houghton grateful show get right new clause want column benefit pay week period sickness abroad payable return england question arise man ill properly certify ill period claim sickness benefit holiday cover reciprocal agreement wide exchange holiday maker country satisfactory way deal instance holiday maker france take ill country wish receive national insurance scheme sort benefit like people holidaymake country represent sort new international change social security laudable mean burden render certain service certification understand reciprocal agreement differ scope like information matter think difficulty have reciprocal arrangement france realise agreement differ regard holiday maker go communist country example understand well reciprocal agreement country mrs thatcher broad answer provision holidaymaker later sign reciprocal agreement probably later social development fact people go abroad france early sign agreement time time supplementary agreement provide country share view case try include provision reciprocal agreement differ scope want differ difference able agree country question clause read second time negative column clause extension benefit respect special hardship purpose section fourteen national insurance industrial injury act person shall preclude award benefit term section fact assessment disablement benefit nil establish medical evidence return regular occupation likely lead column recurrence relevant loss faculty inadvisable reason arise relevant loss faculty mr prentice bring read time question clause read second time committee divide aye noe division finch harold houghton douglas jones t w merioneth mccann john mckay john wallsend prentice r e robertson john paisley ross william silverman julius aston bossom clive boydcarpenter j browne percy torrington chichesterclark r fisher nigel gammans lady hill mrs eveline wythenshawe holland philip johnson dr donald carlisle marten neil sharple richard steward harold stockport s tapsell peter taylor f michter moss thatcher mrs margaret copyright margaret thatcher foundation right reserve

This bill extends the deadline, from three years to five years, for the Alyce Spotted Bear and Walter Soboleff Commission on Native Children to submit its report to the President and Congress. The commission was established to conduct a comprehensive study of federal, state, local, and tribal programs that serve Native children and to develop plans for federal policy related to Native children.

right

bill extend deadline year year alyce spot bear walter soboleff commission native child submit report president congress commission establish conduct comprehensive study federal state local tribal program serve native child develop plan federal policy relate native child

Speeches, etc. Mrs. Thatcher Will Michael Footthe Leader of the House please state the business for next week and after? The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot) I should like to indicate the business of the House until the Summer Adjournment. The business will be as follows: Monday 24th July—Supply [29th Allotted Day]: there will be a debate on unemployment. At 10 o'clock the Questions will be put on all outstanding Votes. Motion on the Dock Labour Scheme 1978. Tuesday 25th July—Debate on the economy, including the White Paper on inflation. Wednesday 26th July—Any Lords Messages on the Scotland and Wales Bills and on the Parliamentary Pensions Bill. Thursday 27th July—Proceedings on the Dividends Bill. Friday 28th July—Motion on the Valuation List (Second Postponement) Order. Motions on Ministers' and Members' Salaries, Allowance and Pensions. Motion on the Fifth Report from the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) Session 1977–78 on New Building for Parliament. Monday 31st July—Lords amendments to the Transport Bill. Motions on the Drivers' Hours (Harmonisation with Community Rules) Regulations and on the Community Road Transport Rules (Exemptions) Regulations. Tuesday 1st August—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill. [column 787] Wednesday 2nd August—Debate on Rhodesia. Thursday 3rd August—It will be proposed that the House should meet at 11 a.m., take Questions until 12 noon and adjourn at 5 p.m. for the Summer Recess until Tuesday 24th October. The House may also be asked, Mr. Speaker, to consider any other Lords amendments and delegated legislation which may be received. Mrs. Thatcher Sticking strictly to next week, may I ask the Lord President two questions? First, he will be aware that the Dividends Bill has not yet been published. When may we expect it? It is very quick and unusual to take a Bill in the House only a few days after it is published. Secondly, is he expecting to take Tuesday's debate on the economy on a motion? Mr. Foot On the first question, the Dividends Bill will be published tomorrow. There has been quite a lot of discussion about the prospect over recent weeks. I hope that tomorrow we shall also table a motion for the debate on Tuesday. Several Hon. Members rose—— Mr. Speaker Order. With regard to the business for next week, for the debate on Tuesday 1st August on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, hon. Members may hand in to my office by noon on Thursday 27th July their names and the topics that they wish to raise. The Ballot will be carried out as on the last occasion. An hon. Member may hand in only his own name and one topic. The debate will cover all the main Estimates originally presented for the current financial year in House of Commons Papers 212 and 230, and the Supplementary and Revised Estimates presented since then in House of Commons Papers 536, 537 and 538. It will be in order on Second Reading to raise any topic falling within the compass of those Estimates. I shall put out the result of the Ballot later, on 27th July. Mr. Wells On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Despite what you have just said, can you confirm that it will be in [column 788]order for any hon. Member who catches the eye of the occupant of the Chair to say anything he pleases that is within the rules of order on the Consolidated Fund Bill, though it has not been balloted for? Mr. Speaker Order. The hon. Gentleman is quite right, but the operative words are “any hon. Member who catches the eye of the occupant of the Chair.” Mrs. Dunwoody Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the debate on Rhodesia takes the very widest form? It is essential that we should discuss all the implications of the situation before the House adjourns. Mr. Foot I expect that the debate will take place on the Adjournment. I am sure, therefore, that my hon. Friend's suggestion will be satisfactory to the House. Mr. Tebbit Can the Lord President describe a little more closely the procedures by which we shall tackle the Dividends Bill in one way? Will there not have to be some slightly unusual procedures in order to achieve that? Can he also say whether the Government intend to make that Bill an issue of confidence? Mr. Foot I think that we should see how we proceed. I have announced the proceedings on the Bill today, and I hope that we can get them through in one day. [Hon. Members: “Oh.” ] Had I gone further than that in my first announcement, I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman would have been the first to complain. Mr. Kinnock May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to Early-Day Motion No. 543 on the Order Paper, standing in my name and in the names of 121 colleagues in the Parliamentary Labour Party? I acknowledge the Government's difficulties in the matter of the Chilean aero-engines, but I ask my right hon. Friend, as a friend of freedom, to take the strongest possible line and ensure that in the course of next week we have a statement to show that the Government are prepared to put pressure on the Chilean junta slightly above the technical considerations of the Fascist air force's ownership of those engines. Mr. Foot As I am sure my hon. Friend knows, the Government have taken a whole series of measures over the past two years which have indicated the present Government's attitude towards the present Chilean regime. I do not believe that any Member of the House or anybody in the country can be in any doubt about that. Whether it will be desirable to have a statement on the subject next week, I am not prepared to say now. But no doubt my hon. Friend saw the statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday. Mrs. Winifred Ewing Will the Leader of the House make a statement next week regarding the date of the referendum, bearing in mind that today he has indicated that Parliament will be in recess until 24th October and that, in view of the six weeks' notice that is required, we have a position whereby the earliest date for the referendum after that is December? Is it not time that we had some kind of forward planning of the timescale to know when the referendum will take place? Mr. Foot I think that what the House should do is to pass the Bill, get the Act on the statute book, have the Royal Assent, and then we can see how the legislation should proceed on that matter. There is plenty of time for all that to happen. Mr. Spearing Does my right hon. Friend recall that in recent weeks he has acknowledged freely the Government's undertaking to table a motion concerning the way in which we deal with EEC orders and, in particular, the responsibility of Ministers of any Government? In view of the Prime Minister's letter to the NEC last October about the freedom of Governments and national Parliaments, how does my right hon. Friend view the fact that he has not announced such a motion, and how can this Parliament be free if we do not discuss the matter before the end of this Session? Mr. Foot I am fully aware of the whole background to this question, but there is another Thursday before the recess when an announcement can be made about the completion of our business. That may be the time for me to make a statement on the subject. Mr. Hal Miller In view of the shoddy manner of the dismissal of the chairman of the Redditch development corporation and the appointment of somebody without the relevant experience at a critical time in the corporation's history, and in view, indeed, of the proliferation of quangos and the appointment thereto of people with connection with Ministers and members of the Labour Party, will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the advance of the corporate State and the position of these quangos? Mr. Foot I have read a whole heap of nonsense about quangos and the alleged advance of the corporate State in the newspapers over recent weeks. All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that he seems to have added even to that rubbishy total. Mr. Stoddart Will my right hon. Friend arrange, before the House goes into recess, for the Government to make a statement on the extraordinary statement of the chairman of the British Gas Corporation that gas prices might well go up in spite of a record profit of £180 million? Can it also be made clear that the future financing of the capital programme of that corporation is a matter for this Parliament and not solely a matter for the chairman of the corporation? Mr. Foot Of course, these are all matters in which Parliament takes an interest and on which it has every right to give its view. But whether there should be a statement on the subject before we go into recess is another matter. If my hon. Friend or others wish to raise this matter in the considerable opportunities that remain before we depart for the recess, that is for him and for some other hon. Gentlemen. Mr. Cormack May we please have a statement next week on the Government's attitude towards the Select Committee report on the National Land Fund? Will the Lord President also tell us how much business is left for 24th October? Mr. Foot On the first matter, I cannot promise any statement, and I am not sure whether it is essential for the House to have such a statement, but I shall look into the hon. Gentleman's point. I am sure that there is still a further opportunity when I would be able to give an [column 791]indication to the hon. Gentleman and the House about the exact business which we might assemble to conduct on 24th October. Mr. Ashton Is my right hon. Friend aware that on 30th July last year, the last day on which the House sat before the recess, television licences were increased, even though two days earlier the Home Office had blatantly denied any knowledge of an increase? Will he give an assurance that this will not happen again? Will he look at the Early-Day Motion put down yesterday, signed by 100 Labour Back-Benchers and handed in last night, calling for a different system of television licensing? If the licence is to be increased before the end of the Session and before the election, may we have a debate on it here and now? Mr. Foot I have seen the motion put down by my hon. Friend and signed by others of my hon. Friends. There will be a statement next week on the Annan report. I believe that that is the proper time for my hon. Friend to put similar questions to the Home Secretary on the subject. Mr. Biffen Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Dividends Bill is not a Money Bill and, therefore, that it will have to be considered in another place? Will he indicate whether, in our arrangements before the recess, there is a slot when this House will have the opportunity of considering any Lords amendments that might arise therefrom? Mr. Foot It is not money Bill. Therefore, it would have to go through another place. Who can tell whether another place would wish to pass any amendments to such a short and satisfactory Bill? But if it did wish to do so, I have no doubt that the House of Commons is fully capable of dealing with it. Mr. Molloy In view of the phoney trials that have taken place recently in the Soviet Union and of the appalling behaviour of the Government in Chile in perpetrating atrocities almost daily, [column 792]would it not be a good thing for this House, before we rise for the Easter Recess—[Hon. Members: “Summer.” ]—the Summer Recess—to debate human rights? I hope that Conservative Members will join us and take more cognisance of the seriousness of this aspect than of any trivial lapsus linguae. This is an issue which is giving great concern to many ordinary people in our country and in many other countries throughout the world. It would be a good thing for this House of Commons to declare itself. Mr. Foot I fully accept what my hon. Friend has said about the great importance of all the subjects that he has mentioned, but I do not think that it is necessary for the House of Commons to have a special debate on those different matters to make its views known. I believe that many speakers in the House have made their views very clear on those matters on a number of occasions. Mr. Kenneth Lewis Why cannot we have a social contract voluntary agreement on dividends, just as we have on pay? Why must there be legislation on it? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the next Session of Parliament will start? Will it be when we come back in October? Mr. Foot On the second point, I do not think that I should hazard any further guesses now. As I have said, we shall have plenty of time to consider that matter. The subject of dividends can be debated by the hon. Member on Thursday if he catches Mr. Speaker's eye. That is what the debate is for. It is to decide whether the views of the hon. Gentleman, or our views, for assisting the nation in this respect should prevail. Mr. Jay Is my right hon. Friend aware that it would be extremely regrettable, to say the least, if he failed to carry out his repeated promise to introduce, in this Session, a resolution dealing with the better control of EEC legislation? Why cannot he honour that promise now? Mr. Foot I do not have anything to add to what I said in reply to the previous question. I am fully aware of the debate [column 793]that we had in the House and of the undertaking which I gave. Mr. Sainsbury May I press the Leader of the House further on the question of providing time for a debate on human rights? May I draw his attention, in particular, to Early-Day Motion No. 525, which has been signed by over 200 Members in all parts of the House? That number of signatures indicates the concern felt in this House that we should have an opportunity to discuss this matter, which bears directly upon our relations with many countries, in particular the Soviet Union? Mr. Foot I fully accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the concern felt in all parts of the House about this issue of human rights. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has tabled a motion on this matter, signed by 176 Labour Members. Of course it is a question that arouses widespread concern among my right hon. and hon. Friends and, I believe, in all parts of the House. I believe that that motion has served an excellent purpose in making the views of the House widely known. But I do not think that it is necessary to have a full debate on the subject, desirable though that may be in certain circumstances. In any case, as I have already said, there is considerable pressure upon business in the House before we adjourn. Mr. English Is my right hon. Friend aware that by deciding to adjourn on Thursday instead of Friday he has eliminated the possibility of a debate on the Civil Service based on the reports of the Expenditure Committee and the Government's observations upon the first of those reports? Surely the Civil Service is a subject of importance to us all, which might, perhaps, be better dealt with before we find ourselves in any other political circumstances which might occur later in this Parliament, or just after its dissolution? Could we not consider the [column 794]question of the Civil Service before we adjourn? Mr. Foot There is a good argument for a debate on the subject. I have no doubt that at some stage the House must debate the report of the Committee over which my hon. Friend presided and the Government's response. However, I do not believe that it would be for the convenience of the House to have the debate on the day suggested by my hon. Friend. It is not a question of eliminating a debate on that subject. I had thought that there was more likely to be criticism of the proposal to sit until the Thursday. Several Hon. Members rose—— Mr. Speaker Order. To protect the business covered by the timetable motion, I must ask for briefer questions. It is unlikely that I shall be able to call everyone. Mr. Gow Will the Lord President tell the House how many clauses there will be in the Bill to control dividends? Will he tell the House how long will be allocated for the Committee stage of that Bill and how long there will be for Third Reading? Mr. Foot The hon. Gentleman should wait to see the Bill. In response to the request from the right hon. Lady, I made it clear that the Bill would be published tomorrow. The House will be able to see that it is a nice, short, sweet Bill. I am sure it could pass through the House of Commons in that kind of atmosphere. Mr. Rooker Can my right hon. Friend find time before the Summer Recess to debate the Second Reading of the Ten-Minute Bill which I successfully introduced on Tuesday, along with a debate on the relevant Early-Day Motion, No. 472, so that Government supporters can have a bit more time than I had on Tuesday to compare the comments in 1956 of Mr. Peter Thorneycroft, as he was then, with the actions of big business in the 1970s? Mr. Foot I cannot say that that matter can be pressed during any consideration of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend although, as I have indicated already, there are other opportunities before we depart for private Members to return to some of these subjects. Mr. Adley Referring to the comments of the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) about friends of freedom, would the Lord President remind the House of the Prime Minister's words that the Chilean aero-engines belong to the Chilean Government and have been held in this country for four years, and that if we are to talk about freedom, our prime concern should be freedom under the law in this country? So long as right hon. and hon. Friends of the Leader of the House and certain members of certain trade unions insist on defying the law of this country and court orders, we ought, instead of worrying about other people's freedom, to be worrying about our own. Mr. Foot All these factors were taken into account in the statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday. But I think it would be of benefit to people throughout the world and particularly to those suffering the great hardships of imprisonment in Chile, if, for once, from the Opposition Benches a voice were raised speaking up for freedom there, too. The Government of this country have taken a whole series of actions which express the real attitude of freedom lovers in this country on that subject. Mr. Anderson Will there be an announcement next week on the fourth television channel as it affects Wales? For the convenience of hon. Members, could my right hon. Friend give a solemn and binding undertaking that the House will resume on 24th October? Mr. Foot My hon. Friend must not tempt me too much on the second matter. All Leaders of the House who announce the date when the House reassembles after the Summer Recess have to make that statement subject to events that might occur. That will be indicated, no doubt, when we come to the Adjournment debate. On my hon. Friend's first point, I ask him to await the statement on the Annan [column 796]report which the Home Secretary will be making next week. Mr. David Price Reverting to next Tuesday's business, will the Leader of the House bear in mind that it is rather important that the House should have a substantive motion on two very important matters on which I am sure the Prime Minister would like the views of the House. One is the result of the Bonn conference and the second is the Government's White Paper on pay policy. I am sure it is right that before we adjourn the House should express specific approval or disapproval, as the case may be, on these two very important matters. Mr. Foot I shall certainly take into account the representations of the hon. Gentleman in the framing of the motion, which we hope to put down tomorrow. Mr. Skinner Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is another basic freedom called “the right to work” which the free world does not seem to handle very well? [Hon. Members: “Oh.” ] There are 70 million people on the dole. In that context, is it not a disgrace that we have never had a chance to debate the Franco-German plan which came from Bremen and which will assist the West Germans in dominating our economy and assist the French in ensuring that the CAP remains with us for ever? Will not this affect our dole queues, and should we not debate it rather than let the nonelected, pro-Common Market civil servants look at it in private? Mr. Foot It is not a question of looking at these matters in private. Mr. Skinner That is what they are doing. Mr. Foot No, it is a question of discussion. The Government make their proposals on all these matters, and the House can debate them. The House will have some discussion on these matters on Monday and some discussion on them on Tuesday. I believe that in all these discussions, and in those in the country generally, there will be an increasing recognition of the leading part which this country has played internationally in assisting in dealing with the problem of unemployment. Of course, there has to be a whole range of measures on other matters as well, but I do not believe for [column 797]that reason that this House, or anybody in the House, or anybody in the House, should decry the efforts that this Government have made—more than those of almost any other country in the world—to try to show how we can take an international approach to the problem. Mrs. Bain In the light of the demonstration today by London civil servants against the possibility of their jobs being transferred to Glasgow, and in the light of the Government's own manifesto commitments to jobs dispersal to that area, can we expect, before the recess, an announcement as to which Civil Service jobs will be dispersed for local recruitment, because the transfer of unwilling Londoners to Glasgow does nothing to solve our unemployment problem? Mr. Foot I do not believe that there can be a statement on the particular aspects of the matter that the hon. Lady raises, but the Government have made clear their general commitment to a programme of dispersal. I believe that that can be of assistance to people in Scotland and in other parts of the country. I think that it is unwise for the hon. Lady to decry those efforts. Mr. Litterick Is the Leader of the House aware that yesterday the General Electric Company announced the appointment of a man called Angus Ogilvy to its board of directors and that this person not too long ago was obliged to resign from 26 directorships in something of a hurry, not to put too fine a point on it? Coming as it does—— Mr. Speaker Order. The hon. Member knows that if he is referring to a member of the Royal Family—— Mr. Litterick No, I am not. Mr. Speaker If the hon. Member does not know I shall tell him. He knows that we must refer courteously, and without casting reflections on them, to members of the Royal Family. That has been the order in this House for centuries. Mr. Litterick Perhaps some time, Mr. Speaker, you will tell me what the code is. However, following, as it does, so recently on the revelation that the chairman of the Conservative Party, as chairman of another great business organisation, was involved in a massive fraud of the Post Office—[column 798] Mr. Speaker Order. The hon. Gentleman knows—it has been indicated earlier this week—that it is quite out of order to make a statement of that sort about a member of another place—— Hon. Members Withdraw. Mr. Speaker Order.—and he must withdraw that statement at once. Mr. Litterick To whom was I referring? Mr. Speaker Order. The hon. Gentleman told the House to whom he was referring. He said it was the chairman of the Conservative Party, who is a member of another place. Mr. Litterick In view then of other events of which you are well aware, Mr. Speaker—— Hon. Members Withdraw. Mr. Speaker Order. I wish the House would let me handle this. The hon. Gentleman will withdraw that statement at once. Mr. Litterick Yes, all right. Mr. Heffer rose—— Mr. Litterick Do we understand each other now, Mr. Speaker? Mr. Speaker Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman has withdrawn? Mr. Litterick Yes. Is it not therefore time that this House at least had a debate on the quality of Britain's top management and seriously considered setting up a Royal Commission to investigate the senior management of our large business organisations? Mr. Foot I think that the chances of setting up a Royal Commission before we adjourn for the recess are very small. I do not think we have much chance even of setting up a Republican Commission, which is what I might favour myself. Several Hon. Members rose—— Mr. Speaker Order. I shall not take business questions after four o'clock. Mr. Ridley Referring to the Dividends Bill, which is very important because of the damage it may do to many pension funds, will the Leader of the House give an undertaking that the proper interval [column 799]will take place between Second Reading and the start of the Committee stage upstairs? Would it not be kind to hon. Members who are to sit on that Committee to give them a little notice, because it will interfere with our holidays? I should be delighted to volunteer, but would the Leader of the House tell his hon. Friends who are to sit on the Committee? Could he also say when he will recall the House in order to consider the Report stage? Mr. Foot Any volunteering from the hon. Gentleman has to be regarded with the utmost suspicion. I therefore approach the matter in that mood. As I have indicated before, I think that it would be perfectly satisfactory for the House to carry through this measure on that day. I hope that the House will approach the matter in that light. Mr. Speaker Mr. Loyden—the last question. Mr. Loyden May I ask the Lord President whether, in view of the serious situation existing in the docks industry, he could give further time on Monday next to the debate on the dock labour scheme? Mr. Foot I shall consider it, but I cannot give a promise. I should have thought that we would be able to deal with the order in the normal hour and a half. I accept fully what my hon. Friend says about the importance of the matter, but there is also the question of how late the vote should take place, and that also has to be taken into account. Several Hon. Members rose—— Mr. Speaker Order. We must move on. Mr. Heffer On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I must ask your indulgence because I am a little confused. When hon. Members raise in the House matters which they think are fact but which other people think are not fact, what exactly are we to do? If such matters impinge upon the Royal Family or the chairman of the Conservative Party, who happens to be a member of the House of Lords, but if hon. Members in all honesty believe that they are factual matters and nothing else, what exactly is the position then of ordinary simple Back-Bench Members [column 800]such as myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick)? How can we raise matters of fact and then be ruled out of order and asked to withdraw statements that hon. Members think are perfectly legitimate on the basis of facts as they understand them? Mr. Speaker Perhaps I may say to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), who is a good House of Commons man, that he knows as well as any other hon. Member in the Chamber this afternoon where the line should be drawn. When personal attacks are made on a member of another place they have to be stopped. In another place, the members are not allowed to make personal attacks on Members of this House. Secondly, with regard to the Royal Family it is clearly laid down in “Erskine May” , and it accords with the good taste of every hon. Member in the House, that we should speak with respect of the Royal Family. Mr. Cormack On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Lord President of the Council to voice republican sympathies within the House of Commons? Mr. Speaker That is a good old custom that goes back a very long way. Mr. Raison Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Lord President of Her Majesty's Privy Council and the Leader of this House to stand at the Dispatch Box as he just has done and declare republican principles? Mr. Speaker There is nothing in the right hon. Gentleman's statements which obliges me to prevent him from speaking. If hon. Members will read Hansard for the past century they will find many similar statements. Mr. Stokes On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Kinnock Here is the last century. Mr. Stokes Will you, Mr. Speaker, have discussions with both sides of the House in relation to the broadcasting of the procedures of the House which many hon. Members now feel are bringing the House into contempt with the public? Mr. Speaker I always have chats with both sides of the House about the running of the affairs of the House and I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says. Mr. Ridley—the last point of order, I hope. Mr. Ridley On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You did reply to an hon. Member opposite to the effect that we were not able to say anything discourteous about any member of the Royal Family and you quoted “Erskine May” in support of that. I think the whole House subscribes to that, but I put it to you that it is extraordinarily discourteous to the Head of the Royal Family, Her Majesty the Queen, to say that one would prefer to have not a Royal Commission but a Republican Commission. I should have thought that if ever there were a flagrant example of a statement made in the House going exactly counter to the statement that you have just made about “Erskine May” , it was the remarks made by the Lord President a few moments ago. I ask him to withdraw those remarks. Mr. Foot Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I had not thought that a sense of humour had entirely departed from the House. If Her Majesty the Queen asked me to apologise or withdraw, of course I should be very eager and would do so immediately. When I see her, I hope next week, I shall ask her and I shall set the matter as right as soon as courtesy and common decency can. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recover his sense of humour. The rest of the House is well in advance of him on this matter. Copyright © Margaret Thatcher Foundation 2024. All Rights Reserved.

right

speech etc mrs thatcher michael footthe leader house state business week lord president council leader house commons mr michael foot like indicate business house summer adjournment business follow monday july supply allotted day debate unemployment oclock question outstanding vote motion dock labour scheme tuesday july debate economy include white paper inflation wednesday july lord message scotland wale bill parliamentary pension bill thursday july proceeding dividend bill friday july motion valuation list second postponement order motion minister member salary allowance pension motion fifth report select committee house commons service session new building parliament monday july lord amendment transport bill motion driver hour harmonisation community rule regulation community road transport rule exemption regulation tuesday august proceeding consolidated fund appropriation bill column wednesday august debate rhodesia thursday august propose house meet question noon adjourn pm summer recess tuesday october house ask mr speaker consider lord amendment delegate legislation receive mrs thatcher stick strictly week ask lord president question aware dividend bill publish expect quick unusual bill house day publish secondly expect tuesday debate economy motion mr foot question dividend bill publish tomorrow lot discussion prospect recent week hope tomorrow shall table motion debate tuesday hon member rise mr speaker order regard business week debate tuesday august second reading consolidated fund appropriation bill hon member hand office noon thursday july name topic wish raise ballot carry occasion hon member hand topic debate cover main estimate originally present current financial year house commons paper supplementary revise estimate present house commons paper order second reading raise topic fall compass estimate shall result ballot later july mr well point order mr speaker despite say confirm column hon member catch eye occupant chair please rule order consolidated fund bill ballot mr speaker order hon gentleman right operative word hon member catch eye occupant chair mrs dunwoody right hon friend ensure debate rhodesia take wide form essential discuss implication situation house adjourn mr foot expect debate place adjournment sure hon friend suggestion satisfactory house mr tebbit lord president describe little closely procedure shall tackle dividend bill way slightly unusual procedure order achieve government intend bill issue confidence mr foot think proceed announce proceeding bill today hope day hon member oh go announcement doubt hon gentleman complain mr kinnock draw right hon friend attention earlyday motion order paper stand name colleague parliamentary labour party acknowledge government difficulty matter chilean aeroengine ask right hon friend friend freedom strong possible line ensure course week statement government prepared pressure chilean junta slightly technical consideration fascist air force ownership engine mr foot sure hon friend know government take series measure past year indicate present government attitude present chilean regime believe member house anybody country doubt desirable statement subject week prepared doubt hon friend see statement prime minister yesterday mrs winifre ewing leader house statement week date referendum bear mind today indicate parliament recess october view week notice require position early date referendum december time kind forward planning timescale know referendum place mr foot think house pass bill act statute book royal assent legislation proceed matter plenty time happen mr spearing right hon friend recall recent week acknowledge freely government undertake table motion concern way deal eec order particular responsibility minister government view prime minister letter nec october freedom government national parliament right hon friend view fact announce motion parliament free discuss matter end session mr foot fully aware background question thursday recess announcement completion business time statement subject mr hal miller view shoddy manner dismissal chairman redditch development corporation appointment somebody relevant experience critical time corporation history view proliferation quangos appointment thereto people connection minister member labour party leader house find time debate advance corporate state position quangos mr foot read heap nonsense quangos allege advance corporate state newspaper recent week hon gentleman add rubbishy total mr stoddart right hon friend arrange house go recess government statement extraordinary statement chairman british gas corporation gas price spite record profit million clear future financing capital programme corporation matter parliament solely matter chairman corporation mr foot course matter parliament take interest right view statement subject recess matter hon friend wish raise matter considerable opportunity remain depart recess hon gentleman mr cormack statement week government attitude select committee report national land fund lord president tell business leave october mr foot matter promise statement sure essential house statement shall look hon gentleman point sure opportunity able column hon gentleman house exact business assemble conduct october mr ashton right hon friend aware july year day house sit recess television licence increase day early home office blatantly deny knowledge increase assurance happen look earlyday motion yesterday sign labour backbencher hand night call different system television licensing licence increase end session election debate mr foot see motion hon friend sign hon friend statement week annan report believe proper time hon friend similar question home secretary subject mr biffen leader house confirm dividend bill money bill consider place indicate arrangement recess slot house opportunity consider lord amendment arise therefrom mr foot money bill place tell place wish pass amendment short satisfactory bill wish doubt house common fully capable deal mr molloy view phoney trial take place recently soviet union appalling behaviour government chile perpetrate atrocity daily column good thing house rise easter recess hon member summer summer recess debate human right hope conservative member join cognisance seriousness aspect trivial lapsus linguae issue give great concern ordinary people country country world good thing house common declare mr foot fully accept hon friend say great importance subject mention think necessary house common special debate different matter view know believe speaker house view clear matter number occasion mr kenneth lewis social contract voluntary agreement dividend pay legislation right hon gentleman tell session parliament start come october mr foot second point think hazard guess say shall plenty time consider matter subject dividend debate hon member thursday catch mr speaker eye debate decide view hon gentleman view assist nation respect prevail mr jay right hon friend aware extremely regrettable fail carry repeat promise introduce session resolution deal well control eec legislation honour promise mr foot add say reply previous question fully aware debate column house undertaking give mr sainsbury press leader house question provide time debate human right draw attention particular earlyday motion sign member part house number signature indicate concern feel house opportunity discuss matter bear directly relation country particular soviet union mr foot fully accept hon gentleman say concern feel part house issue human right hon friend member liverpool walton mr heffer table motion matter sign labour member course question arouse widespread concern right hon hon friend believe part house believe motion serve excellent purpose make view house widely know think necessary debate subject desirable certain circumstance case say considerable pressure business house adjourn mr english right hon friend aware decide adjourn thursday instead friday eliminate possibility debate civil service base report expenditure committee government observation report surely civil service subject importance well deal find political circumstance occur later parliament dissolution consider column civil service adjourn mr foot good argument debate subject doubt stage house debate report committee hon friend preside government response believe convenience house debate day suggest hon friend question eliminate debate subject think likely criticism proposal sit thursday hon member rise mr speaker order protect business cover timetable motion ask briefer question unlikely shall able mr gow lord president tell house clause bill control dividend tell house long allocate committee stage bill long read mr foot hon gentleman wait bill response request right hon lady clear bill publish tomorrow house able nice short sweet bill sure pass house common kind atmosphere mr rooker right hon friend find time summer recess debate second reading tenminute bill successfully introduce tuesday debate relevant earlyday motion government supporter bit time tuesday compare comment mr peter thorneycroft action big business mr foot matter press consideration bill introduce hon friend indicate opportunity depart private member return subject mr adley refer comment hon member bedwellty mr kinnock friend freedom lord president remind house prime minister word chilean aeroengine belong chilean government hold country year talk freedom prime concern freedom law country long right hon hon friend leader house certain member certain trade union insist defy law country court order ought instead worry people freedom worry mr foot factor take account statement prime minister yesterday think benefit people world particularly suffer great hardship imprisonment chile opposition bench voice raise speak freedom government country take series action express real attitude freedom lover country subject mr anderson announcement week fourth television channel affect wale convenience hon member right hon friend solemn bind undertaking house resume october mr foot hon friend tempt second matter leader house announce date house reassemble summer recess statement subject event occur indicate doubt come adjournment debate hon friend point ask await statement annan column home secretary make week mr david price revert tuesday business leader house bear mind important house substantive motion important matter sure prime minister like view house result bonn conference second government white paper pay policy sure right adjourn house express specific approval disapproval case important matter mr foot shall certainly account representation hon gentleman framing motion hope tomorrow mr skinner right hon friend confirm basic freedom call right work free world handle hon member oh million people dole context disgrace chance debate francogerman plan come breman assist west germans dominate economy assist french ensure cap remain affect dole queue debate let nonelected procommon market civil servant look private mr foot question look matter private mr skinner mr foot question discussion government proposal matter house debate house discussion matter monday discussion tuesday believe discussion country generally increase recognition lead country play internationally assist deal problem unemployment course range measure matter believe column reason house anybody house anybody house decry effort government country world try international approach problem mrs bain light demonstration today london civil servant possibility job transfer glasgow light government manifesto commitment job dispersal area expect recess announcement civil service job disperse local recruitment transfer unwilling londoner glasgow solve unemployment problem mr foot believe statement particular aspect matter hon lady raise government clear general commitment programme dispersal believe assistance people scotland part country think unwise hon lady decry effort mr litterick leader house aware yesterday general electric company announce appointment man call angus ogilvy board director person long ago oblige resign directorship hurry fine point come mr speaker order hon member know refer member royal family mr litterick mr speaker hon member know shall tell know refer courteously cast reflection member royal family order house century mr litterick time mr speaker tell code follow recently revelation chairman conservative party chairman great business organisation involve massive fraud post office column mr speaker order hon gentleman know indicate early week order statement sort member place hon member withdraw mr speaker order withdraw statement mr litterick refer mr speaker order hon gentleman tell house refer say chairman conservative party member place mr litterick view event aware mr speaker hon member withdraw mr speaker order wish house let handle hon gentleman withdraw statement mr litterick yes right mr heffer rise mr litterick understand mr speaker mr speaker understand hon gentleman withdraw mr litterick yes time house debate quality britain management seriously consider set royal commission investigate senior management large business organisation mr foot think chance set royal commission adjourn recess small think chance set republican commission favour hon member rise mr speaker order shall business question oclock mr ridley refer dividend bill important damage pension fund leader house undertaking proper interval column place second reading start committee stage upstairs kind hon member sit committee little notice interfere holiday delighted volunteer leader house tell hon friend sit committee recall house order consider report stage mr foot volunteering hon gentleman regard utmost suspicion approach matter mood indicate think perfectly satisfactory house carry measure day hope house approach matter light mr speaker mr loyden question mr loyden ask lord president view situation exist dock industry time monday debate dock labour scheme mr foot shall consider promise think able deal order normal hour half accept fully hon friend say importance matter question late vote place take account hon member rise mr speaker order mr heffer point order mr speaker ask indulgence little confused hon member raise house matter think fact people think fact exactly matter impinge royal family chairman conservative party happen member house lord hon member honesty believe factual matter exactly position ordinary simple backbench member column hon friend member birmingham selly oak mr litterick raise matter fact rule order ask withdraw statement hon member think perfectly legitimate basis fact understand mr speaker hon member liverpool walton mr heffer good house commons man know hon member chamber afternoon line draw personal attack member place stop place member allow personal attack member house secondly regard royal family clearly lay erskine accord good taste hon member house speak respect royal family mr cormack point order mr speaker order lord president council voice republican sympathy house commons mr speaker good old custom go long way mr raison point order mr speaker order lord president majestys privy council leader house stand dispatch box declare republican principle mr speaker right hon gentleman statement oblige prevent speak hon member read hansard past century find similar statement mr stoke point order mr speaker mr kinnock century mr stoke mr speaker discussion side house relation broadcasting procedure house hon member feel bring house contempt public mr speaker chat side house running affair house shall bear mind hon gentleman say mr ridley point order hope mr ridley point order mr speaker reply hon member opposite effect able discourteous member royal family quote erskine support think house subscribe extraordinarily discourteous head royal family majesty queen prefer royal commission republican commission think flagrant example statement house go exactly counter statement erskine remark lord president moment ago ask withdraw remark mr foot point order mr speaker think sense humour entirely depart house majesty queen ask apologise withdraw course eager immediately hope week shall ask shall set matter right soon courtesy common decency hope hon gentleman recover sense humour rest house advance matter copyright margaret thatcher foundation right reserve

Speeches, etc. The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan) An article appeared in the magazine New Society published today which purports to describe discussions in Cabinet preceding the statement made by the Secretary of State for Social Services on 25th May about the Child Benefit Scheme. It is clear that the author of the article had either direct or indirect access to Cabinet minutes and Cabinet papers, some extracts from which were accurately quoted in the article. This is a very grave matter. For, on the face of it, it could only have been brought about by theft, or by a betrayal of trust involving a breach of an undertaking voluntarily entered into, by someone with access to the documents. There are stringent rules governing the circulation of Cabinet memoranda and minutes and the persons to whom they may be shown. These rules have been broken. In the first place, I have directed that an urgent and thorough inquiry should be undertaken. I have asked Sir Douglas Allen, the Head of the Home Civil Service, to do this; he has already begun. The House will, of course, be kept informed. Mrs. Thatcher Is James Callaghanthe Prime Minister aware that we fully share his view about the gravity of this matter? It is essential that confidentiality of discussions and documents should be assured. Secondly, is the Prime Minister aware that, because we take such a grave view, we would think that an internal inquiry is not enough? His own statement refers to the possibility of theft, and therefore it would seem to be a matter for police investigation. In certain other circumstances a betrayal of trust was considered more appropriate for a tribunal of inquiry under a judge. Finally, I hope that the Prime Minister's initial inquiries are of the nature only of a preliminary inquiry and that he will not, therefore, exclude the further possibilities I have indicated. The Prime Minister I am obliged to the right hon. Lady for what she says. The important issue here is that there [column 739]are very stringent rules. These rules are accepted by those who see the papers concerned. They sign an acceptance. There has been, at the least, a betrayal of trust and a breach of an obligation. I think that it is that matter that should be examined first. I cannot rule out the possibility of theft. Therefore, of course, it could be that the possibility of a police investigation is not excluded. However, as to the need for a further and larger tribunal, I think that I would prefer to wait and see what Sir Douglas Allen has to say in his inquiry. I cannot emphasise enough that if there are to be good relations between members of the Government there must be absolute confidence that papers and discussions that take place are kept within the circle to whom they are given. That principle has been broken. That is not to say that a member of the Cabinet or of the Government is responsible. These papers go to a limited number, but the people who have some of these papers all sign before they have them. What is more, the number of people to whom access to them is given is known, and names are given. Therefore, a very serious breach has been committed. Mr. English Is the Prime Minister able to deny the widespread reports that he is stalling the revision of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act? Does he not agree with us that, as long as Section 2 is, as it were, a lame duck, anything of this character is liable to happen? The Prime Minister No, Sir, I would not deny the rumour that I am stalling it. I certainly have some doubts about Section 2. No doubt they will come out in due course. I gave very full evidence to the Franks inquiry myself. I shall not go into detail on that matter now. This matter must be looked into carefully, and the Government are considering it. Mr. Grimond Everyone will share the Prime Minister's anxiety over this question. Rightly, the inquiry is to be confined to this particular situation. However, I think that the Prime Minister indicated, in answer to the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition, that he does not rule out further inquiries. If these were to take place, would he con[column 740]sider broadening the inquiry, because there have been other allegations of not only Government leakages but the theft of important documents from important members of the Government? The Prime Minister I shall see in the first place what Sir Douglas Allen 's inquiry yields. It may be that the person who is responsible for this will indicate that he or she is responsible. I do not know. In my view, that would be the honourable thing to do, and then, in whatever capacity he or she may be serving, to offer his or her resignation. That would be the right thing, because the individual responsible has betrayed the trust that he or she freely entered into. The individual was not asked to do it. Therefore, I hope that whoever is responsible will consider the matter and decide what course of action should be taken. Several Hon. Members rose—— Mr. Speaker It has been said that there is to be an inquiry. I shall allow only two more questions on this matter. Mr. MacFarquhar Will my right hon. Friend let us know how large is the circle of people outside the Cabinet who normally see or could have access to Cabinet minutes? How many people are involved? The Prime Minister No, Sir, I could not give that information without notice. Mr. Lawson rose—— Mr. Cryer rose—— Mr. Speaker Mr. Lawson. Mr. Lawson I am sorry for the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer). While wholly associating myself with what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has said and with what the Prime Minister has said, may I ask the Prime Minister to give an assurance that in his opinion it would be wholly inappropriate for there to be a prosecution of New Society under Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act? The Prime Minister It is certainly not for me to comment on the question of prosecutions. That would be a matter for the Attorney-General to consider in due course. Copyright © Margaret Thatcher Foundation 2024. All Rights Reserved.

right

speech etc prime minister mr james callaghan article appear magazine new society publish today purport describe discussion cabinet precede statement secretary state social service child benefit scheme clear author article direct indirect access cabinet minute cabinet paper extract accurately quote article grave matter face bring theft betrayal trust involve breach undertaking voluntarily enter access document stringent rule govern circulation cabinet memorandum minute person show rule break place direct urgent thorough inquiry undertake ask sir douglas allen head home civil service begin house course keep inform mrs thatcher james callaghanthe prime minister aware fully share view gravity matter essential confidentiality discussion document assure secondly prime minister aware grave view think internal inquiry statement refer possibility theft matter police investigation certain circumstance betrayal trust consider appropriate tribunal inquiry judge finally hope prime minister initial inquiry nature preliminary inquiry exclude possibility indicate prime minister oblige right hon lady say important issue column stringent rule rule accept paper concern sign acceptance betrayal trust breach obligation think matter examine rule possibility theft course possibility police investigation exclude need large tribunal think prefer wait sir douglas allen inquiry emphasise good relation member government absolute confidence paper discussion place keep circle give principle break member cabinet government responsible paper limited number people paper sign number people access give know name give breach commit mr english prime minister able deny widespread report stall revision section official secret act agree long section lame duck character liable happen prime minister sir deny rumour stall certainly doubt section doubt come course give evidence frank inquiry shall detail matter matter look carefully government consider mr grimond share prime minister anxiety question rightly inquiry confine particular situation think prime minister indicate answer right hon lady leader opposition rule inquiry place concolumn broaden inquiry allegation government leakage theft important document important member government prime minister shall place sir douglas allen s inquiry yield person responsible indicate responsible know view honourable thing capacity serve offer resignation right thing individual responsible betray trust freely enter individual ask hope responsible consider matter decide course action take hon member rise mr speaker say inquiry shall allow question matter mr macfarquhar right hon friend let know large circle people outside cabinet normally access cabinet minute people involve prime minister sir information notice mr lawson rise mr cryer rise mr speaker mr lawson mr lawson sorry hon member keighley mr cryer wholly associate right hon friend leader opposition say prime minister say ask prime minister assurance opinion wholly inappropriate prosecution new society section official secret act prime minister certainly comment question prosecution matter attorneygeneral consider course copyright margaret thatcher foundation right reserve

This bill prohibits federal agencies from restricting a person's use of convertible virtual currency for their own purposes or to conduct transactions through a self-hosted wallet.

right

bill prohibit federal agency restrict person use convertible virtual currency purpose conduct transaction selfhoste wallet

Speeches, etc. Copyright © Margaret Thatcher Foundation 2024. All Rights Reserved.

right

speech etc copyright margaret thatcher foundation right reserve

This bill requires the President to take actions as necessary to prohibit members of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) (or foreign individuals or entities acting on behalf of the CCP) from purchasing real estate located in the United States. The bill also modifies an existing civil penalty for failing to satisfy a reporting requirement relating to a foreign individual or entity that acquires or transfers an interest in U.S. agricultural land. Under this bill, the civil penalty for failing to report the required information to the Department of Agriculture must be at least 10% of the fair market value of the relevant interest in agricultural land.

right

bill require president action necessary prohibit member chinese communist party ccp foreign individual entity act behalf ccp purchase real estate locate united states bill modify exist civil penalty fail satisfy reporting requirement relate foreign individual entity acquire transfer interest agricultural land bill civil penalty fail report require information department agriculture fair market value relevant interest agricultural land

This bill requires the Department of the Treasury to provide to each taxpayer a one-page estimate of how such taxpayer's money was spent by the government during the immediately preceding calendar year.

right

bill require department treasury provide taxpayer onepage estimate taxpayer money spend government immediately precede calendar year

This bill requires 100% of negotiated price concessions for covered insulin products under the Medicare prescription drug benefit to be reflected at the point of sale by 2024. The Government Accountability Office must annually report on the effects of the bill's implementation, including with respect to insulin prices.

right

bill require negotiate price concession cover insulin product medicare prescription drug benefit reflect point sale government accountability office annually report effect bill implementation include respect insulin price

This bill establishes a one-year moratorium on the enrollment of land in the Conservation Reserve Program, with a specified exception for land that is already subject to a contract under the program. It also prohibits the Department of Agriculture from enrolling prime farmland in the program. Additionally, the bill allows a participant who has entered into a contract under the program to terminate the contract at any time during the one-year period preceding the date on which the contact would expire.

right

bill establish oneyear moratorium enrollment land conservation reserve program specify exception land subject contract program prohibit department agriculture enrol prime farmland program additionally bill allow participant enter contract program terminate contract time oneyear period precede date contact expire

This bill modifies the authority for humanitarian demining assistance and stockpiled conventional munitions assistance to provide that such assistance may be provided, instead of carried out. The assistance may include the travel expenses of foreign personnel attending related training provided by the Department of Defense.

right

bill modify authority humanitarian demining assistance stockpile conventional munition assistance provide assistance provide instead carry assistance include travel expense foreign personnel attend relate training provide department defense

This bill reclaims unused employment-based immigrant visas from FY2020 and FY2021 and makes such unused visas available in FY2022, for the purposes of calculating the total number of employment-based immigrant visas available each fiscal year. If, at the end of FY2022, there are still unused FY2020 and FY2021 visas, these unused visas shall be available in subsequent fiscal years until they are all used.

right

bill reclaim unused employmentbase immigrant visa make unused visa available purpose calculate total number employmentbase immigrant visa available fiscal year end unused visa unused visa shall available subsequent fiscal year

This bill supports research in quantum networking and communications. The Quantum Networking Working Group within the Subcommittee on Quantum Information Science of the National Science and Technology Council shall submit to Congress a report that has a plan for the advancement of quantum networking and communications technology in the United States. The National Institute of Standards and Technology shall carry out research to facilitate the development and standardization of quantum networking and communications technologies and applications. The Department of Energy shall supplement the Energy Sciences Network User Facility with dedicated quantum network infrastructure to advance development of quantum networking and communications technology. The National Science Foundation (NSF) shall enter into an agreement with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to study ways of supporting the next generation of quantum leaders. The NSF shall prioritize the better integration of quantum information science and engineering into the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) curriculum for each grade level from kindergarten through grade 12. The NSF shall carry out the Next Generation Quantum Leaders Pilot Program to provide funding for the education and training of the next generation of students in the fundamental principles of quantum mechanics.

right

bill support research quantum networking communication quantum network work group subcommittee quantum information science national science technology council shall submit congress report plan advancement quantum networking communication technology united states national institute standard technology shall carry research facilitate development standardization quantum networking communication technology application department energy shall supplement energy sciences network user facility dedicated quantum network infrastructure advance development quantum networking communication technology national science foundation nsf shall enter agreement national academy science engineering medicine study way support generation quantum leader nsf shall prioritize well integration quantum information science engineering science technology engineering mathematic stem curriculum grade level kindergarten grade nsf shall carry generation quantum leader pilot program provide funding education training generation student fundamental principle quantum mechanic

Ep. 1584 - Why Men And Women Are Unhappy Published: 9/30/2022 (in RSS feed: 47m 33s) We bring you the latest on Hurricane Ian as the New York Times unleashes a hit piece on Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. We analyze why both men and women seem increasingly unhappy in the post sexual revolution era and Vladimir Putin may be on the verge of unprecedented aggression. I'm be, This is the Bero Show. Today's show is sponsored by Express at vpn. Do you like your web history being seen and sold to advertisers? No, Me neither. Get Express VPN right now. Express vpn.com/ben so you're spending too much money on everything right now, but there's one area where you can start to cut cost in a smart way. That would be your cell phone bill. So the big providers, Verizon, at and t T-Mobile, they are charging you too much money for too much shady. You don't need all that data. You need to switch your cell phone service over to Pure Talk. Pure Talk will give you unlimited talk text and six gigs of data for just 30 bucks a month. That could be a big savings for you and your family. That's grocery money or gas money and Pure Talk will never raise their rates by switching over to Pure Talk. The average family of four is saving over 75 bucks every month and that begins to add up pretty quickly. Customers are realizing they simply don't need as much data as they thought they did. So in the hundreds of thousands who are making the switch over to Pure Talk today, when you switch to Pure Talk with my special discount, you get 50% off your very first month of coverage. Head on over to Pure talk.com, Choose your plan, Enter code Shapiro for the special offer. That's pure talk.com. Enter Code Shapiro, You get 50% off your very first month. Again, pure talk.com. Use my special promo code Shapiro, you get 50% off your very first month of coverage and stop paying those big guys too much money to spend money marketing on the basis of values you don't agree with. Head on over to Pure Talk right now. Also now there are a lot of people out there in California, New York, and they'd like to ban you in the future from purchasing new vehicles that are powered by gas, which means your used cars are gonna become very, very valuable if they're not already thanks to the supply chain crisis. Well this means you need to preserve that car and rock auto.com is how you do that. Rock auto.com always offers the lowest prices possible rather than changing prices. Based on what the market will bear like airlines is, do they get you all the parts that you need at the best available. Price Rock auto.com is a family owned business serving auto parts customers online for 20 years. Head on over to rock auto.com. Shop for auto and body parts from hundreds manufacturers. We've got everything from engine control modules and brake parts to tail lamps, motor oil, even new carpet. Whether it's for your classic or daily driver, you get everything you need with just a few easy clicks delivered directly to your door. The Rock auto.com catalog is remarkably easy to navigate. You can quickly see all the parts available for your car or truck and make sure that you can get the brand specification and prices that you prefer. Best of all, those prices are always reliably low because why would you spend up to twice as much for the same parts? Head over to rock auto.com right now, see all the parts available for your car or truck. That's rock auto.com. Be sure to write Shapiro in there. How did you hear about Us box so they know that we sent you? Well, the latest news from Hurricane continues to be devastating. Obviously the strike by Hurricane Ian on the west coast of Florida has had some dire consequences. Some hundreds of people apparently missing. The Florida government is doing an excellent job of ensuring that the resources have been brought to bear. You have emergency teams that are on the ground essentially right away looking for people trying to help out any survivors. The the state itself is mobilizing not just in terms of state resources but also in in terms of private charities. Pretty much every private institution in Florida has been mobilizing, trying to gather food and resources for people who are out of power on the west coast of Florida, The storm hurricane continues to actually swirl around off now the east coast of the United States, it's gonna make landfall again in South Carolina. It may in fact be a hurricane at that point. According to the Washington Post, Ian is a hurricane. Once again a storm system that re intensified Thursday evenings. It turns towards South Carolina with 85 mile per hour winds and with the National Hurricane Center called life-threatening flooding and storm surge except for yet another US landfall this time near Charleston around midday on Friday in its wake, Ian left a path of devastation in Florida. The much of the state is still making sense at the exact toll after rescue emissions began on Thursday. In an evening briefing, Governor Ron DeSantis said that he expected to have mortality from the hurricane. There had been more than 700 confirmed rescues thus far. He also spoke of indescribable damage including buildings picked up off their foundations by the intense wind, more than 2.1 million customers remain without power. In Florida and Virginia, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina. Governors declared states of emergency ahead of Ian's expected shift in their direction. Rhonda San yesterday visited the Hurricane Relief Center in Florida and here is what he had to say. There's gonna be a lot of people that need help and and I know you guys have been on the front lines of doing that, so, So I just wanna say thank you. We'll be back, we'll be back tomorrow, probably be back, you know, every day for a while and so we're here to help and when you guys need anything, he knows the call. All these other people know, just give us a call and I'll make sure Kevin gets it done. So thanks everybody, appreciate it. As we say, there's now an attempt being made to rescue people who are stuck in places like Fort Myers, people who stayed in their homes because they, either they couldn't leave or because they made a bad decision to stay in their homes. There's also an attempt to get their power back on because again, a couple million people do not have power at this point. Governor DeSantis said they absolutely expect to have mortality again, nobody knows the death toll at this point from this storm for his part. President Biden did a good thing yesterday. He was asked about Florida and Governor DeSantis and his relationship with DeSantis. He was visiting FEMA and, and he said that it's not worth politicizing all of this that he and Governor Desant still working together, which is exactly what the president is supposed to say. How would you describe your relationship and your conversation with Governor DeSantis? It's totally irrelevant, but I'll answer it. Okay. In fact, very fine. He complimented me. He thanked me for the immediate response we had. He told me how much he appreciated it. Said he was extremely happy with what was going on. This is not about whether anything having to do with our disagreements politically, this is about saving people's lives, homes, and businesses. That's what this is about. And so I've been, I've talked to him four or five times already and it's not a matter of my disagreements with them on other items That is absolutely correct from the President and good for him. He couldn't resist a little bit of jab about climate change because no one on the left can resist a jab about climate change despite the fact that once again there's no evidence that hurricanes have become either more common or more intense around Florida thanks to climate change. That is not, not according to me, that is na. That is according to the head of the National Oceanographic Institute for the United States, the head of the Hurricane Center. Anyway, here is Joe Biden, Our commitment to tackling the climate crisis which threatens all of us. We're seeing the consequences of climate change around the world very vividly, including in the United States right now. And and I know your nations feel it acutely and for you all it's an existential threat. Some members of the media can't help but go after Rhonda. The New York Times had a piece on front page of their website going after the governor of Florida. Why? Because you voted against a boondoggle hurricane relief bill. That was not Hurricane relief bill during Hurricane Sandy. So the New York Times is now just trying to ret con what happened during Hurricane Sandy. If you recall, there was a bill that was put forward by the House and Senate Republicans that was just aid for Hurricane Sandy that was voted for by all the Republicans. And then there was this enormous bill that included an extraordinary amount of pork that the Democrats put forward and many Republicans voted against that. So the New York Times now claims that when Ron DeSantis was in Congress, he voted against aid for Sandy. That is not true. He voted in favor of aid for Sandy. He voted against a bill that included a bunch of other crap in it. But the New York Times headline quote, DeSantis once a no on storm aid petitions a president, he's bashed. So let me just get this straight. If the President of the United States is somebody that you politically oppose, your no longer allowed to access the resources available from fema. So just to get this straight, if you were a Democratic governor during Donald Trump, you are not allowed to petition the federal government. In fact, I remember during covid every blue governor begging the federal government for resources and the idea was that if, if Trump didn't give them the resources, it was because it was political and bad. But after Santi even asked for the resources according to the New York Times, this means that his political and hypocrite sees how this dumb game works for the New York Times. Matt flag inheimer reporting as a freshman congressman in 2013, Ronda Sis was unambiguous, a federal bailout for the New York region after Hurricane Sandy was an irresponsible Bos ale a symbol of the put it on the credit card mentality. He come to Washington to oppose. He said he, I sympathized with the victims. But his answer was no. Nearly a decade later, as his state confronts the devastation and costly destruction brought by Hurricane Ian, Mr. Desant is appealing to the nations at better angels and betting on its short memory. Well, no, he's not betting on his short memory. He literally voted in favor of a certain amount of a for Hurricane Sandy, but Barack Obama and the Democrats crammed through a bill that was way more a than was necessary for Hurricane Sandy. This is a very open debate at the time, but again, the goal of the New York Times here is to suggest that Rhonda is suddenly a socialist that Rhonda is suddenly a fan of big government Hoo woohoohoo. It's, it's the stupidest form of politics here because FEMA exists. FEMA is funded, FEMA was created specifically for this thing, and now FEMA is bringing its resources to bear the, the debate over whether the federal government should be involved in solving state level issues like this. Right? That debate I think should be open theoretically, but it has not been open on a practical level since, as I said yesterday about 1895 for a very, very long time in the United States, there's been an understanding the federal government is going to bring its resources to bear when there's a major natural disaster in the United States. This has been true for well over a hundred years. And so this notion that Ron DeSantis is doing something unprecedented or evil or violative of his principles by as the governor of the state saying to fema, an institution created just for this, we need your help on this one is absurd. It's also absurd because again, they're ret conning this thing because the, the notion that that Hurricane Sandy was, was the, was the breaking point for DeSantis and DeSantis didn't vote for it. He did vote for aid, he just didn't vote for all of the pork. In a local interview that year, DeSantis said the bill contained extraneous stuff that could not be classified as emergency spending. He said, I never made the point of saying we shouldn't do anything. He did support in favor of relief package that was like 17 billion for Hurricane Sandy. Governor DeSantis supported an aid package in 2017 after hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria as places like Florida, Texas and Puerto Rico strains recover. So a again, this this is a very stupid article by the New York Times, but this is perfectly typical of the New York Times and the media looking for some sort of excuse to go after Governor DeSantis. And of course you have Joy read the dumbest form of left wing commentator on the air over on MSNBC doing the same thing. When Ron DeSantis had the opportunity to make that decision and say, Well should the people of New York and New Jersey who were hit by a catastrophic hurricane, they weren't even used to, They're not even in Florida, they're used to. He said, no, that shouldn't happen. He, Marco Rubio and other tea party members, Senate and House said they shouldn't have that money. It's too expensive. And now as you said, he's now gotta go hand in hand to Joe Biden for a That's right. It's something he didn't even believe in as a tea partier. Okay, I'm sorry, that's just a lie. But they continue to lie because after all Rhonda is a very, very bad man. And so they have to continue to promulgate the idea that Rhonda is a very, very bad man. Again, we're not gonna know the extent to which the Florida government has done a good job on this hurricane until probably a week or two out. But as I said at the very beginning of this, the media is gonna be looking for any indicator, any indicator at all that Rhonda is in personally repelling from helicopters in order to save dogs in Fort Myers in order to demonstrate that he's not fit to run for the presidency in 2024 because they're scared of the governor of Florida. And so they're just making things up at this point. Well, meanwhile, controversy has broken out over my friend and colleague here, Jordan Peterson. He went on Pierce Morgan's show and he was asked specifically about Olivia Wilds brand new movie, Don't Worry darling, which is getting just excoriated by the critics, which is a shocker because she is one of the protected people. Olivia Wild, she's a feminist hero and it doesn't matter that that this feminist hero made the actual star of that film Florence Pew apparently extraordinarily uncomfortable onset because she was banging Florence Pew's co-star Harry Styles. None of that matters because Olivia Wild is a feminist hero for making a movie that basically suggests that men wanna put women back in the kitchen like it's the 1950s, et cetera. Well, the movie, don't worry darling. Apparently one of the stars, Chris Pine, according to Olivia Wild is, is basically playing Jordan Peterson, right? He's supposed to be a cult leader who's, who's trying to create a, a mental, I don't even give any spoilers for this dumb movie, but apparently he's trying to create some sort of mental system that people live in kind of virtual reality whereby young men can essentially train women to be put back into the kitchen and that's what Jordan Peterson wants. And so she says that that character that Chris Pine cult leader character is based on Jordan Peterson. So Jordan was asked about this by appear Morgan over on Sky News and he got rather emotional about the idea that he should not be attempting to reach out and help disaffected young men. Here is what Jordan had to say, The film director Olivia Wild, as a new movie out, which she says he is based on you this insane man, the pseudo intellectual hero to the intel community, Intel being these weirdo loner men who are despicable in many ways is that you, are you the intellectual hero to these people? Sure, why not? You know, people have been after me for a long time by because I've been speaking to disaffected young men. You know what a terrible thing to do that is? I thought the marginalized were supposed to have a voice Just making you emotional talk about it. Well, God, you know, it's very difficult to understand how demoralized people are and certainly many young men are in that category and you get these casual insults, these these insults is what does they mean? It's like, well, these men there, they don't know how to make themselves attractive to women who are very picky and good for them. Women like be picky. That's, that's your gift man. Demand high standards from your men. Fair enough. But all these men who are alienated, it's like they're lonesome and and and they don't know what to do and everyone piles abuse on them. So the fact that Jordan gets emotional in favor of these young men that he's attempting to give a sense of purpose, this is what the media and the and the left have jumped on. So there's a great hypocrisy here, right? The media and the left, they suggest that masculinity, traditional masculinity is bad because traditional masculinity doesn't allow you to show your feelings. Then here's Jordan Peterson, a hero to a lot of young men because he stands in favor of traditional masculinity and masculine roles and he is getting openly emotional, right? He's tearing up while talking about these people who are disaffected. So he's demonstrating to them that emotionality in public is actually not the end of the world and the left is angry at him for that. But this goes to a broader point that is really dangerous in American life right now and that is that a huge swath of elite opinion makers in the United States, a huge swath of our media, many members of the political left, they have decided that there's an entirely dispensable portion of the population and this is young disaffected men and that is having a radical impact on how people live. I'm not just talking about men here, I'm talking about women too. It turns out that women are generally not in favor of androgynous feminized men. They do not like it. These statistics on female happiness over the course of the last half century have not demonstrated increased female happiness with the androgyn nation of gender. They have not created extraordinary levels of female happiness with later marriage unless childbearing and rearing. It's not good for women, it's particularly not good for men. The stats on men right now are devastating in the United States. David Brooks has a piece today in the New York Times titled The Crisis of Men and Boys. He says, If you've been paying attention to the social trends, you probably have some inkling that boys and men are struggling in the United States and across the globe. They're struggling in the classroom. American girls are 14 percentage points more likely to be school ready than boys at age five. Controlling for parental characteristics by high school, two thirds of the students in the top 10% of the class ranked by GPA girls, roughly two thirds of the students at the lowest dec decile are boys in 2020 at the 16 top American law schools, not a single one of the flagship law reviews had a man as editor in chief. Men are struggling in the workplace, one in three American men with only a high school diploma. 10 million men is now out of the labor force. The biggest drop in employment is among young men. Aged 25 to 34 men who entered the workforce in 1983 will earn about 10% less in real terms in their lifetimes than those who started one generation earlier. Over the same period, women's lifetime earnings have increased 33%. Pretty much all of the income gains middle class American families have enjoyed since 1970 are because of increases in women's women's earnings. Now all of that would be perfectly well and good if the net happiness here were up. It is not. Men are also struggling physically. Men count for close to three out of every four deaths of despair, suicide and drug overdoses for every 100 middle-aged women who die of covid up to mid, mid-September 2021, there are 184 middle-aged men who died. Richard Reeves, new Book of Boys and Men is a landmark, one of the most important books of the year. Not only because it's a comprehensive look at male at the male crisis, but also because it searches for the roots of that crisis and offers solutions, policies and programs designed to promote social mobility often work for women but not men. Reeves a scholar at the Bookings institution that's a liberal think tank visited Kalamazoo, Michigan, where thanks to a donor, high school graduates get to go to colleges in the state for free. The program increased the number of women getting college degrees by 45%. The men's graduation rates remain flat. Reeves list a whole series of programs from early childhood education to college support efforts that produced impressive gains for women but did not boost men. There are many reasons men are struggling according to David Brooks for example, that decline in manufacturing jobs that put a high value on physical strength, the rise of service sector jobs. But I was struck by the theme of demoralization. The wafts through the book, Reeves talked to men in Kalamazoo about why women were leaping ahead. They said women are more motivated, work harder, plan ahead better. But this isn't a matter of individual responsibility. There's something in modern culture that is producing an aspiration gap. Many men just seem less ambitious. More men are leading haphazard and lonely lives. Roughly 15% of men say have no close friends up from 3% in 1991 in five fathers doesn't live with his children. In 2014, more young men were living with their parents than with a wife or partner. Apparently even many who are married are not ideal mates. Wives are twice. Wives are now twice as likely to initiate divorces as their husband. So David Brook says, ambition doesn't just happen, it has to be fired. The culture is still searching for a modern, masculine ideal. It is not instilling in many boys the nurturing and emotional skills that are so desperately important today. A system that labels more than a fifth of all boys developmentally disabled is not instilling in them a sense of confidence and confidence. Masculinity has gone haywire and then of course he has the obligatory cause. He's David Brooks rip on Republicans reverting to pseudo cartoons like Donald Trump and Josh Hall doesn't help. What I was completely unaware that the alternatives here were the complete feminisation of men and Donald Trump. Like I love that he, he's unwilling to acknowledge the obvious. What has happened here is the sexual revolution has castrated men in in terms of their ambition, in terms of their mobility. That is what the sexual revolution did and it did not make women happier. That is the dirty little secret here. The second wave, third wave feminist movement did not make women happier and it made men a lot unha unhappier and, and what we are seeing here is the impact of that. David Brooks is afraid to say it because if you say that sort of thing, people get very angry at you. You violated the rules. Now, I'm not making the case that women shouldn't be in the workplace, that they shouldn't be able to get the jobs that they want. I'm making the case. The traditional social roles, traditional gender roles absolutely matter. Again, I will say my wife as a perfect example of this, my wife is a doctor, she's a primary care physician. I took care of the kids while she was in medical school. I remember at seven o'clock every night I would drive our two very young children. At the time, my daughter was all of about two and a half years old and my son was a newborn and I would drive them to the hospital where she was in residency so she could see them for like 25 minutes while she ate her dinner and then she would head back inside to the residency program. So I'm very much in favor of the idea that women should be able to work the jobs that they wanna work. Also, life is a balance and my wife does that beautifully. My wife took off time to take care of both of our kids when they were babies and now because she has the ability to, she wants to work part-time so she can spend more time with the kids. This is not a rare coincidence. This is, this is kind of the ideal life as women seek to live it, but the feminist movement has told women that all that is very bad. Having a husband is bad. It's a sign that you are weak as a woman. Having children is really bad. The height of being a woman is to have an abortion. I'm not just saying that, understand, I'm talking about the height of female aspiration. According to many members, the left is abortion for the women's March. Literally yesterday tweeted out, this is a direct quote, We are not just pro-choice. We are proudly, unapologetically pro-abortion. Hey, there's a difference there. They're not even saying women should be able to make the decisions with whatever you think of the pro-life versus pro-choice position. They're not even saying that. They're saying abortion is an absolute good. Women are doing something better for themselves if they decide not to engage in these roles and that's nothing new. I mean, that was something that was said by Simone W going all the way back to like the 1960s talking about the idea that women should be prohibited from childbearing and child's rearing because too many women, if allowed to make that decision, would make that decision and that would reinstill all of these social roles and values that actually make life worth living and make life quite beautiful in order to achieve complete equality and flattening. What you really need to do is prevent women from getting involved in marriage, getting involved in having kids. What you have to do is deprive men of their social role and deprive women of their social role and turn everybody into an inter interchangeable widget. And this has dramatic effects. The most obvious effects are on men. Wait to more on this in just one second. First, let's talk about the fact that people are feeling increasingly unsafe these days. Not just because of political polarization, but also because crime rates are actually up pretty significantly in a lot of major urban areas around the United States. But here is the thing, owning a gun under the second amendment is not enough. You have to know how to use it and you have to know when to use it and you have to have the legal protection if God forbid, you actually have to use it. That's why I'm a member of the US Concealed Carry Association. You should be as well right now the S e C is giving away a free concealed carry on family defense guide and a chance to win a thousand bucks to buy a firearm to protect yourself and your family a hundred percent free. Just text Ben to 8 7 2 2 2 to get started. In this 58 page defense guide, you'll learn how to detect attackers before they see you. What the U S C A has learned about school shootings, equipment and training basics about the law and justice systems, how to responsibly own and store a gun, particularly if you have little kids and a whole lot more text Ben to 8 7 2 2 2 for instant access to this free guide, enter for the chance to win a thousand bucks to put toward a firearm to protect your family. Again, text Ben to 87 2 2 2 right now and learn how to protect yourself in every available way. Again, text Ben to 8 7 2 2 2 to get started and get that instant access to that free guide from the US ccca. Also, if you own a business you've been just knocked about over the past several years thanks to first Covid, then Biden inflation, well you could probably use a break in innovation. Refunds can help. If your business has five or more employees and managed to survive covid, you could be eligible to receive a payroll tax rebate of up to $26,000 per employee. We're not talking alone. There's no payback. This is a refund on taxes that you probably shouldn't have paid in the first place. The challenge is how to get your hands on it. You need to go to get refunds.com. Their team of tax attorneys are highly trained in this little known payroll tax refund program. They've already returned a billion dollars to businesses. They can help you as well. They do all the work no charge upfront. They simply share a percentage of the cash they get for you. So it's totally risk free on your end. Businesses of all types can qualify, including those who took PPP nonprofits, even those that had increases in sales. As hema get refunds.com have already returned over a billion dollars to businesses they can help you as well. Just go to get refunds.com, click on qualify me, answer a few quick questions. This payroll tax refund is only available for a limited amount of time, so don't miss out. Go to get refunds.com. Again, that's get refunds.com and get refunds.com to get started today, the the the sexual revolutions effect on men has been extraordinarily bad. Now, there are a lot of men out there who took advantage of the sexual revolution. It turns out that sexual liberation really good for horny men, The availability of people to have sex with who are not married to skyrocketed. So for guys who wanted to have sex with lots and lots of partners, which is many, many men, this was just a, a boon. It was wonderful for them, but it also robbed men of their soul because the entire idea of traditional masculinity is that men have aggressive instincts. Men have aggressive physical sexual work instincts. Men are more aggressive. They have testosterone. This is evolutionary biology. This is not stereotyping. It's true among primates. It's drilling human beings. And because of that, we have evolved as a species, many institutions that are designed to channel that traditional masculine aggressive energy toward good purposes toward, toward defending hearth and home. I said this about the military got ripped earlier this week. Well, it's perfectly obvious that this is the case. That military service, for example, was a traditionally male pursuit and that was not a bad thing because men are the ones who are going to charge hills and kill each other on behalf of hearth and home. As a general rule throughout human history, there are exceptions because every rule has exceptions, but that does not mean the rule does not exist. So we created all of these institutions ranging from military service to fatherhood and the man staying in the home and monogamy and taking care of the kids. And we gave men roles that did not mean that we were supposed to let men get away with toxic masculinity. Toxic masculinity would be, you know, actual violence against women or being promiscuous or abandoning your children. We see a lot more toxic masculinity by the way, in the aftermath of the sexual revolution than we saw before because I consider it toxic masculinity to knock up a woman and then leave your child and abandon them. That's like the worst thing that you can do to a woman and to the child. And we see a lot of that these days and we're we're told that that is liberation. It's not liberation for the woman who's now taking care of the kid by herself and ain't liberation for the child who doesn't have a father. And it's not liberation for the man either, because it turns out that all it does is it frees him to be a perennial adolescent who is unhappy and useless. What Jordan Peterson says is the same thing that I say. The burdens that you take on in life, the obligations you take on in life with regard to roles and family and children, these are what liberate you. They are what give you fulfillment. We are a liberation centered society in which the only thing that matters is your interior feeling. At any given point in time. Fulfillment does not come from that interior sense of happiness at any given point in time. The man who eats tons of ice cream and dies at age 35, a heart attack because of morbid obesity, did not live a happy life. Even though every time he ate the ice cream, he felt really good about himself. We, we've all human beings have always understood for literally all the time that there is a difference between the immediate joy of doing a thing that brings you happiness and the lifelong joy of taking on obligations that are very difficult and then make your life worse in many ways. But in the end, make your life a hell of a lot better. That's what it's like to be married. That's what it's like to have kids. You give up something and what you get in return is something far greater. And then we blew up those institutions in the name of this liberal utopian ideal of adamistic individualism in which the sexual identity that you take on is the most important thing in life. That is the only thing that matters in life. And again, the results have been dire. They've been disastrous for western civilization as a whole. Nicholas Eberst has a good book out called Men Without Work. He works at American Enterprise Institute and that book is based on an essay he wrote in January of 2018 talking about how American men are simply falling apart. He says, the catastrophe is the collapse of work for men in the half century. Between 1965 and 2015, work rates for the American male spiraled relentlessly downward. An ominous migration commenced a flight from work. In whichever greater numbers of working age men exited the labor force altogether. America is now home to an ever-growing army of jobless men no longer even looking for work. Over 7 million between ages 25 and 55, the traditional prime of working life. Now, there are some people who are blaming offshoring of jobs to China, right to see easy, convenient, convenient excuse. But the reality is we have far more open jobs in this country than we have people who are willing to seek those open jobs. That was, that's been true for years in the United States. The labor force participation rate in this country is in the mid sixties. We're talking for working age people in the United States. We have literally millions and millions, maybe tens of millions of men who are on disability, who are not in fact disabled. We have tons of men who are unemployment who don't need to be on unemployment. How big is our men without work problem today, consider a single fact. In 2015, the work rate for American males aged 25 to 54 was slightly lower than it had been in 1940 at the tail end of the Great Depression. Hey, we're talking when the overall unemployment rate in 1940 was like 11% in the United States. Now in 2015, you have an overall unemployment rate of like 5% and you still have a work rate that is lower for men than in 1940. According to the latest official jobs report data available in 2018, the work rate for prime age men in November, 2017 was still below the 1940 level. The progressive detachment of ever larger numbers of adult men from the reality and routines of regular paid labor poses a self-evident threat to our nation's future prosperity. It can only result in lower living standards, greater economic disparities and slower economic growth than we might otherwise expect. The troubles posed by the male flight from work says Nicky Bursad are by no means solely economic. It's also a social crisis and a moral crisis. The growing and capability of grown men to function as breadwinners cannot help but undermine the American family. By the way, you know what creates the capacity for men to to act as breadwinners, marriage, family obligations, people who lean on you. And so the idea of radical independence where people don't lean on each other, I lean on my wife, she leans on me. That is the nature of the marriage. In Hebrew, the the word for love is ahava, right? The, the root of that word is ha, which means to give the root of love is giving. And one thing that you can give your spouse is your vulnerability. One thing that you can give your spouse is a sense that you need your spouse. The notion that spouses are people who actually don't need each other, they just sort of get together for a contractual arrangement. It's not true. It has never been true. And modern society, once you do that, then actually you get far less out of a marriage than you are putting into the marriage. There's no reason to get married at all. You're basically roommates who have sex with one another that's not a basis on which to build a happy life among those who should be most capable of shouldering burdens of civic responsibilities. All of this says Nicky Bursad encourages sloth, idleness and vices, perhaps more insidious, whether we choose to recognize it or not. This feature of the American condition, the new men without work normal is inimicable inimical to our tradition. It's subversive of our national ethos, arguably even of our civilization. You wanna know why you have seen vast increases in pornography use among young men in the United States? It is not mirror availability, it is also because they're not involved in institutions like family, like church that actually give them something to do. You want to know why men are increasingly abusing drugs? This would be the reason you wanna know why suicide out suicidal ideation is up among men. This would be the reason. Going all the way back to Emil Durkheim, there's been a widespread sociological understanding that societal institutions he in and provide a rationale for existence. When you blow up all of those rules, which is what the sexual revolution was about, it wasn't about establishing anything good or new, it's about the idea that you have to blow up all these things because all rules and rules are inhibitions that are placed upon your true self. Well, what if your true self, that aimless, formless, chaotic sexual impulse? What if that doesn't make you happy? And what if a society that pushes that is not geared toward human happiness? What if it's offering you the sugar high, but then you die of morbid obesity at age 35? Because that's exactly what's going on in our society right now. And you can see it pretty much everywhere and you can see it in the way that that companies now market. And so for example, Virgin Airlines put out an ad talking about how they are the queerest airline. This is the thing they're very, very proud of because your identity is in apparently the clothes that you wear, your sexual activity, your gender identity. It is, it is not in actually like a, a social role and, and reinstilling that social role because remember, there are children on these flights are now gonna be asking mommy and daddy why it is that men are wearing women's clothing and pretending to be women. No, it's, it's all about the idea that you all human beings are basically fully formed adults who are allowed to and should act as children with regards to their sexual impulse. That is the thing that matters. Most of all. The world is supposed to reflect you. Social roles are an inhibition. The world is supposed to reflect your innermost identity, and that's the case over at Virgin Airlines. It says your identity, your choice because they're now allowing all of the members of their, of their staff to dress in whatever they want. And so now you've got women who are dressing as men and men who are dressing as women. Our new uniform codes as Virgin Airlines, Virgin Atlantic, see the world, ah, well it isn't that great. And then you have a man who is dressed in women's clothing. At the end of that, again, when you completely obliterate the distinction between the sexes, you lose the rationale for there being different sexes. You lose the social institutions that have evolved over the course of literally hundreds of thousands of years. When you have the Planned Parenthood director of Transcare out there saying, in a well-accepted viewpoint on the left, now that men get pregnant. If there's no distinction between men and women, then what exactly is the role of men and what exactly is the role of women and why should men take on additional obligation? Here's the, here's the testimony of Planned Parenthoods, Director of Transcare, Dr. Baic Kumar. Dr. Kumar, can biological men become pregnant and give birth So men can have pregnancies, especially trans men? Okay, so the question was, can a biological man give birth? And the, and the noted doctor here just ignores the question entirely and pretends that men can have babies and give birth roles matter. Rules matter because these are things that give us purpose in life. A man on a desert island by himself has no rules. He has no rules. He's also going to be a deeply unhappy human being. Without those rules, without any sort of purpose or meaning, people fall apart. And this is why what we're seeing now is an upswing sort of return to the idea that maybe some more traditional forms of, for example, court chip might be a good thing. We'll get to that in just one second. First folks finding the perfect t-shirt, it's a, it's a rough experience. Sometimes it's too light or too loose or it just wears out in the wash some, some material is too thick. That's why I'm glad I have now found true classic tees. True classic makes a man look good and feel good. We're not talking boxy fit or loose collars. Their shirts fit how they're supposed to fit. You know, like a little bit tighter in the chest and sleeves, the leading room in the torso for that relaxed t-shirt feel right, They make you look better. And my listeners can get 25% off true classic tees with code [email protected]. So most men's t-shirts are designed to look good on guys who work out like eight hours a day. But true classic is actually designed to look good on people who are like normal people who have jobs and lives. True classic tees taper off toward the bottom if it tighter around the chest and the shoulders, which again is the flattering look. All of their styles are super soft, reasonably priced for high quality and they're more than just a t-shirt company. True Classic has all the men's wear staples you need. We're talking polos, workout shirts, Boxer breach. You can build your entire wardrobe with them, plus they have a pack builder on their website where you can custom bundle their essential products and save even more on top of that 25% discount. I'm wearing two classic tees and lemme tell you, I really, really enjoy it. If you were like me a few months back and you needed to refresh that wardrobe, check out true classic.com. Use promo code Ben, get 25% off plus free shipping on purchase over a hundred bucks. That's true. classic.com promo code Ben True classic offers a 100% risk free guarantee. The 30 day return policy true classic.com promo code Ben, true classic. When you look good, you feel good. All right, so I'm gonna speak to a segment in my audience I've never directly addressed before. Frat guys s bros, I may not be one of you, but in some ways we're not so different. You and I we're both unfairly portrayed by the media and they're both among the men most hated by woke razor companies and leftist ideologies, which is unfortunate when you consider that frat raised millions of bucks every year for charity. One Virginia Tech frat alone raised $255,000 for St. Jude's Children's Hospital last year. So with that influence in mind, I thought I'd share an idea. I had, you know, Jeremy Razors contest to win the car. You know the one where you can win Jeremy's McLaren? Well, we get, you don't wanna shuttle everyone around in a two seater sports car. That's why if you win, you can take the $250,000 cash prize instead. Wow. I'm sure your imagination will paint a picture of all the fun and good a quarter million bucks could do for you, you and your friends. Listen, most of the top players in the contest still have not hit the 10 referral mark, so there's plenty of opportunity for you to jump into the race and take all that cash. Just go to jeremy's razors.com/play to get your referral link. Come November 1st, 2022. We'll see which of you is the most woke free frat in America. Terms and conditions do apply. So, and it turns out that blowing up roles isn't always the most wonderful thing for humanity. The media have been attempting to sort of bury the lead in this particular story, but apparently the US Army's first transgender officer and his wife, a Maryland doctor were indicted on conspiracy charges Wednesday for allegedly attempting to transfer confidential military medical information to Russia. The eight count indictment was en sealed Thursday upon the arrest of the defendants major Jamie Lee Henry and anesthesiologist Anna Gabrielle, according to a Department of Justice press release, the army granted Henry's request to officially change his name in accordance with his gender preference. In 2015, prior to Henry's case, identifying as a sex different than the one on one's birth certificate made soldier unfit for military service warranting discharge. Gabrielle worked at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine referred to as medical institution one in the indictment located in Baltimore, Maryland. Henry, who's also a doctor, worked as a staff internist station at Fort Bragg. The pair are accused of stealing patient health files from Johns Hopkins in Fort Bragg and giving them to an individual they believe to be working for the Russian government. So, so much historicness happening in the US Army. That is just that, that is excellent stuff. Okay, so here's the thing. As we blow up all of these traditional gender roles, as we blow all this up, and as people become more unhappy, as men drop outta the workforce, lose their purpose, as women become essentially working widgets, they become the inputs for capitalist growth without actually fulfilling many of the things that drive women in life. And they're lied to by the feminist movement, by the way, they're told they could have it all. It turns out you cannot because the one thing on on planet earth that is finite is time. You can always make more resources, you can always make more money, you cannot make more time, and so you actually have to balance your life. Well, it turns out people are really unhappy. And so there's now a, a new found embrace. You can't call it this, you can't say that it's traditional Juda Christian values. You can't say that because it alienates too many people, but there is a newfound embrace of that happening because again, those values are rooted in institutions that have been involved over the course of hundreds of thousands of years to be good for human beings. Really good essay today by a person in Macha Liebowitz, an editorial assistant over at the New York Times oped section called Dating is Broken, Going retro Could Fix It, quote among the traditional rights of an All-American high school experience is the taking and judging of your book photos. And in this, my All Girls Orthodox Jewish school is no exception. Our dialogue as we swap Prince was more fiddler on the roof than Sweet Valley High. Are you gonna use that for your shit? Resume? Shit Resume is how people basically date in the Orthodox Jewish community. So you put together a natural resume, but the picture on it and you submit it to what's called the con, which is like a third party person who then thinks of all the people they know who are your Asian, they fix them up because they're fixing you up not to have sex with one another. They're fixing you up for the possibility of shared values, marriage and children. In other words, dating with a purpose. It turns out that doing everything with a purpose is significantly better for human fulfillment than doing things without a purpose. All of Western life seems to be predicated now on the opposite purpose hems you in no purpose, makes you free, no purpose also makes you depressed in suicidal. As a general rule, it was a joke. Mostly the many of my peers, she says would go on to make the dating profiles favored by orthodox match makers. Most wouldn't do so for more than a few years. By then our 17 year old acne studied pun would be poor likenesses. But the joke reflected something that was true. Even as high schoolers, many of us knew how we planned to meet our spouses and it wasn't going to be the loosey goosey way. The secular world did it. Well there's also something else there. In Orthodox Jewish high school, you think about getting married, your 17, you're already thinking about marriage when you go to an orthodox Jewish high school. This is true in Catholic high schools as well. This is true in in religious Protestant high schools, basically religious. It's true in madrasas religious institutions in the United States. By the time you hit close to marriageable age, which is 18 and up, you're already thinking about marriage, which means that you're already thinking about the values, not just the looks, but the values of the person who you wanna be with. And this means that you are already channeling your life toward a particular purpose. You know, the highest purpose that we were put on God's green earth to do, which is to have children and raise them correctly says, says this columnist me call Libo. It's been odd the past several years watching the ways the secular mainstream has latched tentatively ishly onto traditional dating practices. There's the slew of matchmaking companies sorting out the lovely, so the rich and famous, the articles declaring matchmaking us hot again. The Netflix carousel filled with shows casting back to an older, if partly imagined vision of romance. Indian matchmaking married at first site, Bridger 10, a re acquaintance with more traditional forms of meeting and falling in love makes me hopeful. I see signs of a culture grasping for things that rightly needs in today's largely online world burnout, elpac and callousness defined dating, reflecting the values of a society that prizes individualism, privacy, and choice in nearly all things, including matters of the heart. But while dating is more convenient than it has ever been, people find dates while sitting on the toilet. It is clearly falling short. There are elements of traditional dating culture that can provide solutions not just to the way we find people to date, but also to the way we navigate relationships. Now here's the thing. What traditional dating does, because you are literally asking yourself, is this a person I wish to have children with? Because of that, this actually incentivizes men to be better. When it turns out that dating is just about the sexual pleasure to be obtained from a new partner at any given point, the most attractive of both sexes will tend to do the best, obviously when it comes to marriage. Now you can actually better yourself in certain ways. It's funny, I was watching a, a Bill Burr comedy special last night and he was talking about how women tear each other down, how they, how women are, are very nasty to each other privately. And then they will say to somebody, they'll say they're fat positive, they're body positive, but meanwhile behind their back they'll talk about how she just looks terrible. I would never look like that. But what, what Bill, Bill Burr says, he says, Women look at models very often. They're like, you know, that's setting up unrealistic expectations for men. And he says, Yeah, like every time I look at Brad Pitt on screen, he takes off his shirt. I'm not like, Man, they're setting up unrealistic expectations for me. He's like, I know I'm overweight, I'm bald, I'm orange. And so I had to get really good at comedy in order to get checks. Hey, this is actually the way, Put aside the the kind of comedic job description there. This is the way that men typically have better themselves to make yourself more attractive to the opposite sex. This means get an education, get a job, demonstrate that you are responsible. Do the things that would demonstrate that you are capable and, and worthy of having children with a particular one. By the way, exactly what Jordan Peterson says. He says, Women should be picky. In fact, one of the bigger problems right now is that women are not particular pick particularly picky about the men that they date. Because they're not dating from errors, they're not dating for kids. So what does that mean? It means no one is actually dating with an eye toward upping their, their social value as an aspect of getting married, as an aspect of, of having kids. Purpose is not part of the equation. This columnist for the New York Times with Hollywood says, it's worth asking, is it time to court again? In October, 2019, Pew conducted a survey to understand Americans' attitudes toward romantic relationships. Most daters told Pew their romantic lives weren't going well. Three quarters of respondent said it was difficult to find people to date. When asked why finding date was so difficult, reasons varied by gender women to say it's challenging to find someone who meets their expectations or is looking for the same type of relationship. Men mostly said they have trouble approaching people. These complaints that seem counterintuitive. Internet dating promises and abundance of choice to meet any standard or profusion of filters to suit any relationship, low barriers to reaching out, to relieve any anxiety. But now, as I found when I talked to people about what it's like to date, the theoretical abundance of options filters, low barriers to engagement doesn't translate to high quality Interactions. Instead, date find themselves caught in a cycle of unanswered messages and dead end interactions contributing to ubiquitous feeling of dating app burnout. Again, this is because men and women are typically looking for different things when they are dating, unless you have institutions that incentivize men to look for the correct things when they are dating. Yes, that institution of marriage, It turns out that the general societal standard that applied for most of human history, which was you are supposed to, you're supposed to put off your sex life until you get married, that this was a really good disincentive to men simply looking to get laid, that they were actually gonna have to sacrifice at something and demonstrate that they were worthwhile. It's an amazing thing. Macau Leewood says, one of the ironies of modern dating is that while it's not uncommon to date for months or even years without broaching, the big questions about marriage and children, other forms of intimacy tend to be embraced more quickly. Almost all Americans have sex before getting married. That's been true for decades. But the normalization of casual sex is newer. It's not clear. Newer norms around having sex casually or very soon after meeting are really helping those who ultimately want lasting committed relationships. I remember noting this while watching friends back in the 1990s in the religious community. Here's how it goes. You fall in love, you get married, you have sex, right? That is the order of events in traditional communities, fall in love, get married, have sex, and in the most traditional community, sometimes it is get married, fall in love, have sex, right? Like sometimes that, but sex is the the last thing you do in the modern community. The way that it works is have sex. Maybe fall in love and maybe, maybe you may get married. So you'll have a, you'll have the most intimate relationship that you can have with a person, and then you'll be like, Man, I'm really nervous about saying I love you. You wonder why things are failing. You wonder why women are unhappy and men are purposeless. I can't imagine why. I can't imagine why the sexual revolution has crippled men and women. It is made men and women both unhappier. And so no matter how pissed the left is at Jordan Peterson, the reason they're really pissed at Jordan Peterson is he's reminding them of a simple fact. These social standards that they have said was the bargain, right? You're supposed to blow up all these institutions. You're supposed to completely reshape society around a promise. Jordan is noting that the cost of that promise is really high, and it's not just to quote unquote in cells. It's to everyone. And that's why people are pissed at Jordan. It's why people are angry at Jordan. That's why people are angry at me for saying stuff like this. But reality always wins. Reality always wins. And the utopian stupidity of atic individualism when it comes to sexual liberation is crippling societies. Those societies are falling apart. That shouldn't be a shock. When you run directly into the teeth of reality. Reality tends to bite. Alright, guys, the rest of the show is continuing Now. You're not gonna wanna miss it. We'll be getting into Vladi Putin, ramping up the aggression, plus Berkeley. Apparently it now has a Jew free zone. If you're not a member, click the link in the description and join us.

right

ep man woman unhappy publish rss feed m bring late hurricane ian new york times unleash hit piece florida governor ron desantis analyze man woman increasingly unhappy post sexual revolution era vladimir putin verge unprecedented aggression m bero today sponsor express vpn like web history see sell advertiser express vpn right express vpncomben spend money right s area start cut cost smart way cell phone bill big provider verizon t tmobile charge money shady not need datum need switch cell phone service pure talk pure talk unlimited talk text gig datum buck month big saving family s grocery money gas money pure talk raise rate switch pure talk average family save buck month begin add pretty quickly customer realize simply not need datum think hundred thousand make switch pure talk today switch pure talk special discount month coverage head pure talkcom choose plan enter code shapiro special offer s pure talkcom enter code shapiro month pure talkcom use special promo code shapiro month coverage stop pay big guy money spend money marketing basis value not agree head pure talk right lot people california new york d like ban future purchase new vehicle power gas mean car go to valuable thank supply chain crisis mean need preserve car rock autocom rock autocom offer low price possible change price base market bear like airline part need good available price rock autocom family own business serve auto part customer online year head rock autocom shop auto body part hundred manufacturer ve get engine control module brake part tail lamp motor oil new carpet classic daily driver need easy click deliver directly door rock autocom catalog remarkably easy navigate quickly part available car truck sure brand specification price prefer good price reliably low spend twice part head rock autocom right part available car truck s rock autocom sure write shapiro hear box know send late news hurricane continue devastating obviously strike hurricane ian west coast florida dire consequence hundred people apparently miss florida government excellent job ensure resource bring bear emergency team ground essentially right away look people try help survivor state mobilize term state resource term private charity pretty private institution florida mobilize try gather food resource people power west coast florida storm hurricane continue actually swirl east coast united states go to landfall south carolina fact hurricane point accord washington post ian hurricane storm system intensify thursday evening turn south carolina mile hour wind national hurricane center call lifethreatening flooding storm surge landfall time near charleston midday friday wake ian leave path devastation florida state make sense exact toll rescue emission begin thursday evening briefing governor ron desantis say expect mortality hurricane confirm rescue far speak indescribable damage include building pick foundation intense wind million customer remain power florida virginia georgia north carolina south carolina governor declare state emergency ahead ian expect shift direction rhonda san yesterday visit hurricane relief center florida s go to lot people need help know guy line wanna thank tomorrow probably know day help guy need know people know ill sure kevin get thank everybody appreciate s attempt rescue people stick place like fort myer people stay home not leave bad decision stay home s attempt power couple million people power point governor desantis say absolutely expect mortality know death toll point storm president biden good thing yesterday ask florida governor desantis relationship desantis visit fema say worth politicize governor desant work exactly president suppose describe relationship conversation governor desantis totally irrelevant ill answer okay fact fine compliment thank immediate response tell appreciate say extremely happy go have disagreement politically save people live home business s ve ve talk time matter disagreement item absolutely correct president good not resist little bit jab climate change left resist jab climate change despite fact s evidence hurricane common intense florida thank climate change accord na accord head national oceanographic institute united states head hurricane center joe biden commitment tackle climate crisis threaten see consequence climate change world vividly include united states right know nation feel acutely existential threat member medium not help rhonda new york times piece page website go governor florida vote boondoggle hurricane relief bill hurricane relief bill hurricane sandy new york times try ret con happen hurricane sandy recall bill forward house senate republicans aid hurricane sandy vote republicans enormous bill include extraordinary pork democrats forward republicans vote new york times claim ron desantis congress vote aid sandy true vote favor aid sandy vote bill include bunch crap new york times headline quote desantis storm aid petition president s bash let straight president united states somebody politically oppose long allow access resource available fema straight democratic governor donald trump allow petition federal government fact remember covid blue governor beg federal government resource idea trump not resource political bad santi ask resource accord new york times mean political hypocrite see dumb game work new york times matt flag inheimer reporting freshman congressman ronda sis unambiguous federal bailout new york region hurricane sandy irresponsible bo ale symbol credit card mentality come washington oppose say sympathize victim answer nearly decade later state confront devastation costly destruction bring hurricane ian mr desant appeal nation well angel bet short memory s bet short memory literally vote favor certain hurricane sandy barack obama democrats cram bill way necessary hurricane sandy open debate time goal new york time suggest rhonda suddenly socialist rhonda suddenly fan big government hoo woohoohoo stupid form politic fema exist fema fund fema create specifically thing fema bring resource bear debate federal government involve solve state level issue like right debate think open theoretically open practical level say yesterday long time united states s understanding federal government go bring resource bear s major natural disaster united states true year notion ron desantis unprecedented evil violative principle governor state say fema institution create need help absurd absurd ret con thing notion hurricane sandy break point desantis desantis not vote vote aid not vote pork local interview year desantis say bill contain extraneous stuff classify emergency spending say point say not support favor relief package like billion hurricane sandy governor desantis support aid package hurricane harvey irma maria place like florida texas puerto rico strains recover stupid article new york time perfectly typical new york times medium look sort excuse governor desantis course joy read dumb form left wing commentator air msnbc thing ron desantis opportunity decision people new york new jersey hit catastrophic hurricane not florida say not happen marco rubio tea party members senate house say not money expensive say s get to hand hand joe biden s right not believe tea partier okay m sorry s lie continue lie rhonda bad man continue promulgate idea rhonda bad man go to know extent florida government good job hurricane probably week say beginning medium go to look indicator indicator rhonda personally repel helicopter order save dog fort myer order demonstrate s fit run presidency scared governor florida make thing point controversy break friend colleague jordan peterson go pierce morgans ask specifically olivia wilds brand new movie not worry darling getting excoriate critic shocker protect people olivia wild s feminist hero not matter feminist hero actual star film florence pew apparently extraordinarily uncomfortable onset bang florence pews costar harry style matter olivia wild feminist hero make movie basically suggest man wanna woman kitchen like et cetera movie not worry darling apparently star chris pine accord olivia wild basically play jordan peterson right s suppose cult leader s s try create mental not spoiler dumb movie apparently s try create sort mental system people live kind virtual reality young man essentially train woman kitchen s jordan peterson want say character chris pine cult leader character base jordan peterson jordan ask appear morgan sky news get emotional idea attempt reach help disaffect young man jordan film director olivia wild new movie say base insane man pseudo intellectual hero intel community intel weirdo loner man despicable way intellectual hero people sure know people long time ve speak disaffect young man know terrible thing think marginalize suppose voice make emotional talk god know difficult understand demoralized people certainly young man category casual insult insult mean like man not know attractive woman picky good woman like picky s s gift man demand high standard man fair man alienate like lonesome not know pile abuse fact jordan get emotional favor young man s attempt sense purpose medium left jump s great hypocrisy right medium left suggest masculinity traditional masculinity bad traditional masculinity not allow feeling heres jordan peterson hero lot young man stand favor traditional masculinity masculine role get openly emotional right s tear talk people disaffect s demonstrate emotionality public actually end world left angry go broad point dangerous american life right huge swath elite opinion maker united states huge swath medium member political left decide s entirely dispensable portion population young disaffected man have radical impact people live m talk man m talk woman turn woman generally favor androgynous feminize man like statistic female happiness course half century demonstrate increase female happiness androgyn nation gender create extraordinary level female happiness later marriage childbeare rear good woman particularly good man stat man right devastating united states david brooks piece today new york times title crisis man boy say ve pay attention social trend probably inkling boy man struggle united states globe struggle classroom american girl percentage point likely school ready boy age control parental characteristic high school third student class rank gpa girl roughly third student low dec decile boy american law school single flagship law review man editor chief man struggle workplace american man high school diploma million man labor force big drop employment young man age man enter workforce earn real term lifetime start generation early period women lifetime earning increase pretty income gain middle class american family enjoy increase women womens earning perfectly good net happiness man struggle physically man count close death despair suicide drug overdose middleage woman die covid mid midseptember middleaged man die richard reeve new book boy man landmark important book year comprehensive look male male crisis search root crisis offer solution policy program design promote social mobility work woman man reeve scholar booking institution s liberal think tank visit kalamazoo michigan thank donor high school graduate college state free program increase number woman get college degree men graduation rate remain flat reeve list series program early childhood education college support effort produce impressive gain woman boost man reason man struggle accord david brooks example decline manufacturing job high value physical strength rise service sector job strike theme demoralization waft book reeve talk man kalamazoo woman leap ahead say woman motivated work hard plan ahead well not matter individual responsibility s modern culture produce aspiration gap man ambitious man lead haphazard lonely live roughly man close friend father not live child young man live parent wife partner apparently married ideal mate wife twice wife twice likely initiate divorce husband david brook say ambition not happen fire culture search modern masculine ideal instill boy nurture emotional skill desperately important today system label fifth boy developmentally disabled instill sense confidence confidence masculinity go haywire course obligatory cause s david brooks rip republicans revert pseudo cartoon like donald trump josh hall not help completely unaware alternative complete feminisation man donald trump like love s unwilling acknowledge obvious happen sexual revolution castrate man term ambition term mobility sexual revolution woman happy dirty little secret second wave wave feminist movement woman happy man lot unha unhappy see impact david brooks afraid sort thing people angry violate rule m make case woman not workplace not able job want m make case traditional social role traditional gender role absolutely matter wife perfect example wife doctor s primary care physician take care kid medical school remember seven oclock night drive young child time daughter half year old son newborn drive hospital residency like minute eat dinner head inside residency program m favor idea woman able work job wanna work life balance wife beautifully wife take time care kid baby ability want work parttime spend time kid rare coincidence kind ideal life woman seek live feminist movement tell woman bad have husband bad sign weak woman have child bad height woman abortion m say understand m talk height female aspiration accord member left abortion women march literally yesterday tweet direct quote prochoice proudly unapologetically proabortion hey s difference say woman able decision think prolife versus prochoice position say say abortion absolute good woman well decide engage role s new mean say simone w go way like talk idea woman prohibit childbeare child rear woman allow decision decision reinstill social role value actually life worth live life beautiful order achieve complete equality flatten need prevent woman get involve marriage get involve have kid deprive man social role deprive woman social role turn everybody int interchangeable widget dramatic effect obvious effect man wait second let talk fact people feel increasingly unsafe day political polarization crime rate actually pretty significantly lot major urban area united states thing own gun second amendment know use know use legal protection god forbid actually use s m member conceal carry association right s e c give away free conceal carry family defense guide chance win thousand buck buy firearm protect family percent free text ben start page defense guide ll learn detect attacker u s c learn school shooting equipment training basic law justice system responsibly store gun particularly little kid lot text ben instant access free guide enter chance win thousand buck firearm protect family text ben right learn protect available way text ben start instant access free guide ccca business ve knock past year thank covid biden inflation probably use break innovation refund help business employee manage survive covid eligible receive payroll tax rebate employee talk s payback refund taxis probably not pay place challenge hand need refundscom team tax attorney highly train little known payroll tax refund program ve return billion dollar business help work charge upfront simply share percentage cash totally risk free end business type qualify include take ppp nonprofit increase sale hema refundscom return billion dollar business help refundscom click qualify answer quick question payroll tax refund available limited time not miss refundscom s refundscom refundscom start today sexual revolution effect man extraordinarily bad lot man take advantage sexual revolution turn sexual liberation good horny man availability people sex married skyrocket guy want sex lot lot partner man boon wonderful rob man soul entire idea traditional masculinity man aggressive instinct man aggressive physical sexual work instinct man aggressive testosterone evolutionary biology stereotype true primate drilling human being evolve specie institution design channel traditional masculine aggressive energy good purpose defend hearth home say military get rip early week perfectly obvious case military service example traditionally male pursuit bad thing man one go charge hill kill behalf hearth home general rule human history exception rule exception mean rule exist create institution range military service fatherhood man stay home monogamy take care kid give man role mean suppose let man away toxic masculinity toxic masculinity know actual violence woman promiscuous abandon child lot toxic masculinity way aftermath sexual revolution see consider toxic masculinity knock woman leave child abandon s like bad thing woman child lot day tell liberation liberation woman s take care kid be not liberation child not father liberation man turn free perennial adolescent unhappy useless jordan peterson say thing burden life obligation life regard role family child liberate fulfillment liberation center society thing matter interior feeling give point time fulfillment come interior sense happiness give point time man eat ton ice cream die age heart attack morbid obesity live happy life time eat ice cream feel good ve human being understand literally time difference immediate joy thing bring happiness lifelong joy take obligation difficult life bad way end life hell lot well s like marry s like kid return far great blow institution liberal utopian ideal adamistic individualism sexual identity important thing life thing matter life result dire ve disastrous western civilization nichola eberst good book call man work work american enterprise institute book base essay write january talk american man simply fall apart say catastrophe collapse work man half century work rate american male spiral relentlessly downward ominous migration commence flight work whichever great number work age man exit labor force altogether america home evergrowing army jobless man long look work million age traditional prime work life people blame offshoring job china right easy convenient convenient excuse reality far open job country people willing seek open job s true year united states labor force participation rate country mid sixty talk work age people united states literally million million maybe ten million man disability fact disabled ton man unemployment not need unemployment big man work problem today consider single fact work rate american male age slightly low tail end great depression hey talk overall unemployment rate like united states overall unemployment rate like work rate low man accord late official job report datum available work rate prime age man november level progressive detachment large number adult man reality routine regular pay labor pose selfevident threat nation future prosperity result low living standard great economic disparity slow economic growth expect trouble pose male flight work say nicky bursad mean solely economic social crisis moral crisis growing capability grown man function breadwinner help undermine american family way know create capacity man act breadwinner marriage family obligation people lean idea radical independence people not lean lean wife lean nature marriage hebrew word love ahava right root word ha mean root love give thing spouse vulnerability thing spouse sense need spouse notion spouse people actually not need sort contractual arrangement true true modern society actually far marriage put marriage s reason marry basically roommate sex s basis build happy life capable shoulder burden civic responsibility say nicky bursad encourage sloth idleness vice insidious choose recognize feature american condition new man work normal inimicable inimical tradition subversive national ethos arguably civilization wanna know see vast increase pornography use young man united states mirror availability involve institution like family like church actually want know man increasingly abuse drug reason wanna know suicide suicidal ideation man reason go way emil durkheim s widespread sociological understanding societal institution provide rationale existence blow rule sexual revolution not establish good new idea blow thing rule rule inhibition place true self true self aimless formless chaotic sexual impulse not happy society push gear human happiness offer sugar high die morbid obesity age s exactly s go society right pretty way company market example virgin airline ad talk queer airline thing proud identity apparently clothe wear sexual activity gender identity actually like social role reinstille social role remember child flight go to ask mommy daddy man wear women clothing pretend woman idea human being basically fully form adult allow act child regard sexual impulse thing matter world suppose reflect social role inhibition world suppose reflect innermost identity s case virgin airlines say identity choice allow member staff dress want ve get woman dress man man dress woman new uniform code virgin airlines virgin atlantic world ah not great man dress women clothing end completely obliterate distinction sex lose rationale different sex lose social institution evolve course literally hundred thousand year plan parenthood director transcare say wellaccepted viewpoint left man pregnant s distinction man woman exactly role man exactly role woman man additional obligation here here testimony plan parenthood director transcare dr baic kumar dr kumar biological man pregnant birth man pregnancy especially tran man okay question biological man birth noted doctor ignore question entirely pretend man baby birth role matter rule matter thing purpose life man desert island rule rule s go deeply unhappy human rule sort purpose mean people fall apart see upswe sort return idea maybe traditional form example court chip good thing second folk find perfect tshirt rough experience light loose wear wash material thick s m glad find true classic tee true classic make man look good feel good talk boxy fit loose collar shirt fit suppose fit know like little bit tight chest sleeve lead room torso relaxed tshirt feel right look well listener true classic tee code bentrueclassiccom men tshirt design look good guy work like hour day true classic actually design look good people like normal people job live true classic tee taper tighter chest shoulder flattering look style super soft reasonably price high quality tshirt company true classic men wear staple need talk polo workout shirt boxer breach build entire wardrobe plus pack builder website custom bundle essential product save discount m wear classic tee lemme tell enjoy like month need refresh wardrobe check true classiccom use promo code ben plus free shipping purchase buck s true classiccom promo code ben true classic offer risk free guarantee day return policy true classiccom promo code ben true classic look good feel good right m go to speak segment audience ve directly address frat guy s bros way different unfairly portray medium man hate wake razor company leftist ideology unfortunate consider frat raise million buck year charity virginia tech frat raise st judes childrens hospital year influence mind think d share idea know jeremy razor contest win car know win jeremys mclaren not wanna shuttle seater sport car s win cash prize instead wow m sure imagination paint picture fun good quarter million buck friend listen player contest hit referral mark s plenty opportunity jump race cash jeremys razorscomplay referral link come november woke free frat america term condition apply turn blow role not wonderful thing humanity medium attempt sort bury lead particular story apparently armys transgender officer wife maryland doctor indict conspiracy charge wednesday allegedly attempt transfer confidential military medical information russia count indictment en seal thursday arrest defendant major jamie lee henry anesthesiologist anna gabrielle accord department justice press release army grant henry request officially change accordance gender preference prior henrys case identify sex different one birth certificate soldier unfit military service warrant discharge gabrielle work johns hopkins school medicine refer medical institution indictment locate baltimore maryland henry s doctor work staff internist station fort bragg pair accuse steal patient health file johns hopkins fort bragg give individual believe work russian government historicness happen army excellent stuff okay here thing blow traditional gender role blow people unhappy man drop outta workforce lose purpose woman essentially work widget input capitalist growth actually fulfil thing drive woman life lie feminist movement way tell turn thing planet earth finite time resource money time actually balance life turn people unhappy s new find embrace not not traditional juda christian value not alienate people newfound embrace happen value root institution involve course hundred thousand year good human being good essay today person macha liebowitz editorial assistant new york times oped section call date break go retro fix quote traditional right allamerican high school experience taking judging book photo girl orthodox jewish school exception dialogue swap prince fiddler roof sweet valley high go to use shit resume shit resume people basically date orthodox jewish community natural resume picture submit s call con like party person think people know asian fix fix sex fix possibility share value marriage child word date purpose turn purpose significantly well human fulfillment thing purpose western life predicate opposite purpose hem purpose make free purpose make depressed suicidal general rule joke peer say date profile favor orthodox match maker not year year old acne study pun poor likeness joke reflect true high schooler know plan meet spouse not go loosey goosey way secular world s orthodox jewish high school think getting marry think marriage orthodox jewish high school true catholic high school true religious protestant high school basically religious true madrasa religious institution united states time hit close marriageable age think marriage mean think value look value person wanna mean channel life particular purpose know high purpose god green earth child raise correctly say say columnist libo odd past year watch way secular mainstream latch tentatively ishly traditional date practice s slew matchmaking company sort lovely rich famous article declare matchmake hot netflix carousel fill show cast old partly imagine vision romance indian matchmaking marry site bridger acquaintance traditional form meeting fall love make hopeful sign culture grasp thing rightly need today largely online world burnout elpac callousness define dating reflect value society prize individualism privacy choice nearly thing include matter heart date convenient people find date sit toilet clearly fall short element traditional date culture provide solution way find people date way navigate relationship here thing traditional dating literally ask person wish child actually incentivize man well turn dating sexual pleasure obtain new partner give point attractive sex tend good obviously come marriage actually better certain way funny watch bill burr comedy special night talk woman tear woman nasty privately somebody ll fat positive body positive ll talk look terrible look like bill bill burr say say woman look model like know s set unrealistic expectation man say yeah like time look brad pitt screen take shirt m like man set unrealistic expectation s like know m overweight m bald m orange good comedy order check hey actually way aside kind comedic job description way man typically well attractive opposite sex mean education job demonstrate responsible thing demonstrate capable worthy have child particular way exactly jordan peterson say say woman picky fact big problem right woman particular pick particularly picky man date date error date kid mean mean actually date eye up social value aspect getting marry aspect have kid purpose equation columnist new york times hollywood say worth ask time court october pew conduct survey understand americans attitude romantic relationship dater tell pew romantic life not go quarter respondent say difficult find people date ask find date difficult reason vary gender woman challenging find meet expectation look type relationship man say trouble approach people complaint counterintuitive internet date promise abundance choice meet standard profusion filter suit relationship low barrier reach relieve anxiety find talk people like date theoretical abundance option filter low barrier engagement not translate high quality interaction instead date find catch cycle unanswered message dead end interaction contribute ubiquitous feeling date app burnout man woman typically look different thing date institution incentivize man look correct thing date yes institution marriage turn general societal standard apply human history suppose suppose sex life marry good disincentive man simply look lay actually go to sacrifice demonstrate worthwhile amazing thing macau leewood say irony modern dating uncommon date month year broach big question marriage child form intimacy tend embrace quickly americans sex getting marry s true decade normalization casual sex new clear new norm have sex casually soon meeting help ultimately want last committed relationship remember note watch friend religious community here go fall love marry sex right order event traditional community fall love marry sex traditional community married fall love sex right like sex thing modern community way work sex maybe fall love maybe maybe marry ll ll intimate relationship person ll like man m nervous say love wonder thing fail wonder woman unhappy man purposeless not imagine not imagine sexual revolution cripple man woman man woman unhappy matter piss left jordan peterson reason piss jordan peterson s remind simple fact social standard say bargain right suppose blow institution suppose completely reshape society promise jordan note cost promise high quote unquote cell s people piss jordan people angry jordan s people angry say stuff like reality win reality win utopian stupidity atic individualism come sexual liberation crippling society society fall apart not shock run directly tooth reality reality tend bite alright guy rest continue go to wanna miss get vladi putin ramp aggression plus berkeley apparently jew free zone member click link description join

This bill authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to study the hydrology of saline lake ecosystems in the Great Basin, including the Great Salt Lake, Utah, as well as to investigate the feasibility of a project for ecosystem restoration and drought solutions in the Great Salt Lake.

right

bill authorize army corps engineer study hydrology saline lake ecosystem great basin include great salt lake utah investigate feasibility project ecosystem restoration drought solution great salt lake

This bill directs the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to convey specified property in Anchorage, Alaska, to the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium for use in connection with health programs. The conveyance shall not require any consideration from, or impose any obligation, term, or condition on, the consortium or allow for any U.S. reversionary interest in the property. The consortium shall not be liable for any environmental contamination that occurred before the conveyance. Further, HHS shall not be liable for any environmental contamination from the date on which the consortium assumes control of, occupies, and uses the property.

right

bill direct department health human service hhs convey specify property anchorage alaska alaska native tribal health consortium use connection health program conveyance shall require consideration impose obligation term condition consortium allow reversionary interest property consortium shall liable environmental contamination occur conveyance hhs shall liable environmental contamination date consortium assume control occupie use property

June 24, 1986 My fellow citizens: The matter that brings me before you today is a grave one and concerns my most solemn duty as President. It is the cause of freedom in Central America and the national security of the United States. Tomorrow the House of Representatives will debate and vote on this issue. I had hoped to speak directly and at this very hour to Members of the House of Representatives on this subject, but was unable to do so. Because I feel so strongly about what I have to say, I've asked for this time to share with you -- and Members of the House -- the message I would've otherwise given. Nearly 40 years ago a Democratic President, Harry Truman, went before the Congress to warn of another danger to democracy, a civil war in a faraway country in which many Americans could perceive no national security interest. Some of you can remember the world then. Europe lay devastated. One by one, the nations of Eastern Europe had fallen into Stalin's grip. The democratic government of Czechoslovakia would soon be overthrown. Turkey was threatened, and in Greece -- the home of democracy -- Communist guerrillas, backed by the Soviet Union, battled democratic forces to decide the nation's fate. Most Americans did not perceive this distant danger, so the opinion polls reflected little of the concern that brought Harry Truman to the well of the House that day. But go he did, and it is worth a moment to reflect on what he said. In a hushed Chamber, Mr. Truman said that we had come to a time in history when every nation would have to choose between two opposing ways of life. One way was based on the will of the majority -- on free institutions and human rights. ``The second way of life,'' he said, ``is based upon the will of a minority forcibly imposed upon the majority. It relies upon terror and oppression, a controlled press and radio, fixed elections and the suppression of personal freedoms. I believe,'' President Truman said, ``that it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.'' When Harry Truman spoke, Congress was controlled by the Republican Party. But that Congress put America's interest first and supported Truman's request for military aid to Greece and Turkey -- just as 4 years ago Congress put America's interest first by supporting my request for military aid to defend democracy in El Salvador. I speak today in that same spirit of bipartisanship. My fellow Americans and Members of the House, I need your help. I ask first for your help in remembering -- remembering our history in Central America, so we can learn from the mistakes of the past. Too often in the past the United States failed to identify with the aspirations of the people of Central America for freedom and a better life. Too often our government appeared indifferent when democratic values were at risk. So, we took the path of least resistance and did nothing. Today, however, with American support, the tide is turning in Central America. In El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica -- and now in Guatemala -- freely elected governments offer their people the chance for a better future, a future the United States must support. But there's one tragic, glaring exception to that democratic tide -- the Communist Sandinista government in Nicaragua. It is tragic because the United States extended a generous hand of friendship to the new revolutionary government when it came to power in 1979. Congress voted $75 million in economic aid. The United States helped renegotiate Nicaragua's foreign debt. America offered teachers, doctors, and Peace Corps volunteers to help rebuild the country. But the Sandinistas had a different agenda. From the very first day a small clique of Communists worked steadily to consolidate power and squeeze out their democratic allies. The democratic trade unionists who had fought Somoza's national guard in the streets were now told by the Sandinistas that the right to strike was illegal and that their revolutionary duty was to produce more for the state. The newspaper, La Prensa, whose courage and determination had inspired so much of the Nicaraguan revolution, found its pages censored and suppressed. Violeta Chamorro, widow of the assassinated editor, soon quit the revolutionary government to take up the struggle for democracy again in the pages of her newspaper. The leader of the Catholic Church in Nicaragua, Archbishop -- now Cardinal -- Obando y Bravo, who had negotiated the release of the Sandinista leaders from prison during the revolution, was now vilified as a traitor by the very men he helped to free. Soviet arms and bloc personnel began arriving in Nicaragua. With Cuban, East German, and Bulgarian advisers at their side, the Sandinistas began to build the largest standing army in Central American history and to erect all the odious apparatus of the modern police state. Under the Somoza dictatorship, a single facility held all political prisoners. Today there are 11 -- 11 prisons in place of 1. The Sandinistas claim to defend Nicaraguan independence, but you and I know the truth. The proud people of Nicaragua did not rise up against Somoza -- and struggle, fight, and die -- to have Cubans, Russians, Bulgarians, East Germans, and North Koreans running their prisons, organizing their army, censoring their newspapers, and suppressing their religious faith. One Nicaraguan nationalist who fought in the revolution says, ``We are an occupied country today.'' I could go on, but I know that even the administration's harshest critics in Congress hold no brief for Sandinista repression. Indeed, the final verdict has already been written by Cardinal Obando himself in the Washington Post. Listen carefully to the Cardinal's words. He says that the Sandinista regime ``is a democratic government, legitimately constituted, which seeks the welfare and peace of the people and enjoys the support of the overwhelming majority'' is not true. To accept this as true, the Cardinal says, ``is to ignore the mass exodus of the Miskito Indians, the departure of tens of thousands of Nicaraguan men and women of every age, profession, economic status, and political persuasion. It is to ignore the most terrible violation of freedom of the press and of speech in the history of our country, the expulsion of priests, and the mass exodus of young people eligible for military service.'' As for the Catholic Church in Nicaragua, we have been ``gagged and bound,'' the Cardinal says. Many brave Nicaraguans have stayed in their country despite mounting repression -- defying the security police, defying the Sandinista mobs that attack and deface their homes. Thousands -- peasants, Indians, devout Christians, draftees from the Sandinista army -- have concluded that they must take up arms again to fight for the freedom they thought they had won in 1979. The young men and women of the democratic resistance fight inside Nicaragua today in grueling mountain and jungle warfare. They confront a Soviet-equipped army, trained and led by Cuban officers. They face murderous helicopter gunships without any means of defense. And still they volunteer. And still their numbers grow. Who among us would tell these brave young men and women: ``Your dream is dead; your democratic revolution is over; you will never live in the free Nicaragua you fought so hard to build?'' The Sandinistas call these freedom fighters contras, for counterrevolutionaries. But the real counterrevolutionaries are the Sandinista commandantes, who betrayed the hopes of the Nicaraguan revolution and sold out their country to the Soviet empire. The commandantes even betrayed the memory of the Nicaraguan rebel leader Sandino, whose legacy they falsely claim. For the real Sandino, because he was a genuine nationalist, was opposed to communism. In fact, Sandino broke with the Salvadoran Communist leader, Farbundo Marti, over this very issue. The true Nicaraguan nationalists are the leaders of the United Nicaraguan Opposition: Arturo Cruz, jailed by Somoza, a former member of the Sandinista government; Adolpho Calero, who helped organize a strike of businessmen to bring Somoza down; and Alfonso Robelo, a social democrat and once a leader of the revolutionary government. These good men refused to make any accommodation with the Somoza dictatorship. Who among us can doubt their commitment to bring democracy to Nicaragua? So, the Nicaraguan people have chosen to fight for their freedom. Now we Americans must also choose, for you and I and every American has a stake in this struggle. Central America is vital to our own national security, and the Soviet Union knows it. The Soviets take the long view, but their strategy is clear: to dominate the strategic sealanes and vital chokepoints around the world. Half of America's imports and exports, including oil, travels through the area today. In a crisis, over half of NATO's supplies would pass through this region. And Nicaragua, just 277 miles from the Panama Canal, offers the Soviet Union ports on both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The Soviet Union already uses Cuba as an air and submarine base in the Caribbean. It hopes to turn Nicaragua into the first Soviet base on the mainland of North America. If you doubt it, ask yourself: Why have the last four Soviet leaders, with a mounting economic crisis at home, already invested over a billion dollars and dispatched thousands of Soviet-bloc advisers into a tiny country in Central America? I know that no one in Congress wants to see Nicaragua become a Soviet military base. My friends, I must tell you in all seriousness, Nicaragua is becoming a Soviet base every day that we debate and debate and debate -- and do nothing. In the 3 months since I last asked for the House to aid the democratic resistance, four military cargo ships have arrived at Nicaraguan ports, this time directly from the Soviet Union. Recently we have learned that Russian pilots are flying a Soviet AN - 30 reconnaissance plane for the Sandinistas. Now, the Sandinistas claim this is just for making civilian maps. Well, our intelligence services believe this could be the first time Soviet personnel have taken a direct role in support of military operations on the mainland of North America. Think again how Cuba became a Soviet air and naval base. You'll see what Nicaragua will look like if we continue to do nothing. Cuba became a Soviet base gradually, over many years. There was no single, dramatic event -- once the missile crisis passed -- that captured the Nation's attention. And so it will be with Nicaragua. The Sandinistas will widen and deepen another port while we debate: Is it for commercial vessels or Soviet submarines? The Sandinistas will complete another airstrip while we argue: Is it for 707's or Backfire bombers? A Soviet training brigade will come to Nicaragua. Half will leave and half will stay. And we will debate: Are they soldiers or engineers? Eventually, we Americans have to stop arguing among ourselves. We will have to confront the reality of a Soviet military beachhead inside our defense perimeters, about 500 miles from Mexico. A future President and Congress will then face nothing but bad choices, followed by worse choices. My friends in the House, for over 200 years the security of the United States has depended on the safety of unthreatened borders, north and south. Do we want to be the first elected leaders in U.S. history to put our borders at risk? Some of you may say, well, this is fearmongering. Such a danger to our security will never come to pass. Well, perhaps it won't. But in making your decisions on my request for aid tomorrow, consider this: What are the consequences for our country if you're wrong? I know some Members of Congress who share my concern about Nicaragua have honest questions about my request for aid to the democratic resistance. Let me try to address them. Do the freedom fighters have the support of the Nicaraguan people? I urge Members of the House to ask their colleague, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, who recently visited a town in Nicaragua that was a Sandinista stronghold during the revolution. He heard peasants, trade unionists, farmers, workers, students, and shopkeepers all call on the United States to aid the armed resistance. Or listen to the report from Time magazine of Central American scholar Robert Leiken, who once had hopes for the Sandinista revolution. He says, ``I have gone to a number of towns in Nicaragua where I have found that the youth are simply not there. I ask the parents where they've gone, and they say, they've gone off to join the contras.'' In Managua, Leiken reports 250 Nicaraguans stood on a breadline for 3 hours. ``Who is responsible for this?'' he asked. ``The Sandinistas are responsible. The Sandinistas.'' That's what the people said. ``The Sandinistas,'' Leiken concluded, ``have not only lost support, I think they are detested by the population.'' Can the democratic forces win? Consider there are 20 times as many Nicaraguans fighting the Sandinista dictatorship today as there were Sandinista fighters a year before Somoza fell. This is the largest peasant army raised in Latin America in more than 50 years. And thousands more are waiting to volunteer if American support comes through. Some Members of Congress -- and I know some of you -- fear that military aid to the democratic resistance will be only the first step down the slippery slope toward another Vietnam. Now, I know those fears are honest, but think where we heard them before. Just a few years ago some argued in Congress that U.S. military aid to El Salvador would lead inevitably to the involvement of U.S. combat troops. But the opposite turned out to be true. Had the United States failed to provide aid then, we might well be facing the final Communist takeover of El Salvador and mounting pressures to intervene. Instead, with our aid, the Government of El Salvador is winning the war, and there is no prospect whatever of American military involvement. El Salvador still faces serious problems that require our attention. But democracy there is stronger, and both the Communist guerrillas and the right-wing death squads are weaker. And Congress shares credit for that accomplishment. American aid and training is helping the Salvadoran Army become a professional fighting force, more respectful of human rights. With our aid, we can help the Nicaraguan resistance accomplish the same goal. I stress this point because I know many Members of Congress and many Americans are deeply troubled by allegations of abuses by elements of the armed resistance. I share your concerns. Even though some of those charges are Sandinista propaganda, I believe such abuses have occurred in the past, and they are intolerable. As President, I repeat to you the commitments I made to Senator Sam Nunn. As a condition of our aid, I will insist on civilian control over all military forces; that no human rights abuses are tolerated; that any financial corruption be rooted out; that American aid go only to those committed to democratic principles. The United States will not permit this democratic revolution to be betrayed nor allow a return to the hated repression of the Somoza dictatorship. The leadership of the United Nicaraguan Opposition shares these commitments, and I welcome the appointment of a bipartisan congressional commission to help us see that they are carried out. Some ask: What are the goals of our policy toward Nicaragua? They are the goals the Nicaraguan people set for themselves in 1979: democracy, a free economy, and national self-determination. Clearly, the best way to achieve these goals is through a negotiated settlement. No humane person wants to see suffering and war. The leaders of the internal opposition and the Catholic Church have asked for dialog with the Sandinistas. The leaders of the armed resistance have called for a cease-fire and negotiations at any time, in any place. We urge the Sandinistas to heed the pleas of the Nicaraguan people for a peaceful settlement. The United States will support any negotiated settlement or Contadora treaty that will bring real democracy to Nicaragua. What we will not support is a paper agreement that sells out the Nicaraguan people's right to be free. That kind of agreement would be unworthy of us as a people; and it would be a false bargain, for internal freedom in Nicaragua and the security of Central America are indivisible. A free and democratic Nicaragua will pose no threat to its neighbors or to the United States. A Communist Nicaragua, allied with the Soviet Union, is a permanent threat to us all. President Azcona of Honduras emphasized this point in a recent nationwide address: ``As long as there is a totalitarian regime in Central America that has expansionist ambitions and is supported by an enormous military apparatus . . . the neighboring countries sharing common borders with the country that is the source of the problem will be under constant threat.'' If you doubt his warning, consider this: The Sandinistas have already sent two groups of Communist guerrillas into Honduras. Costa Rican revolutionaries are already fighting alongside Sandinista troops. My friends in the Congress, with democracy still a fragile root in Central America -- with Mexico undergoing an economic crisis -- can we responsibly ignore the long-term danger to American interests posed by a Communist Nicaragua, backed by the Soviet Union, and dedicated -- in the words of its own leaders -- to a ``revolution without borders''? My friends, the only way to bring true peace and security to Central America is to bring democracy to Nicaragua. And the only way to get the Sandinistas to negotiate seriously about democracy is to give them no other alternative. Seven years of broken pledges, betrayals, and lies have taught us that. And that's why the measure the House will consider tomorrow -- offered, I know, in good faith -- which prohibits military aid for at least another 3 months, and perhaps forever, would be a tragic mistake. It would not bring the Sandinistas to the bargaining table -- just the opposite. The bill, unless amended, would give the Sandinistas and the Soviet Union what they seek most: time -- time to crush the democratic resistance; time to consolidate power. And it would send a demoralizing message to the democratic resistance that the United States is too divided and paralyzed to come to their aid in time. Recently, I read the words of a leader of the internal democratic opposition. What he said made me feel ashamed. This man has been jailed, his property confiscated, and his life threatened by the security police. Still, he continues to fight. And he said: ``You Americans have the strength, the opportunity, but not the will. We want to struggle, but it is dangerous to have friends like you -- to be left stranded on the landing beaches of the Bay of Pigs. Either help us or leave us alone.'' My friends in the House of Representatives, I urge you to send a message tomorrow to this brave Nicaraguan and thousands like him. Tell them it is not dangerous to have friends like us. Tell them America stands with those who stand in defense of freedom. When the Senate voted earlier this year for military aid, Republicans were joined by many Democratic leaders: Bill Bradley of New Jersey, Sam Nunn of Georgia, David Boren of Oklahoma, Howell Heflin of Alabama, Lloyd Bentsen of Texas, Bennett Johnston and Russell Long of Louisiana, Fritz Hollings of South Carolina, John Stennis of Mississippi, and Alan Dixon of Illinois. Today I ask the House for that kind of bipartisan support for the amendment to be offered tomorrow by Democrats Ike Skelton of Missouri and Richard Ray of Georgia and Republicans Mickey Edwards of Oklahoma and Rod Chandler of Washington. This bipartisan amendment will provide the freedom fighters with what they need -- now. With that amendment, you also send another message to Central America. For democracy there faces many enemies: poverty, illiteracy, hunger, and despair. And the United States must also stand with the people of Central America against these enemies of democracy. And that's why -- just as Harry Truman followed his request for military aid to Greece and Turkey with the Marshall plan -- I urge Congress to support $300 million in new economic aid to the Central American democracies. The question before the House is not only about the freedom of Nicaragua and the security of the United States but who we are as a people. President Kennedy wrote on the day of his death that history had called this generation of Americans to be ``watchmen on the walls of world freedom.'' A Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, said much the same thing on the way to his inauguration in 1861. Stopping in Philadelphia, Lincoln spoke in Independence Hall, where our Declaration of Independence had been signed. He said far more had been achieved in that hall than just American independence from Britain. Something permanent, something unalterable, had happened. He called it ``Hope to the world for all future time.'' Hope to the world for all future time. In some way, every man, woman, and child in our world is tied to those events at Independence Hall, to the universal claim to dignity, to the belief that all human beings are created equal, that all people have a right to be free. We Americans have not forgotten our revolutionary heritage, but sometimes it takes others to remind us of what we ourselves believe. Recently, I read the works of a Nicaraguan bishop, Pablo Vega, who visited Washington a few weeks ago. Somoza called Pablo Vega the ``communist bishop.'' Now the Sandinistas revile him as ``the contra bishop.'' But Pablo Vega is really a humble man of God. ``I am saddened,'' the good bishop said, ``that so many North Americans have a vision of democracy that has only to do with materialism.'' The Sandinistas ``speak of human rights as if they were talking of the rights of a child -- the right to receive from the bountifulness of the state -- but even the humblest campesino knows what it means to have the right to act. We are defending,'' Pablo Vega said, ``the right of man to be.'' Well, reverend father, we hear you. For we Americans believe with you that even the humblest campesino has the right to be free. My fellow citizens, Members of the House, let us not take the path of least resistance in Central America again. Let us keep faith with these brave people struggling for their freedom. Give them, give me, your support; and together, let us send this message to the world: that America is still a beacon of hope, still a light unto the nations. A light that casts its glow across the land and our continent and even back across the centuries -- keeping faith with a dream of long ago. Thank you, and God bless you. Note: The President spoke at noon from the Oval Office at the White House. 40 Presidential Drive Simi Valley, CA 93065 800-410-8354 [email protected] Museum Hours Mon-Sun 10am-5pm Research Room Hours Mon-Fri 9am-5pm Appointments Are Required Holiday and Special Event Hours Closed Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day, and New Year's Day

right

june fellow citizen matter bring today grave concern solemn duty president cause freedom central america national security united states tomorrow house representative debate vote issue hope speak directly hour member house representative subject unable feel strongly ve ask time share member house message ve give nearly year ago democratic president harry truman go congress warn danger democracy civil war faraway country americans perceive national security interest remember world europe lie devastate nation eastern europe fall stalin grip democratic government czechoslovakia soon overthrow turkey threaten greece home democracy communist guerrilla back soviet union battle democratic force decide nation fate americans perceive distant danger opinion poll reflect little concern bring harry truman house day worth moment reflect say hush chamber mr truman say come time history nation choose oppose way life way base majority free institution human right second way life say base minority forcibly impose majority rely terror oppression control press radio fix election suppression personal freedom believe president truman say policy united states support free people resist attempt subjugation armed minority outside pressure harry truman speak congress control republican party congress americas interest support truman request military aid greece turkey year ago congress americas interest support request military aid defend democracy el salvador speak today spirit bipartisanship fellow americans member house need help ask help remember remember history central america learn mistake past past united states fail identify aspiration people central america freedom well life government appear indifferent democratic value risk take path resistance today american support tide turn central america el salvador honduras costa rica guatemala freely elect government offer people chance well future future united states support s tragic glaring exception democratic tide communist sandinista government nicaragua tragic united states extend generous hand friendship new revolutionary government come power congress vote million economic aid united states help renegotiate nicaraguas foreign debt america offer teacher doctor peace corps volunteer help rebuild country sandinista different agenda day small clique communist work steadily consolidate power squeeze democratic ally democratic trade unionist fight somozas national guard street tell sandinista right strike illegal revolutionary duty produce state newspaper la prensa courage determination inspire nicaraguan revolution find page censor suppress violeta chamorro widow assassinate editor soon quit revolutionary government struggle democracy page newspaper leader catholic church nicaragua archbishop cardinal obando y bravo negotiate release sandinista leader prison revolution vilify traitor man help free soviet arm bloc personnel begin arrive nicaragua cuban east german bulgarian adviser sandinista begin build large stand army central american history erect odious apparatus modern police state somoza dictatorship single facility hold political prisoner today prison place sandinista claim defend nicaraguan independence know truth proud people nicaragua rise somoza struggle fight die cubans russians bulgarian east germans north koreans run prison organize army censor newspaper suppress religious faith nicaraguan nationalist fight revolution say occupied country today know administration harsh critic congress hold brief sandinista repression final verdict write cardinal obando washington post listen carefully cardinal word say sandinista regime democratic government legitimately constitute seek welfare peace people enjoy support overwhelming majority true accept true cardinal say ignore mass exodus miskito indians departure ten thousand nicaraguan man woman age profession economic status political persuasion ignore terrible violation freedom press speech history country expulsion priest mass exodus young people eligible military service catholic church nicaragua gag bind cardinal say brave nicaraguan stay country despite mount repression defy security police defy sandinista mobs attack deface home thousand peasant indians devout christians draftee sandinista army conclude arm fight freedom think win young man woman democratic resistance fight inside nicaragua today gruele mountain jungle warfare confront sovietequipped army train lead cuban officer face murderous helicopter gunship mean defense volunteer number grow tell brave young man woman dream dead democratic revolution live free nicaragua fight hard build sandinista freedom fighter contra counterrevolutionary real counterrevolutionary sandinista commandante betray hope nicaraguan revolution sell country soviet empire commandante betray memory nicaraguan rebel leader sandino legacy falsely claim real sandino genuine nationalist oppose communism fact sandino break salvadoran communist leader farbundo marti issue true nicaraguan nationalist leader united nicaraguan opposition arturo cruz jail somoza member sandinista government adolpho calero helped organize strike businessman bring somoza alfonso robelo social democrat leader revolutionary government good man refuse accommodation somoza dictatorship doubt commitment bring democracy nicaragua nicaraguan people choose fight freedom americans choose american stake struggle central america vital national security soviet union know soviet long view strategy clear dominate strategic sealane vital chokepoint world half americas import export include oil travel area today crisis half nato supply pass region nicaragua mile panama canal offer soviet union port atlantic pacific ocean soviet union use cuba air submarine base caribbean hope turn nicaragua soviet base mainland north america doubt ask soviet leader mount economic crisis home invest billion dollar dispatch thousand sovietbloc adviser tiny country central america know congress want nicaragua soviet military base friend tell seriousness nicaragua soviet base day debate debate debate month ask house aid democratic resistance military cargo ship arrive nicaraguan port time directly soviet union recently learn russian pilot fly soviet reconnaissance plane sandinista sandinista claim make civilian map intelligence service believe time soviet personnel take direct role support military operation mainland north america think cuba soviet air naval base ll nicaragua look like continue cuba soviet base gradually year single dramatic event missile crisis pass capture nation attention nicaragua sandinista widen deepen port debate commercial vessel soviet submarine sandinista complete airstrip argue backfire bomber soviet training brigade come nicaragua half leave half stay debate soldier engineer eventually americans stop argue confront reality soviet military beachhead inside defense perimeter mile mexico future president congress face bad choice follow bad choice friend house year security united states depend safety unthreatened border north south want elect leader history border risk fearmongere danger security come pass will not make decision request aid tomorrow consider consequence country wrong know member congress share concern nicaragua honest question request aid democratic resistance let try address freedom fighter support nicaraguan people urge member house ask colleague chairman house armed services committee recently visit town nicaragua sandinista stronghold revolution hear peasant trade unionist farmer worker student shopkeeper united states aid armed resistance listen report time magazine central american scholar robert leiken hope sandinista revolution say go number town nicaragua find youth simply ask parent ve go ve go join contras managua leiken report nicaraguan stand breadline hour responsible ask sandinista responsible sandinista s people say sandinista leiken conclude lose support think detest population democratic force win consider time nicaraguan fight sandinista dictatorship today sandinista fighter year somoza fall large peasant army raise latin america year thousand wait volunteer american support come member congress know fear military aid democratic resistance step slippery slope vietnam know fear honest think hear year ago argue congress military aid el salvador lead inevitably involvement combat troop opposite turn true united states fail provide aid face final communist takeover el salvador mount pressure intervene instead aid government el salvador win war prospect american military involvement el salvador face problem require attention democracy strong communist guerrilla rightwe death squad weak congress share credit accomplishment american aid training help salvadoran army professional fighting force respectful human right aid help nicaraguan resistance accomplish goal stress point know member congress americans deeply trouble allegation abuse element armed resistance share concern charge sandinista propaganda believe abuse occur past intolerable president repeat commitment senator sam nunn condition aid insist civilian control military force human right abuse tolerate financial corruption root american aid commit democratic principle united states permit democratic revolution betray allow return hate repression somoza dictatorship leadership united nicaraguan opposition share commitment welcome appointment bipartisan congressional commission help carry ask goal policy nicaragua goal nicaraguan people set democracy free economy national selfdetermination clearly good way achieve goal negotiate settlement humane person want suffering war leader internal opposition catholic church ask dialog sandinista leader armed resistance call ceasefire negotiation time place urge sandinista heed plea nicaraguan people peaceful settlement united states support negotiate settlement contadora treaty bring real democracy nicaragua support paper agreement sell nicaraguan people right free kind agreement unworthy people false bargain internal freedom nicaragua security central america indivisible free democratic nicaragua pose threat neighbor united states communist nicaragua ally soviet union permanent threat president azcona honduras emphasize point recent nationwide address long totalitarian regime central america expansionist ambition support enormous military apparatus neighboring country share common border country source problem constant threat doubt warning consider sandinista send group communist guerrilla honduras costa rican revolutionary fight alongside sandinista troop friend congress democracy fragile root central america mexico undergo economic crisis responsibly ignore longterm danger american interest pose communist nicaragua back soviet union dedicate word leader revolution border friend way bring true peace security central america bring democracy nicaragua way sandinista negotiate seriously democracy alternative seven year break pledge betrayal lie teach s measure house consider tomorrow offer know good faith prohibit military aid month forever tragic mistake bring sandinista bargaining table opposite bill amend sandinista soviet union seek time time crush democratic resistance time consolidate power send demoralize message democratic resistance united states divided paralyzed come aid time recently read word leader internal democratic opposition say feel ashamed man jail property confiscate life threaten security police continue fight say americans strength opportunity want struggle dangerous friend like leave strand landing beach bay pig help leave friend house representative urge send message tomorrow brave nicaraguan thousand like tell dangerous friend like tell america stand stand defense freedom senate vote early year military aid republicans join democratic leader bill bradley new jersey sam nunn georgia david boren oklahoma howell heflin alabama lloyd bentsen texas bennett johnston russell long louisiana fritz holling south carolina john stennis mississippi alan dixon illinois today ask house kind bipartisan support amendment offer tomorrow democrats ike skelton missouri richard ray georgia republicans mickey edwards oklahoma rod chandler washington bipartisan amendment provide freedom fighter need amendment send message central america democracy face enemy poverty illiteracy hunger despair united states stand people central america enemy democracy s harry truman follow request military aid greece turkey marshall plan urge congress support million new economic aid central american democracy question house freedom nicaragua security united states people president kennedy write day death history call generation americans watchman wall world freedom republican president abraham lincoln say thing way inauguration stop philadelphia lincoln speak independence hall declaration independence sign say far achieve hall american independence britain permanent unalterable happen call hope world future time hope world future time way man woman child world tie event independence hall universal claim dignity belief human being create equal people right free americans forget revolutionary heritage take remind believe recently read work nicaraguan bishop pablo vega visit washington week ago somoza call pablo vega communist bishop sandinista revile contra bishop pablo vega humble man god sadden good bishop say north americans vision democracy materialism sandinista speak human right talk right child right receive bountifulness state humble campesino know mean right act defend pablo vega say right man reverend father hear americans believe humble campesino right free fellow citizen member house let path resistance central america let faith brave people struggle freedom support let send message world america beacon hope light unto nation light cast glow land continent century keep faith dream long ago thank god bless note president speak noon oval office white house presidential drive simi valley reaganlibrarynaragov museum hour monsun research room hour monfri appointment require holiday special event hour close thanksgive day christmas day new year day

This bill reauthorizes the National Flood Insurance Program through September 30, 2022. The bill shall take effect as if it had been enacted on September 30, 2021.

right

bill reauthorize national flood insurance program september bill shall effect enact september

This bill requires the federal government to transfer, upon request, materials associated with the construction of a barrier along the U.S.-Mexico border to the governments of the states along that border (i.e., Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas). The transferred materials must be used to construct a barrier along the U.S.-Mexico border.

right

bill require federal government transfer request material associate construction barrier usmexico border government state border ie arizona california new mexico texas transfer material construct barrier usmexico border

This bill allows a physical therapist to receive payment under Medicare for services provided to the physical therapist's patients by another physical therapist through a qualifying temporary arrangement, regardless of the geographic area or population served. Currently, physical therapists may only receive payment with respect to such arrangements for services provided in medically underserved, rural, or health professional shortage areas.

right

bill allow physical therapist receive payment medicare service provide physical therapist patient physical therapist qualify temporary arrangement regardless geographic area population serve currently physical therapist receive payment respect arrangement service provide medically underserve rural health professional shortage area

This bill limits the protection of endangered and threatened species to species that are native to the United States, thus removing protection given to nonnative species in the United States that are listed as threatened or endangered.

right

bill limit protection endangered threaten specie specie native united states remove protection give nonnative specie united states list threaten endanger

This bill reduces the minimum age—from 21 years to 18 years—at which an individual may obtain a handgun from a federally licensed gun dealer, manufacturer, importer, or collector.

right

bill reduce minimum age year year individual obtain handgun federally license gun dealer manufacturer importer collector

Speeches, etc. Mrs. Thatcher May I ask Edward Shortthe Leader of the House to state the business for next week? The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short The business for next week will be as follows:— Monday 15th December—Debate on the Rate Support Grant Orders. Tuesday 16th December—Supply [3rd Allotted Day], when the House will be asked to pass outstanding Votes. Debate on the motor vehicle industry. Motion to approve paragraph 9 of the First Report from the Committee of Privileges (House of Commons Paper No. 22), relating to the exclusion from the precincts of Mr. Knight and Mr. Schreiber. Wednesday 17th December—Debate on employment and on measures for saving jobs. Motions on the Hill Livestock (Compensatory Allowances) Regulations, on the Winter Keep (Scotland) (Revocation) Scheme, and on the Weights and [column 656]Measures Act 1963 (Biscuits and Shortbread) Order. Thursday 18th December—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill. Friday 19th December—It will be proposed that the House should rise for the Christmas Adjournment, until Monday 12th January 1976. Mrs. Thatcher If we are to have a debate on the motor vehicle industry on Tuesday, may we expect a statement on the Chrysler position tomorrow and not later than tomorrow? May we also expect publication of the CPRS Report before the debate, the report having being promised by the beginning of November? Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect or has he read that last week his right hon. Friend Robert Mellishthe Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury mentioned that there would be a statement from Denis Healeythe Chancellor of the Exchequer in good time before the debate on unemployment? May we expect that statement on Monday? Mr. Short Negotiations are continuing on the Chrysler position. My right hon. Friend has had a further meeting with Mr. Riccardo and his colleagues this morning. A statement will be made to the House as soon as possible, and, hopefully, early next week. I shall consider the point that the right hon. Lady has made about the CPRS Report. I shall see whether it is possible to publish the report before the debate. Regarding the measures that I announced for the debate on Wednesday, the Chancellor does not have it in mind to make a statement before the debate. I have considered the precedents during the previous Conservative Government's term of office, and there are many precedents for not doing so. In view of the content of the Chancellor's measures, I do not think it would be appropriate for him to make a statement before the debate. Mrs. Thatcher It looks as though we are not to get the Chrysler statement before we are expected to debate the whole motor vehicle industry. Many of us would have expected to have it well before the debate. Further, we would not expect to be denied the information contained in the CPRS Report. We are well aware that a complicated and difficult decision has to be made about Chrysler, but that [column 657]makes it essential for the House to be informed as well as the Minister. Mr. Short I agree with the right hon. Lady, and if it is possible to make a statement tomorrow I shall see that it is made. Clearly we cannot make a statement before we have reached a solution. The statement will be made as soon as possible. As regards the CPRS Report, I shall see whether it is possible to make it available before the debate. I shall do my best about that. Several Hon. Members rose—— Mr. Speaker I ask for the help of the House. My efforts to curtail the last item of business were not altogether successful. I must inform the House that nearly 40 right hon. and hon. Members want to speak in the debate on the death penalty. I hope that hon. Members will ask brief questions about the business of the House. Mr. Burden On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will the Leader of the House make a statement as soon as possible about what has happened in Icelandic waters—— Mr. Speaker Order. I call the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield). Mr. Les Huckfield Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of my hon. Friends recognise the urgent need for a statement to be made on Chrysler as soon as possible, but take the view that it is far too important a statement to be made on a Friday? Does he recognise that many of us would appreciate a statement on this most important matter as early as possible before the debate on the motor industry? Mr. Short I promise that the statement will be made at the earliest possible moment. The House will be sitting tomorrow and it is a working day. I realise that many hon. Members visit their constituencies, but I think that the House is entitled to have this information at the earliest possible moment. Mr. Buck Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that we have a statement during the course of the day about what happened this morning in Icelandic waters? It appears that the Icelandic “Thor” has opened fire, has been holed and is hove to. It seems that assistance has been offered to her by our craft. [column 658]Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is appropriate for the House to have the opportunity to be told precisely what has happened in the short term? In the long term, may we expect an opportunity to debate the whole matter? What Iceland is doing is totally indefensible since we are prepared to negotiate on the whole matter. Mr. Short I understand the concern of the House on this matter. I shall pass on urgently to my right hon. Friend what the hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) have said. I cannot offer any time for a debate before Christmas. I think that the only opportunity before Christmas will be the Adjournment debate. Mr. Richard Wainwright So that hon. Members may make meaningful contributions to the debate on the motor vehicle industry next week, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange to make available the CPRS Report and also the Government's reply to the Report of the Expenditure Committee on the motor vehicle industry, for which we have already waited many weeks? Mr. Short I am afraid that I cannot promise that that document will be available for the debate, but I shall try to see whether it is possible to make the CPRS Report available to the House. Mr. James Johnson May I inform my right hon. Friend that I support the plea made by the hon. and learned Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) about the serious occurrence off Iceland? I have not heard the details, but, if the hon. and learned Gentleman is correct, it is a terrible business if shots have been fired in Icelandic waters. We should like to have a statement as quickly as possible. Mr. Short I understand my hon. Friend's concern. I shall start work on that matter as soon as business questions have been concluded to see what can be done. Mr. Peter Walker The Leader of the House said that he will try to make available the CPRS Report. Whatever the difficulties, there is no reason why he should not make a copy available in the Library. Mr. Short I have said that I shall look at the matter and do the best I can. Mr. Kilfedder I know that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates the importance of an early debate on the report relating to the Northern Ireland Convention. Will he ensure that the debate will take place in the first week after the House returns from the Christmas Recess so that we may avoid a political vacuum in Northern Ireland? Mr. Short I appreciate the need on that score, and there will be a debate on Northern Ireland very soon after we return. I cannot absolutely guarantee that debate in the first week when we return after Christmas, but I shall do my best to arrange a debate as soon as possible. Mr. Lipton My right hon. Friend said that at the end of business next Tuesday the House will debate the Report of the Committee of Privileges. May we have an assurance that adequate time will be afforded and that the rule will be suspended if necessary? Mr. Short The rule will be suspended, and the House will note that I tabled only one point for debate. I felt that it would be unfair that the matter should hang over the heads of the two journalists concerned during the Christmas Recess. The other point involving Privilege raises much wider issues. I am sure that the Government and the whole House will wish to have more time to think about the matter. Mr. du Cann Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the previous arrangements for business were cancelled and why there will not now be a debate before Christmas on the five Reports of the Public Accounts Committee? Does he not agree that it is unsatisfactory that discussion of Reports made by the senior Select Committee of the House should be delayed in this way, particularly when they constitute the only audit available to the House on Government expenditure and perhaps its only potential check? Will he further agree that it is the Government's duty to support the work of Members in this House in this regard if the Government believe that the work is as valuable to the House as it used to be when the Prime Minister was its distinguished Chairman? Mr. Short I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the importance of the Public Accounts Committee. As he knows, it was intended to debate those Reports next week, but in view of the Chrysler debate, the debate on unemployment and the Chancellor of the Exchequer's package it has not been possible to find time for a debate. I shall find time for a debate as soon as possible after the recess. Mr. Stonehouse When does my right hon. Friend intend to table a motion for the Christmas adjournment? Mr. Short I think the best day for such a debate would be the day on which the House deals with the Consolidated Fund Bill—namely, Thursday of next week. Mr. Peyton On the subject of the debate on the motor industry, it will surely be difficult to hold that debate without the answer to the Expenditure Committee's Report and the CPRS Report. I believe I am right in saying that the Minister of State, Department of Industry is on record as saying that these documents would be available before any debate on the motor industry in this House. If the Government's view is that they cannot give the House an answer to the Expenditure Committee's Report before the Chrysler situation has been settled, is not this tantamount to saying that more money for Chrysler will mean less money for Leyland? Is that not the unfortunate result? Secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman remember his promise given a fortnight ago that the Government would make a statement on the National Enterprise Board? The Patronage Secretary appeared last week to go a little beyond that statement. Mr. Short If I may deal with the second point first, I undertook to make a statement. I shall do so next week. I am looking carefully into the matter. I am examining our practice in regard to the nationalised industries and about setting up the Board. It has taken a rather long time and I apologise, but I hope I shall make a statement to the House before the House rises. In regard to the right hon. Gentleman's first point about the CPRS Report, I shall do my best to see that it is made available if that is at all possible. I can [column 661]give no undertaking about any Government reply to the Report. There will be the usual opportunities, subject to the agreement of the chairman, to debate this matter in due course. However, I shall examine the whole question in response to what the right hon. Gentleman said. Mr. Hoyle Will my right hon. Friend make a statement about import controls—a matter that is of great concern to many hon. Members—before the House debates the employment situation? Mr. Short Yes, Sir. There will be a statement on import controls next week either before the statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer or, much more likely, in his speech in the debate. Mr. Biffen In view of the importance of Tuesday's debate, is it not imperative that the Report of the Central Policy Review Staff should be made available to this House? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it will be the final mockery if we have to turn to the Sunday Times to find the information? Mr. Buchan On the subject of the Chrysler situation, we recognise that Friday is a working day in two senses since almost every hon. Member has to be in his constituency. Therefore, if a statement on Chrysler is made tomorrow, no doubt it will be made in the morning. Therefore, hon. Members would like to know whether that statement is to be made tomorrow. I hope that I shall have a reply on this point. If not, may I continue my question? The problem we are facing is that presumably a decision either has or has not been made. If a decision has been made, will my right hon. Friend please guarantee to assure hon. Members, who are gravely concerned about the Chrysler situation and who may be visiting Chrysler factories tomorrow, that if a statement is to be made it will be made tomorrow? If the decision has not been made but the decision is reached tomorrow, will he consider informing us [column 662]at that point? May I please have a reply on that matter? Am I to receive a reply? Mr. Short I cannot answer my hon. Friend until he sits down. I am quite willing to answer. He put some very sensible points, and indeed human issues, concerning the way in which we carry out our business. I shall see whether it is possible to find some satisfactory way this evening of informing hon. Members whether there will be a statement tomorrow. I hope that the House will appreciate the difficulties. Negotiations are now taking place. They may go on until late tonight. A solution may be reached tonight or it may not. It may be reached tomorrow morning. If a settlement were reached early tomorrow morning, it would be wrong for the Government to withhold that information. It is a difficult situation, but I shall do my best to inform hon. Members tonight before they go away whether there will be a statement tomorrow. Mr. Buchan I thank my right hon. Friend. Mrs. Winifred Ewing Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether early in the Session in 1976 we may debate the Report of the Select Committee on Violence in Marriage? Mr. Short Many hon. Members are interested in that Report. I shall bear in mind the possibility of a general debate on that topic when time becomes available. Mr. Roy Hughes May the House have an early debate on the steel industry? To put the matter modestly and mildly, I must remind my right hon. Friend that the industry is in a truly deplorable state. In view of the fact that the British Steel Corporation is a publicly-owned concern with ultimate responsibility to this House, does the Leader of the House agree that there is some merit in meeting this suggestion? Mr. Short I recognise that the world recession is having a considerable effect on the steel industry. There will not be a debate next week, but sometime in the new year we shall have to debate the steel industry. Copyright © Margaret Thatcher Foundation 2024. All Rights Reserved.

right

speech etc mrs thatcher ask edward shortthe leader house state business week lord president council leader house commons mr edward short business week follow monday december debate rate support grant order tuesday december supply allotted day house ask pass outstanding vote debate motor vehicle industry motion approve paragraph report committee privilege house commons paper relate exclusion precinct mr knight mr schreiber wednesday december debate employment measure save job motion hill livestock compensatory allowance regulation winter scotland revocation scheme weight column act biscuit shortbread order thursday december proceeding consolidated fund bill friday december propose house rise christmas adjournment monday january mrs thatcher debate motor vehicle industry tuesday expect statement chrysler position tomorrow later tomorrow expect publication cprs report debate report have promise beginning november right hon gentleman recollect read week right hon friend robert mellishthe parliamentary secretary treasury mention statement denis healeythe chancellor exchequer good time debate unemployment expect statement monday mr short negotiation continue chrysler position right hon friend meeting mr riccardo colleague morning statement house soon possible hopefully early week shall consider point right hon lady cprs report shall possible publish report debate measure announce debate wednesday chancellor mind statement debate consider precedent previous conservative government term office precedent view content chancellor measure think appropriate statement debate mrs thatcher look chrysler statement expect debate motor vehicle industry expect debate expect deny information contain cprs report aware complicated difficult decision chrysler column essential house inform minister mr short agree right hon lady possible statement tomorrow shall clearly statement reach solution statement soon possible regard cprs report shall possible available debate shall good hon member rise mr speaker ask help house effort curtail item business altogether successful inform house nearly right hon hon member want speak debate death penalty hope hon member ask brief question business house mr burden point order mr speaker leader house statement soon possible happen icelandic water mr speaker order hon member nuneaton mr huckfield mr les huckfield right hon friend accept hon friend recognise urgent need statement chrysler soon possible view far important statement friday recognise appreciate statement important matter early possible debate motor industry mr short promise statement early possible moment house sit tomorrow work day realise hon member visit constituency think house entitle information early possible moment mr buck right hon gentleman ensure statement course day happen morning icelandic water appear icelandic thor open fire hole hove assistance offer craft column right hon gentleman agree appropriate house opportunity tell precisely happen short term long term expect opportunity debate matter iceland totally indefensible prepared negotiate matter mr short understand concern house matter shall pass urgently right hon friend hon learn gentleman hon member gillingham mr burden say offer time debate christmas think opportunity christmas adjournment debate mr richard wainwright hon member meaningful contribution debate motor vehicle industry week right hon gentleman arrange available cprs report government reply report expenditure committee motor vehicle industry wait week mr short afraid promise document available debate shall try possible cprs report available house mr james johnson inform right hon friend support plea hon learn member colchester mr buck occurrence iceland hear detail hon learn gentleman correct terrible business shot fire icelandic water like statement quickly possible mr short understand hon friend concern shall start work matter soon business question conclude mr peter walker leader house say try available cprs report difficulty reason copy available library mr short say shall look matter good mr kilfedder know right hon gentleman appreciate importance early debate report relate northern ireland convention ensure debate place week house return christmas recess avoid political vacuum northern ireland mr short appreciate need score debate northern ireland soon return absolutely guarantee debate week return christmas shall good arrange debate soon possible mr lipton right hon friend say end business tuesday house debate report committee privilege assurance adequate time afford rule suspend necessary mr short rule suspend house note table point debate feel unfair matter hang head journalist concern christmas recess point involve privilege raise wide issue sure government house wish time think matter mr du cann right hon gentleman explain previous arrangement business cancel debate christmas report public account committee agree unsatisfactory discussion report senior select committee house delay way particularly constitute audit available house government expenditure potential check agree government duty support work member house regard government believe work valuable house prime minister distinguished chairman mr short agree right hon gentleman importance public account committee know intend debate report week view chrysler debate debate unemployment chancellor exchequer package possible find time debate shall find time debate soon possible recess mr stonehouse right hon friend intend table motion christmas adjournment mr short think good day debate day house deal consolidated fund bill thursday week mr peyton subject debate motor industry surely difficult hold debate answer expenditure committee report cprs report believe right say minister state department industry record say document available debate motor industry house government view house answer expenditure committee report chrysler situation settle tantamount say money chrysler mean money leyland unfortunate result secondly right hon gentleman remember promise give fortnight ago government statement national enterprise board patronage secretary appear week little statement mr short deal second point undertake statement shall week look carefully matter examine practice regard nationalise industry set board take long time apologise hope shall statement house house rise regard right hon gentleman point cprs report shall good available possible column undertaking government reply report usual opportunity subject agreement chairman debate matter course shall examine question response right hon gentleman say mr hoyle right hon friend statement import control matter great concern hon member house debate employment situation mr short yes sir statement import control week statement right hon friend chancellor exchequer likely speech debate mr biffen view importance tuesday debate imperative report central policy review staff available house right hon gentleman aware final mockery turn sunday time find information mr buchan subject chrysler situation recognise friday work day sense hon member constituency statement chrysler tomorrow doubt morning hon member like know statement tomorrow hope shall reply point continue question problem face presumably decision decision right hon friend guarantee assure hon member gravely concerned chrysler situation visit chrysler factory tomorrow statement tomorrow decision decision reach tomorrow consider inform column point reply matter receive reply mr short answer hon friend sit willing answer sensible point human issue concern way carry business shall possible find satisfactory way evening inform hon member statement tomorrow hope house appreciate difficulty negotiation take place late tonight solution reach tonight reach tomorrow morning settlement reach early tomorrow morning wrong government withhold information difficult situation shall good inform hon member tonight away statement tomorrow mr buchan thank right hon friend mrs winifre ewing right hon gentleman early session debate report select committee violence marriage mr short hon member interested report shall bear mind possibility general debate topic time available mr roy hughes house early debate steel industry matter modestly mildly remind right hon friend industry truly deplorable state view fact british steel corporation publiclyowned concern ultimate responsibility house leader house agree merit meet suggestion mr short recognise world recession have considerable effect steel industry debate week new year shall debate steel industry copyright margaret thatcher foundation right reserve

Jul 11, 2021 Former President Donald Trump gave a speech at CPAC 2021 in Dallas, TX on July 11. Read the full transcript of his Conservative Political Action Conference speech here. Transcribe Your Own Content Try Rev and save time transcribing, captioning, and subtitling. Donald Trump: (00:07)Thank you very much. Thank you. Audience: (00:18)USA, USA, USA, USA, USA, USA, USA. Donald Trump: (00:18)Thank you very much. Thank you to Matt. What a job. He and Mercedes have done. CPAC is a hot item. You got a lot of people standing outside trying to get in. Would anybody like to give up their slot? Would anybody? I want to just pay my respects. CPAC is really, what a job they’ve done, and I’m thrilled to be back in the heart of Texas with the proud conservative patriots, who are courageously leading the battle to frankly save our country. That’s what it’s about. Donald Trump: (00:52)For a year before election, the fake news media said Texas was in play. It’s in play. You know what in play means? Like it’s close. And they were right, except it was totally in play for me. For me and you, actually. No, it was in play for me. They said, “The polls have closed in Texas. Donald Trump has won Texas.” But how long did we listen to it? It was in play. it will never be in play if we have the right candidate. This state is never going to be in play. this is a very, very special place, and we’re going to keep it the way it is, and we’re going to bring back your energy. Donald Trump: (01:31)I told you this was going to happen. I told you. Actually, Texas believed us. With the help of everyone here today, we will defeat the radical left, the socialists, Marxists, and the critical race theorists. Whoever thought would be even using that term. We will secure our borders. We will stop left wing cancel culture. We will restore free speech and fair elections, and we will make America great again. It’s very simple. Very simple. Donald Trump: (02:20)From the very beginning, the people in this room have been some of the staunchest and fiercest supporters of our incredible movement, the greatest political movement in the history of our country. And I can say that, and nobody ever even challenges me. Look at all those fake news people back there. They don’t challenge us. They don’t even challenge. Donald Trump: (02:49)I want to personally thank each and every one of you for your incredible support, and your support of CPAC. You never stopped fighting for me, and I will never, ever stop fighting for you. Promise. I especially want to thank two wonderful and really extraordinary people who make this incredible event possible. You know them almost as well as I do. Matt and Mercedes Schlapp. Thank you, thank you. Stand up, please. Thank you. Thank you. Great job. Great job. You’ve taken it to a whole new level. I appreciate it. Everybody appreciates it. Audience: (03:47)Trump won! Trump won! Donald Trump: (03:47)Thank you. It’s true. We all won. We all won. Also with us is a true Texas conservative, and a real leader. Where is he? Ken Paxton. Where is he? Oh, look at that. And he is. He’s fast on the draw. We love Ken. Thank you, Ken, very much. We appreciate you being here. We’re also grateful to be joined- Audience: (04:13)[inaudible 00:04:13] USA, USA, USA, USA, USA, USA, USA. USA. Donald Trump: (04:17)He’s going back home to mom. His mom is a big supporter of ours, by the way. He’s going to have a rough night. We’re grateful to be joined as well by a wonderful, wonderful, not only political person, but a wonderful person, Governor Kristi Noem. Governor. Thank you, Kristi. Great job. And we have many, many members of Congress here. Could I ask our great Congress men and women to stand up please, right now? What a group. What a group. What a group. All warriors. Thank you very much. Thank you, fellows. Warriors. Truly are, they’re truly warriors. Donald Trump: (05:24)And countless other conservative leaders and politicians and people that we love and we respect, and we are fighting with and we are fighting for. For generations, the American conservative union has helped lead the charge to defend our values, protect our country, and preserve our glorious American heritage. You see they’re taking our heritage away. That’s not going to happen. Not going to happen. Donald Trump: (05:50)We were doing so well until the rigged election happened to come along. We were doing really well. But today that heritage is under threat like never before. Who would have thought this could have happened? Even Bernie Sanders is saying, “I never thought this could happen.” He’s mild by comparison. In a matter of mere months, Joe Biden has brought our country to the brink of ruin. Right here in Texas we are the epicenter of a border and migration crisis unlike anything anyone has ever seen before in the history of our country. Donald Trump: (06:28)At the same time, they have totally obliterated your energy industry. I told you. Under my administration, we achieved a historic reduction in illegal immigration. Never happened before to that extent, and not even close. We ended the horrible catch and release, where we catch a criminal and release him into our country. We actually said, “Nope, it’s called stay in Mexico.” And it worked very well, and we had the support of Mexico. Who else could do that? And you have a great president of Mexico, a friend of mine. He’s done a great job. We’re on opposite sides of the spectrum, but we got along great, and he’s been terrific, and I appreciate it. Donald Trump: (07:16)We stopped asylum fraud, and we struck critical agreements with other countries to stop illegal immigration. We called it, in fact, remain in Mexico. You don’t come here. Get released, and you never see these people again. They don’t come back. They say, “Come back in three years for a court case.” Only the really not smart ones. I want to be nice. Only the real not smart ones come back, which is about one percent. Donald Trump: (07:46)We reduced drugs pouring across our border by the highest percentage ever. History of our country. Not just people. We shut down the migrant caravans. You haven’t seen those caravans. Get ready, because they’re coming up right now. You’ve been watching them come through. In those caravans, you have some deadly people. Donald Trump: (08:10)We dealt a crippling blow to MS-13. We deported criminal aliens by the thousands and thousands and thousands, and we built almost 500 miles of border wall, the exact wall that the border patrol wanted. I thought we could use nice concrete plank. Just knock it out. They said, “Sir, we want steel, concrete, and rebar. And it has to be wired, sir. So we can all the drones the Democrat…” Remember they wanted drones? I said, “Drones are not going to stop people.” Do you remember the statement during the campaign? Two things. Everything’s obsolete like two days after they come up with it nowadays. Computers, everything obsolete. They got a better one. Donald Trump: (08:55)Two things, right? What are they? Wheels and walls. They never change. In a thousand years, you’ll say, “Wheels and walls.” Walls work. Walls work. Just ask Nancy Pelosi. She has a nice wall around her house. Now the Biden administration has turned the border into the single greatest disaster in American history, and perhaps in world history. Nobody’s ever seen a border like this. Other countries don’t have a border like this. Illegal border crossings are up over 1,000% from last year. Think of this. Think of this Donald Trump: (09:34)For the last three months in a row, more illegal alien minors have arrived than any other month in United States states history. This is the major pipeline for MS-13. These are the worst gang members, they say, anywhere in the world. They bring recruits to every state in our country. they run it like a business. But not with me. We were throwing them the hell out of here so fast. ICE, ICE. ICE, the great patriots. Tough people, ICE. And they’ve been disrespected. We can’t have them disrespected. Border patrol. Brandon’s here some place, probably. Where the hell is Brandon? He is so great. What a job he’s done. Yes, thank you. Thank you. ICE and border patrol. Donald Trump: (10:26)Overall, illegal youth arrives, and arrivals are up nearly 500%. Think of that, and they’re being resettled in cities and towns all across the United States at tax payers’ expense. And the people in those cities and towns have no idea that they’re coming. The tax payers will also be forced to pay for relatives to be flown from Central America to join them. Did you ever hear of chain migration? You come in illegally, and we’ll also bring your mother, your father, your grandparents, your brothers, your sisters, your aunts, your uncles. Anybody else want to come in? Come on in. Donald Trump: (11:07)We had on the West Side Highway. He was driving rapidly down the West Side Highway at a very excessive speed. New York City, Hudson River, beautiful new park. And he saw people working out. A big group of people, and he decided to make a right turn, and he killed many, and he maimed many. People go out because they want to put themselves in shape, and they end up going back home missing a leg, missing a couple of arms, or dead. That’s what happened. And he had the right to bring people in with him. His family, his mother and father, and his brother. And he had many that he brought in, but we took very good care of him. Donald Trump: (11:52)But this administration doesn’t do that. Many of these children, for the first time ever, it’s a terrible thing that’s happening to them, are on suicide watch. They end up in a place that they have no idea where it is. No idea. Not the border. Our whole country has become a border. Meanwhile, ICE removals are at the lowest level ever, and they are great people. They’re patriots and they’re tough. The agency has been functionally shut down. All of America’s now one giant sanctuary city. We were fighting sanctuary cities, and doing very well. They’re meant for criminal aliens. That’s what they’re meant for. Under our administration, we sent a very different message to the coyotes, human traffickers, child smugglers, vicious criminal cartels, and savage MS-13 gang members. When I was president, illegal alien criminals knew that if they trespassed across our border, they would be caught, they would be detained, and they would be sent to jail, or we would send them the hell back to where they came from. We created the most secure border in all of American history by far. Donald Trump: (13:17)Biden’s border crisis is also helping drive an unprecedented crime wave, and you see the crime wave. Even without this you see all in Democrat run cities. Please remember that. The bloodshed and violence in these cities is reaching epidemic proportions. Homicides are up 42% in Los Angeles, 37% in Philadelphia, 68% in Atlanta, and over 500% in Portland over this time last year. Think of that. Portland. What they did to Portland, and nothing happens to Antifa, and nothing happens to BLM. But to people that are patriots or conservatives or Republicans, they stay in jails for extended periods of time, and they destroy their lives. We’re not going to take it anymore. Donald Trump: (14:26)In New York City, crime is out of control. It’s at record levels with nobody being prosecuted except of course innocent Republicans are being prosecuted. The Democrats know their policies on crime are so unpopular, so radical, so crazy, they are now trying to pretend they never led the defund the police movement in the first place. Disinformation. “We never said defund the police. You know who did it? The Republicans did it.” That’s what they do. It’s called disinformation. How about Russia? “Trump had to do with Russia. He loves Russia. He loves Putin. He loves everybody.” Turned out to be the Democrats, right? After two years, they figured, gee. And after awhile, people actually believed this stuff. But now they’re saying, “Defund the police. We didn’t say it. It was the Republicans.” It’s called disinformation. You have to be wise to it. Donald Trump: (15:23)It’s very simple. If you support defunding the police, vote for the radical left Democrats, and you see what’s happening to the cities where they defunded the police. There’s never been anything like it. If you want more police and more cops on the streets, vote for America first Republicans or let’s put it very simply, vote for MAGA. Make America great again. MAGA. MAGA, MAGA, MAGA. The same far left Democrats who are defunding police are also leading an all out crusade to strip you, the law abiding citizens of America, of your God given Second Amendment rights. I told you again. I told you. I told you. And I preserved that right 100%, and you think that was easy? It wasn’t easy. There was so much pressure. There was so much pressure. Republicans must never waiver in demanding that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Can’t let it happen. Thank you. Thank you very much. But it’s not only the Second Amendment that the leftists want to destroy. They are hard at work to abolish the First Amendment as well. Probably all amendments, when you get right down to it. Why not? The radical left and big tech’s attack on free speech is unlawful. It’s unconstitutional, and it is completely un-American. To protect the Constitutional rights and liberties of every citizen, this week I filed a major class action. Lot of people are joining. Yep. A big class action lawsuit against the big tech giants. We are suing Facebook, Twitter, and Google. And to show you the arrogance, I was just talking to Mercedes, I guess. Donald Trump: (18:06)Matt, you announced that they’re trying to take this incredible, I think much more than 50% of our country. I really do. Because there’s no way they can be 50% with defund the police, sanctuary cities. And all of the crazy things that they espouse. There’s now way. But I heard they just filed where they want to take everybody down. Honestly, they’re going too far. They’re going too far. They’re so spoiled. It’s like a spoiled child. “I want that toy, dad. But I also want this one, this one, this one.” Eventually bad things happened. Donald Trump: (18:45)We are taking Mark Zookerbucks, Jack Dorsey, and the other Silicon Valley billionaires to federal court, and we will keep on fighting until we have stopped this assault on our liberties and until we have restored the sacred right to freedom of speech for every single American. Who would have thought? Who would have thought? Who would have thought? Could anybody believe we’re even talking about this subject two years ago, three years ago? Who would have believed it? Donald Trump: (19:29)In addition to their malicious attacks on free speech, these Silicon Valley tyrants are also attacking our democracy itself. The big tech election interference in 2020 was an outrageous assault upon our Republic and upon the American voter. Terrible thing has happened to our country. We’re being laughed at all over the world. Our election has been studied by other countries. They’re not going to do it that way. Mark Zuckerberg alone spent $ 400 million dollars on election meddling. In virtually all of the key swing states, he funded unmanned and unprotected drop boxes that were deployed in Democrat run cities and heavily Democrat precincts to scoop up ballots which were supposedly 94, 95, 96% for Joe Biden, because he campaigned so well from his basement. How about where Biden did substantially better in the swing states than Barack Hussein Obama with the black population? Now, even though he did terribly throughout the country. But in those five places, he did very well. You know about that, Louie, right? He did five places, he did very well. Beat Obama with the black population. I don’t think so. But they practiced that and countless other schemes to illegitimately and illegally boost the Democrat vote. The drop boxes were often very late. Where are they? Where are they? What happened? They’re supposed to be here. They’re not. I can tell you what happened. Sometimes late by days in showing up to the vote counting areas. Donald Trump: (21:18)At the same time, the big tech giants worked together to suppress and diminish news coverage that was negative for Joe Biden. Look at all these stories that came up, and they were wiped out. Anything negative for Biden or the radical left Democrats, they just suppressed. And the most horrendous example, the oldest newspaper in America, and one of my favorites. It’s a great one. The New York Post broke one of the biggest scandals ever to emerge in a presidential election, providing extraordinarily detailed evidence of the corruption of Joe Biden and where’s Hunter Biden? You know where he is? He’s painting right now for 500,00 a piece. Where’s Hunter? His highest and best use, I can tell you, is in a studio to paint. Even though he’s never painted before. He set a record for the highest price for a person that never painted a picture before. Never did a painting before. Donald Trump: (22:21)Then without any basis whatsoever, Twitter and Facebook banned the New York Post’s account of this terrible story. After the election, one poll showed that at least 10% of Joe Biden’s voters would have switched their vote if they had known about Joe and Hunter Biden’s scandals, enough to flip the results of numerous states. But don’t worry about it, because we won those states anyway. We won them all. Probably the only thing I disagree with. It wouldn’t have mattered. They would have found the votes. They would have found those votes. If it was reported, they would have found the votes. Little more, they would have churned out some more ballots. Donald Trump: (23:04)The truth was covered up, and it had a giant impact on the election. This must never happen to another party’s presidential candidate again. Can never happen. We are a laughing stock all over the world. A laughing stock. And you know who knows it better than even the people in this room? Democrats. They know it. Furthermore, these big tech companies interfered with and undermined the sacred integrity of the ballot box by censoring any honest discussion of election fraud. You say election fraud, you get canceled. That’s the one thing they want to stay away from. The cancel culture, they’re very tough on it. But the thing they really don’t want is because we’re too close to home. We got too close. Read Time magazine from four months ago, the cover story. They couldn’t help themselves. It doesn’t go all the way, but it goes far enough, and you see what- Donald Trump: (24:03)It doesn’t go all the way, but it goes far enough and you see what they did. They want to stay away from talking about the election results. Every time the media references the election hoax, they say the fraud is “unproven. And while there is no evidence … ” No evidence? There’s so much evidence. You saw what happened in Georgia the other day. They found 35,000 votes. Then they deleted in Georgia over 100,000 votes. Because they were so bad voters, I said, “Why didn’t you try doing it before the election? Lost by this much. Why didn’t you do it before the election?” There’s bad things going on in this country, very bad things. We always had the reputation of being a wonderful, brilliant country for voting, and now everyone knows. They’ve watched, they’re very smart, and they see what happened. Donald Trump: (25:01)The governor of Georgia and Georgia secretary of state let us down. They let us down. And by the way, the voting law they passed is far weaker than that of Texas and other states. You hear that, Mr. Attorney General? They don’t even have signature verification. Could you imagine passing a voting law? But they’re getting a little good … because everyone thinks, “Oh, they’re passing this … ” no, it’s not. And you notice they’re the only state that’s being sued by the federal government. You know why? Because it’s an easy target, because the governor and the secretary of state won’t defend like that guy will defend. Donald Trump: (25:44)So I only speak the truth. So true. And the reason the Attorney General of the United States is going after Georgia is it’s so bad what they’ve done, and they’ll probably win, and that defense won’t take place. They go out and they really worked very hard on finding the right state to look at. Now Stacey Abrams in Georgia got them to sign what’s called a mandated consent decree, which was not approved by the legislature, therefore it’s illegal, and makes it very easy for Democrats to cheat and to win elections. You don’t have too many of them in Texas, do you, Louie? Doc Ronny, do we have … the great Doc Ronny, my doctor, became a Congressman. He only beat 22 people. 22 people, he was great. Donald Trump: (26:44)I said, “Doc, how about if I take a cognitive test?” He said, “Well, you can do it, sir. But if you do, it’ll be public.” Well, I said, “What’s wrong with that?” He said, “Well, if you don’t do well, sir, it’s not going to be pretty.” I said, “Is it hard?” He said, “After the first five questions, it gets very hard.” I said, “Let’s take a shot at it,” and we did it and we aced it, right? I aced it. Donald Trump: (27:08)And one of the doctors said he’s never seen anybody that aced it. And some of those questions are not easy. I will tell you that. How do you think Joe would do on a cognitive test? You never know. Maybe he’s … underneath there, there’s somebody that’s very unusual. Unfortunately, this was an election where the person that counts the votes was far more important than the candidate, no matter how many votes that candidate got, and we got record numbers of votes. It’s a disgrace to our nation and we are truly being scorned and disrespected all over the world. Never forget that the radical left is not the majority in this country. We are the majority and it’s not even close. It’s not even close. [crosstalk 00:28:24] Donald Trump: (28:26)And when you look at their policies, there’s just no way that can happen. There’s no way. Weak military. They fight against the military, always fighting budgets, military. We need strong military right now, so strong. And having rebuilt the US military is one of my greatest achievements. It was a sick and tired military. The equipment was old and depleted. And now we have those brand new F-35s and everything’s brand new, and we have a great military, or it’s coming soon and they won’t be able to stop it. Donald Trump: (28:59)But the radical left cheat in elections and the fake news media cheats in polling, like having me down 17 points just before the election in Wisconsin. “Donald Trump … ” ABC News, Washington Post, just before … now when people hear that, it’s called suppression, they say, “We love the president, but we’re going to stay home. Let’s watch television, Harry.” I said, “That’s a good idea. Harry’s going to stay home with Janet.” I’m down 17 points, and I felt I was winning the state, and we did, in my opinion, win the safe, but it was very close. Even by their fake numbers, it was very close. I’d have it down 17 points. Donald Trump: (29:43)And interestingly in 2016, the exact same thing happened. They had me down 19 points. Same people, ABC News, Washington Post, suppression. I was down 19 points and I won the state. So that’s a fake poll. It should be illegal. It’s a fake poll. The same people … at least they got better. They had 17 instead of 19. But I was down four years ago. We got her by surprise in 2016. They said, “We’re never going to let that happen again.” That’s what happened. Donald Trump: (30:19)Americans do not support the woke left. The people are with us. You have no idea how much. In a recent, highly respected Rasmussen poll, 58% of voters say the media is truly the enemy of the people. Think of that, 58%, and only 23% disagreed. Nobody can tell me that defunding the police, open borders, raising your taxes … it used to be, you’re running for office, “We’re going to cut your taxes.” This is the only time in history, “We’re going to raise your taxes.” “Oh, I’m going to vote for him. I want to raise them.” And they’re raising your taxes so you can waste this money on the Green New Deal, which is nonsense. Donald Trump: (31:14)So they want to put back the regulations. I took off more regulations than any president in history. And that’s what gave us really … I actually think, Louie, it was more important than the taxes, than cutting taxes. But we took off the regulations. Used to take 20 years to get highways approved and roads approved, and we got it down to two, and we’re going to try and get it down to one. Well, we were going to get it down to one. Now we’re going to have to wait a little while I guess. It’ll get back up to about 18 or 20 pretty soon, and then we’ll bring it down one day. You just wait and see. Donald Trump: (31:54)The Democrats are terrible on policy, but they’re very vicious and they’re smart and they stick together. They don’t have Mitt Romneys and little Ben Sasses and Bill Cassidy. How about Bill Cassidy? He campaigns in the great state of Louisiana. He compaigns that he’s Trump’s friend. Every ad has Trump in it. “Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump,” and then he votes to impeach me. Can you believe it? But I always sort of felt that about that guy. Lightweight. But you have another very good senator there, John Kennedy. He’s very good. Very good senator. And Bill Cassidy can’t walk down the streets of Louisiana without having nasty things said to him, and they don’t have anyone, the Democrats, like the warmonger and most quoted Republican in the history of our country by Democrats, Liz Cheney. She’s quoted all the time. Every time a Democrat gets up to make a speech … you know this, fellows, right? You have to live with her, I guess. Maybe not much longer. But every time they get up to make a speech, “And to quote Liz Cheney … ” Donald Trump: (33:08)Democrats are ruthless, but they are united. They don’t have these Romney types. They don’t have them. It must be wonderful to live like that, but they have bad policy and they have policy that’s going to destroy our country. Like socialists and communists movements throughout history, today’s leftists do not believe in freedom, they do not believe in fairness, and they do not believe in democracy. They believe in Marxist morality. Anything is justified as long as it hurts their political opponents and advances the radical agenda of their party. It’s a radical agenda like nobody has seen before. Before our very eyes, the radical left Democrats are turning the law itself into a weapon for partisan persecution. It’s persecution. It’s really … look at what they’re doing to incredible people like Rudy Giuliani. I mean, he’s an incredible … greatest mayor in the history of the city of New York, great crime fighter. Donald Trump: (34:13)And at the same time, they’re weaponizing the IRS against conservatives and Christians just like they did with the tea party, except worse. There are now two sets of laws in this country, one for the left wing mob, the rioters and the rampagers who can do whatever the hell they want to whomever they want to do it. And there is another set of rules for law-abiding, conservative Americans, happen to be Republicans, who simply want to speak their minds and exercise their rights, like to talk about a rigged election. Donald Trump: (34:54)But Rudy Giuliani … and I mean that. He is by far the greatest mayor of the city. And now you realize, it means more right now, Matt, that it would have meant five years ago when you say that, because you see what the hell is happening to our cities, New York in particular. Donald Trump: (35:12)But one of the great crime fighters of his generation has had his law license taken away by the radical left, all because he was fighting against an election result that he saw was corrupt. That means you can never, ever fight anything. That means someday it could swing the other way, right? It could swing the other way. Probably won’t for a long time, but we’re not letting it happen. Under the standard that has now been applied to Rudy, lawyers are no longer free to represent their clients and their livelihood itself depends on one thing only, whether or not they want to fight the corruption. Donald Trump: (35:52)Think of it. Rudy fought because he saw the election was rigged. And because he fought, they took away his law license in New York and in Washington, DC. And this is a great man. This is a man … I lived in New York. You could walk down the streets. You were proud of the city. You’re not proud of the city anymore. You’re not proud of what’s happening. While many Democrats fought viciously and got caught lying about the 2016 election … they were lying … nothing happened. Russia, “Russia, Russia, Russia.” You remember Russia? I see Devin here. Where’s Devin? Stand up, Devin. Donald Trump: (36:45)When I came in, he was in the basement of an office building, the basement of the White House. They said, “Sir, there’s a Congressman.” He’s going through files and files because he knew that what shifty Schiff was saying was pure bullshit. You got it. You understood it. It was made up bull. And he and another great one … I could give it to everybody here, frankly, as far as I’m concerned, because they are great. Donald Trump: (37:14)And you have a star on your left. Stand up. Our star. Thank you, Barbara. Thank you. Devin always knows who to sit next to, but Devin received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, along with Jim Jordan of Ohio for the incredible courage they showed. Thank you very much. But he got it a long time ago with, “Russia, Russia, Russia.” Donald Trump: (37:44)I tell this story, during the campaign guys would come up to me … and we’re doing well. This is 2016. We’re doing well … “Sir, do you know anything about Russia?” “No. What am I supposed to know? Russia, I know Russia. But I don’t know … ” Two months later, a guy come up, different. “Sir, what do you have to do with Russia? Do you have anything to do with her?” “No. Why do you ask?” Then after about four or five guys coming up, I’d say, “What the hell is going on with Russia?” And it was a scam. Donald Trump: (38:14)And then we went through years with Mueller and there was no collusion. Oh, they wanted … remember? 18 angry Democrats, oh they went after us. They’ll send everything into New York. They’ll give it a shot now. 18, they’ve already done that. In fact, it’s photocopies they used. They used photocopies of the same stuff I beat in Washington. If anyone should be losing their jobs, their law licenses, and being investigated for crimes, it’s not Rudy Giuliani, it’s Adam Schiff. Donald Trump: (38:51)Adam Schiff is a very dishonest guy. He used to stand up at a microphone and he used to lie like hell. I’d say, “This guy is … ” He’d stand up, “This is a sad day for our union. President Trump works for Russia.” I’d say, “What the hell is he talking about?” And I’m the one that exposed Russia for the biggest thing they’ve ever done, the pipeline to Europe. I shut it down, and now Biden opened it up. They’re going to make a fortune. Donald Trump: (39:22)But guys like Andy McCabe and James Comey and James Clapper, and remember the two lovers, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page? All of the other perpetrators who have faced no consequences whatsoever, even though they knew it was a scam that they created. They created a scam. And I must be honest with you, I’ve never said this because I didn’t want to, but I will. I’m very disappointed that Bill Barr was unable to hold anyone accountable for the countless abuses of power by the Democrats. Donald Trump: (40:05)We didn’t hold the corrupt officials who spied on our campaign … remember I said, “They’re spying on our campaign.” And boy, that was like a lightning rod went off. Not the authors of the phony dossier, they weren’t held responsible. Not the women who slandered and lied and defamed Brett Kavanaugh. They said, ” Brett Kavanaugh, he had an affair.” They didn’t go after them. They lied so badly. Not any of the numerous criminal referrals for lying to Congress over and over again. Not any of the illegal leakers, not any of the people that were responsible for corrupting our elections. There’s no greater crime. He wanted nothing to do with it. He just didn’t want to do it. But perhaps it’s understandable because he did become a different man. I always liked him. But I said, “Bill, you got to move your ass. Our country is under attack.” But he became a different man when the Democrats viciously stated that they wanted to impeach him. They went wild. “We want to impeach him. We’re going to impeach Bill Barr. We’re going to impeach him.” He became different. I understand that. I didn’t become different. I got impeached twice. I didn’t change. I became worse. Donald Trump: (41:46)So I guess I can understand it. But I just a day ago received a statement from the US attorney, highly respected, in Pennsylvania, that Bill Barr would not allow him to investigate voter fraud. Can you believe it? Now, you have to understand, Philadelphia is the second most corrupt place … so I understand, okay? So I understand … in the nation. You know what first is? Detroit. Detroit was so corrupt. Philadelphia was so corrupt. But the US attorney was not allowed to investigate what … this just came out in a letter. You don’t even know about this, Devin, right? Matt, that’s a big one. What do you think? We have a letter. You’ll have to get it from him because I want to stay out of it. Get it from the US attorney, but I’m sure he’ll be willing to provide it, but he’s given it to us. He was not allowed to do his job. And I saw that. He was all enthused, and then all of a sudden it was like he was turned off. And so were others. Donald Trump: (42:54)This was true with so many others that when the justice department, they failed to call out the late night ballot stuffing that took place in Georgia. Remember that? Where they made up a story of a water main break in order to get people and security to leave the premises, and then they went into a rampage of stuffing, essentially, the ballots. But now that event, because of me and some very good people, is in court. Let’s see how that one turns out. And Bill Barr told me, “Sir, we’ve looked at it. We found nothing.” All you have to do is look at that tape. By the way, there was no water main. Remember? There was no water main. Remember that? I said to them, “But what about the water main?” “Oh, I didn’t hear about that.” Well, I heard about it. There was no water main break. They said there was, and the people ran, except a group of people came back. Boom, boom, boom. Donald Trump: (44:01)That one is easy. All you have to do is look at the tape. It’s incredible what tapes can show. The fact is, Republicans play a much nicer, kinder game than the Democrats, but based on what we’ve seen and what we’re witnessing now with all of the prosecutorial and other misconduct going on, perhaps Republicans will have to rethink their game plan. Louie Gohmert would agree with that. Louie Gohmert, I have to be careful with him. Don’t say I said it, but actually Louie Gohmert’s worse than any Democrat, but we have to hold him back. We hold him back, Doc Ronny, right? What do you think of that, Louie? You just heard something for the first time. Pretty amazing, isn’t it? Donald Trump: (44:46)And by the way, where’s Durham? He disappeared. Why didn’t they use the very well-done Horowitz Report? And it was very well done. It’s incredible. Donald Trump: (44:50)This is the Fox report. I’m John Scott. Former president Trump speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Dallas. Let’s listen in live. Donald Trump: (44:59)Even the New York Times wrote the most vicious editorial about James Comey based on the Horowitz report, which talked about the crimes and bad acts committed by Comey, McCabe and others. This is even before you go with Durham. I’d like to thank Inspector General Horowitz for that report. It should have been used. They didn’t want to use it. I guess it’s deep state. I don’t know what the hell they’re thinking. Deep state? Is there something … ? But if you can’t wait for Durham, just read a man named Daryl Cooper’s brilliant thread on Twitter. He tells the whole story. You got to read it. As he put it, “We know as fact the Steele dossier was the sole evidence just to justify spying on the Trump campaign.” Think of it. They spied on my campaign and nothing will happen to them. Think of it. Can you imagine if I spied on Biden’s campaign or Obama’s campaign? Could you imagine what would have happened? They spied on my campaign, we caught them, and nothing happened. The FBI knew the Steele dossier was a DNC operation, paid for by DNC and crooked Hillary Clinton, who by the way, is the most angry person in the United States today. She’s gone away. You know why? She said, “Why the hell didn’t you do that for me in 2016?” I got it. [crosstalk 00:46:36] Again, there are more people than her. Donald Trump: (46:39)No, she said, “Why didn’t you do it for me?” Actually, the race was much closer. The New York Times asked me a question, what happened in 2020 that was different from 2016? I said, “Well, I’ll tell you. We did much better in 2020. We got 12 million more votes. We won by a much bigger margin.” 2016 was very close, but Hillary said, “Why didn’t you do that for me? Why didn’t you cheat for me, damn it?” I could have been somebody. Could have been somebody. Donald Trump: (47:16)Steele’s source told the FBI the info, was totally unserious, and they did not inform the court of any of this, and they kept on spying on the Trump campaign. In addition, the press is part of this crooked operation. You know that. Election rules were changed. Big tech censored the opposition. Political violence was legitimized and encouraged by the left. And then Trump, the President of the United States, was banned from the social media, as we call it, by sleazebags I was banned by sleazebags. I was banned by bad people. They’re far worse … I don’t say I’m perfect, but they’re far worse than I am. They are far … Donald Trump: (48:03)I wouldn’t say I’m perfect, but they’re far worse than I am. I [inaudible 00:48:03]. They are far worse. In other words, the entire system was rigged against the American people and rigged against a fair, decent, and honest election. For decades, the conservative movement acted as if all that mattered were policy fights in Washington or that all it would take to prevail was winning a small handful of Supreme Court cases. And we’re disappointed in the Supreme Court. I’m disappointed, but the battle is so much bigger and so much broader than any of that. The radical left has been methodically taking over every giant centralized institution in American life. The school systems, you see that, the universities, the bar associations, look at what happened to Rudy… Hollywood journalists, the big banks, big tech, and even the Supreme Court where we’re getting some unexpected rulings because the nine justices do not want to be packed. And the Democrats are in a position to pack the court and they don’t want to be packed. So they don’t want to look at the election. They said, we don’t want to see it. Donald Trump: (49:18)We had by that gentleman right there from the great state of Texas, we had almost 20 states. And we thought we had a case where the standing was so good. You know, I wanted to do it personally, but they said, “Sir, you’re the president. You have no standing.” I said, “What kind of a system? Wait a minute. I’m the president.” They said, “The thing that has the standing are states. And if you could get one or two or three…” They got almost 20 and they were really strong about it. And you know, the justices never looked at the case. They didn’t look. And many of the judges didn’t look at the case, but we do have cases going on right now where I think you have patriot judges. And we’ll see. We’re going to see if that happens. But if the justices got their way, they won’t be packed. In other words, what happened is vicious things. Look at the Schumer statement that he said when he was on the court steps. Donald Trump: (50:14)So, he’s no longer protected because he’s not… In Congress, if you’re a guy like Adam Schiff, you can lie and lie and lie. You can’t do anything, you have immunity. But once you step out of that building, Schumer said horrible things. He said a mafia like statement to the judges. Nothing happens, nothing happens. But they are playing the ref, you know, playing the ref? Even better than the great Bobby Knight in his prime. I love Bobby Knight. He came out from great state of Indiana. He came out, he endorsed me. It was over in Indiana, but Bobby Knight used to scream at the refs. And they’d say, “Why are you doing that? You’re never going get to get the call changed.” “No, no. I’m not worried about this goal. But the next call, they’ll be thinking about…” Donald Trump: (50:56)That’s what’s happening with our Supreme Court. That’s what’s happened. They don’t want to be packed. We don’t want to have 24 judges. You know, they said 13. I said, the Democrats are too smart for 13. It’s an unlucky number. Why would they have 13? So they’ll make it 15, but they’ll probably make it 23, 21, 19. It’ll go up. And you know, if they would’ve looked at the case, we would have won that case in my opinion. And they would have never been packed because you would’ve had a beautiful veto sitting right in the oval office. I would have vetoed it because it’s a terrible thing. But the Democrats are vicious to the Supreme Court and to Kavanaugh. He’s another one. “Yeah, Bill Barr”, they screamed, “we’re going to impeach him. We’re going to impeach him.” And it changes people. Donald Trump: (51:47)And how about Brett Kavanaugh? We’re going to impeach him on women that admitted ultimately that nothing happened. They weren’t even in the country, one of them. It was all a made up scam. They should be prosecuted. They should be prosecuted. And they weren’t. But with Brett Kavanaugh, they’re screaming, “We’re going to impeach him every time [inaudible 00:52:14].” “And we’re going to impeach him.” And you know what? How does he get out of that by voting for the Democrats? So it’s a very sad thing. And he went through what no other person I have ever seen go through. That hearing was the most vicious, horrible hearing I think in the history of our country. I don’t think there’s ever been anything worse than that. In New York City and state, far left Democrats actually ran for office promising to prosecute me, my family, and my company, without knowing anything about me. I never even heard of these people. They didn’t know nothing about me. We’re going to get him. Donald Trump: (52:52)“We’re going to get him. We’re going to get Trump.” And she won. She won. A lot of people running, she won on the basis, ” We’re going to get him.” “What did he do?” “I don’t know, but we’ll find something.” No, no, how would you like this? They’re in search of a crime. To them, it did not matter whether any laws had been broken. The crime was opposing the radical left Democrat party. This is lawless and tyrannical behavior. It’s a political persecution, like something straight out of the communist countries that you see around the world. The few that are left. Yet, it’s happening here in America at the hands of radical left Democrats. And the Republicans again, they just don’t seem to understand at that top level, what the hell is happening. They don’t do it the same way. And maybe they’re going to have to change our job. Donald Trump: (53:55)And our mission is to resist this poison and fight for our Republic, with all of our heart and with all of ourselves. For decades, the career politicians who sold out our country shipped away our millions and millions of jobs and sent our children to die in endless foreign wars have gotten away with the most flagrant corruption imaginable. These people sold out our country. As vice-president Joe Biden flew his son Hunter around the world on Air Force Two, sucking up money like a vacuum cleaner, Hunter’s emails show that he collected millions and millions of dollars from foreign nations, including Ukraine. While setting aside a cut to the big guy. Who is the big guy? That’s Joe Biden. Well is that allowed to…? And Joe Biden said, they’re not getting the billion dollars unless that prosecutor is out. What the hell? Could you imagine if I said that? If I said that they impeached me and nothing happened. Can you imagine if I said, “They’re not getting their billionaire and voila, he was gone. He was bragging. I don’t know what the hell he was thinking when he… Did he know the tape was running when he did that? And nothing happens, nothing happens. You know why? Because Bill Barr is a nice man. Bill Barr and the Republicans are too nice. They’re too nice. These are vicious, vicious people. And they will destroy our country and they will do whatever they can to do it. Hunter said that he gave half of his salary to pop and that he paid vast amounts of money for Joe Biden’s expenses. Now, Joe Biden has all these houses. He’s always been like a Senator or a Congressman, right? For many years. Louie, I didn’t know you made that kind of money that you had mansions. You have mansions? Does Louie Gohmert have mansions all over Texas? I don’t think so. He’s got one house and that’s enough. That’s all you need, right Louie? Wants to go home to his bathroom and his bedroom and use his one toothbrush right? No, but Joe’s got a lot of toothbrushes. Yet not a single member of our treacherous, corrupt political establishment has ever experienced anything like the deranged and demented persecution that has been directed at me, my family, and everyone associated with us, everybody. I came down the escalator with our great future first lady. She was great. She had a very successful career. Did really well until she met me and so much for that career. That’s all right. She’s cool. She’s the coolest and most confident person. She gets it better than anybody. And she loves you people. She loves you, but that’s when all of these witch hunts began. All because I put America first, all because of MAGA: Make America Great Again. And now, it’s also because I got more votes, 75 million, than anybody in the history of the presidency. And far more than Clinton, far more than Obama, and a record 12 million more than 2016. Think of it, in the history, usually they go down a little bit second term and they win, but they go down a little bit. I was told by a great pollster, really somebody great, John McLaughlin, one of the most respected one. Sir, you got 63 million votes. If you get it up to 64 or 65, nobody can beat you. Can’t lose. Thank you John, very much. I got it to 75 and I lost in quotes. I lost. It’s a disgrace. It’s a disgrace. And what they’ve done to this movement, I think they’ve made the movement stronger. I’ll tell you, in a certain way, I think that is. Donald Trump: (58:31)I’ll never forget it. On election night, we did so much better than they ever thought in their wildest imagination. That they just said, “The hell with it. Let it go.” What they did, what they did. I’m also leading in the polls against Harris. Because not a lot of people think that Joe’s going to be running, but you never know. It is a strange world and everyone else who’s going to run on the radical left, whether it’s on the Democrat side or the… I love my Republicans, but we’re really kicking their ass too. But we love them. But we like it because they’re friends of ours, right? So it’s okay. I think we can say that affectionately. No, they’re great. They’re great. And they’re working hard and you saw a lot of them this weekend. But the Democrats want me out and they want me out as fast as possible. And here I am, I could have a nice, beautiful life. And here I am on a Sunday in Texas. Donald Trump: (01:00:23)Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. No, I said to Matt and Mercedes because I’ve done this and we’ve had… And by the way, you have a poll coming out. Unfortunately, I want to know what it is they… You know, they do that straw poll, right? Now, if it’s bad, I just say, “It’s fake.” If it’s good, I say, “That’s the most accurate poll perhaps ever.” And I know that they it. I guess it gets announced after… I want to find out, are you going to…? Donald Trump: (01:00:55)Oh, he won’t. He won’t tell me. I know Matt, he won’t tell me. Well, whenever the hell they get it released. I’ll tell you, here’s the story. If it’s bad, it’ll be front page news in the newspapers. If it’s great, they won’t even cover it. I hate to tell you that, Matt. And I don’t want to convince him to do a bad Paul, but you know the straw poll. So, I did this years ago and I got these great straw polls. It was the first time I ever did it. And I was a novice, but it was right here at CPAC. And I’m so proud of the jump. I mean, look at this room. Look at outside. We have thousands of people trying to come in. I mean our only thing is next time we’ll have to get a bigger place, I guess, right? Next time. Donald Trump: (01:01:33)But I said to Matt, and much more importantly, I said to Mercedes, I said, “Give me Death Valley. Give me the worst time. The worst slot, we’ll fill it up.” He said, “Well, sir, that would be Sunday afternoon because most people are doing other things.” I said, “That’s okay, Matt. You don’t have to give me Friday night or Saturday night, which is easy.” That’s too easy. We love doing it the hard way. I said, “Give me any time you want on Sunday that’s good. I’ll fly in.” And look at this crowd we got. And look at the love in this room. Look at the love. Donald Trump: (01:02:16)Nah, we’ll give Saturday night to Louie and to the doc. We’ll give Saturday night… We’ll give Saturday night, Byron. We’re going to give Saturday night to Devin. We’re going to give somebody Friday night, which is almost as good. They give me Sunday and I love Sunday. You know why? It reminds me of church and that’s okay. But no I’m honored that… It really is. I said, “Give me your worst time. I don’t care.” And he gives me the worst time. He actually did. And he just broke his record. Donald Trump: (01:02:49)The radical left and the failed political establishment hates our movement for a simple reason because together we took on the corrupt special interests. We faced down the open borders that you’re saying so much, how bad are these borders. They’re coming out of the prisons, they’re coming out of everywhere in these other countries. They think we’re so stupid. They’re letting their prisoners out, floating in through the caravans, come into our country: murderers, drug dealers, human traffickers of women. It’s mostly women. We stood up to the absurd dictates of political correctness. And we called out the people who were getting rich bleeding our country dry. And many of them were politicians. Against the howls and cries of the corporate interests and the Washington lobbyists, we demanded fair trade for the American workers and we did a great job on that. We finally ended the worst trade deal in the history of our country, NAFTA. One of the worst trade deals. I don’t want to disrespect our past, but the people that negotiated that deal were either stupid or corrupt. They say both. Could be. We withdrew from the horrible Transpacific Partnership, would have destroyed your automobile business. Donald Trump: (01:04:14)We pulled out of the world health organization scam. You know, the world health organization. I pulled out because they’re like a pipe organ for China, right? So I pulled out. they called me, would they want us back? So, the guy, just nice guy, he wants us back. “Sir, we really want you back. We really want you back.” I said, “How much are we paying?” “Almost 500 million a year.” “How much is China paying?” “39 million a year.” I said, “Okay. So let me ask you a question. We have 325 million people not including illegal aliens.” Which who the hell knows. I don’t think they have any idea what… “But we have 325 million people. China has 1.4 billion people. They’re paying 39. We’re paying 500. So let me ask you a question. Would you take us back if we paid 39?” “Yes.” I said, “Okay, I’m going to think about it.” But when I pulled out, it was so popular. I couldn’t even get back in for 39 because everybody including Doc Ronnie thought it was amazing that I pulled out because he understands it’s a pipe organ for China and for others, but mostly for China. So I said, “So, I would get back in for 39 million?” “Yes, sir.” Okay. That was it. I didn’t go back in even at 39 and otherwise I turned it down. Donald Trump: (01:05:35)And now because of the rigged election, we’re out, he’s in. And he immediately says, “We’re going back in.” He went back in for the same price that they were paying before. Now, you know what? 450 million in terms of when you’re dealing with billions and trillions and all of this, it’s not… It’s a lot of money. This is a year. This is every year we pay almost 500 million. They pay 39 million. Their country is much larger, but why wouldn’t they say we’ll do it for 39 or in theory less? Let us in for 10. I think they would have taken it. In fact, one of the reasons I wasn’t happy, I should have started off lower, Matt. Instead of 30, I said, “How about would you do it for nine?” Proportional, right? So, they go back in and nobody said, “We’ll go back in, but we want to come back in at 39 million or 30 million or 20 million.” Donald Trump: (01:06:31)They said, “We’ll go back in. We’ll go back in.” And now they’re going to be paying what we’ve been ripped off for years. And we don’t have control of it. China has total absolute control. We have none. What do you think of that, Matt? In the second row, our acting Attorney General, huh? Our acting… You took a lot of abuse. Thank you, Matt. Thank you for being here, up here. I just see you there. Thank you. So think of it. So, we have this deal and they just go in… This is the way our country runs. It’s the way our country runs. We built an aircraft carrier and the aircraft carrier has all sorts of problems. It’s the Gerald Ford. They decided to use magnets for the elevators that bring… Magnets. You’re in the middle of the ocean, big waves, bullets being shot at your ship. You got magnets. I could take this little glass of water, drop it in the magnets, that’s the end of the elevator. Donald Trump: (01:07:29)And then they throw the plane off and they decided to do it through electric instead of steam, right? Catapult it’s called. So, they have a catapult. And for 60 years it’s been steam operated. They decide to do it. Let’s make it out of electric. So, I go to the ship because it’s been under construction for years, it was going to cost two and a half billion. It’s going to end up costing 18 billion. But the bad news is it doesn’t work. They even moved the tower from the center to the back of the ship, making it much harder for pilots to land. By the way, the single hardest thing for a pilot to do is land on an aircraft carrier, even great pilots can’t do it. Donald Trump: (01:08:12)If they’re a little bit claustrophobic… That carrier looks big, but when you’re up there flying and moving along at rapid speeds, and you’re looking at this massive ocean and you have a little deck that you have to land on, it’s the hardest thing to do. So they move the thing back so it made it much tighter instead of putting it in the middle where it’s a wider part of the ship, a whole thing. Another thing, what’s under there? “That’s sir, where they keep the ammunition.” I said, “Wait a minute, they built the tower…” I don’t want to be the captain of that ship by the way. So I said, I went to visit the ship and I wasn’t interested in seeing the admiral, the admiral said, “Sir Admiral so-and-so…” The things out to sea trials is not working. And I said, “Admiral, honestly, I think you’re a wonderful man. Very good looking guy. Actually, you’re like central casting, but I want to see the catapulters. So, I meet these five guys. Real great guys. They’re catapulters. How long have you been doing it, Jim? “Sir, 21 years.” I said, “Let me ask you, you have a problem with it?” “Absolutely, sir. It doesn’t work.” “Why?” He said, “Because if it breaks, you have to go through graduate school at MIT to fix it. And with the steam, we had the same power or more and we could fix it with a blowtorch and a hammer. And I love that steam in my face, sir.” I said, “But seriously, which is better?” He said, “The steam.” I said, “Why did they go with electric?” “Because sir, it can go back and forth automatically all day long.” I said, “Is that good or bad?” He said, “Unnecessary because it takes us one minute and 59 seconds to put the plane on and hook it up. And by the time we do that, sir, we’re all set. We have so much steam we don’t know what to do with it.” So, I said, “So you mean they spent all of this money.” They spent $900 million as of a year ago to try and fix it. Okay. 900 million. Donald Trump: (01:10:11)It’ll never work. I told them that three… When I first came in, I’m very good at this stuff. I said, “Electric. Give me a glass of water. I will put it out of commission. I’ll throw it on the electric circuits. It’s not going to work.” And it’s just, I mean, it’s so we do things so stupidly. So they’re at $18 billion. And I said, did you sue the shipyard? “No, sir.” Then I meet with the architect. I said, “You’re the architect?” “Yes.” “Have you ever designed a ship before?” My first question, “Have you ever designed a ship before?” I’m telling you foreign countries are laughing at us. They’re laughing at us. How stupid we are. Donald Trump: (01:10:52)We renegotiated the Korea trade deal and we built the greatest economy of the history of the world with a record 160 million people working. We were never close. And I do not want to see any negotiations of tax increases by Senate Republicans. Because I see certain rhinos they keep walking over to the White House. They’re getting fleeced. I feel so badly. You know, guys like Romney and they walk over to the White House. The other half, the Senator from Louisiana, he was over there. I don’t want to name them all because a couple of them are fine, but they go over there, they’re getting fleeced. They come out, we have a deal. We have a deal. Remember England? We have a deal. You don’t want to get into that. We have a deal. They said they had a deal. 20 minutes later when the radical left heard that Biden agreed to something they went crazy and then Biden said, “We don’t have a deal anymore.” They’re getting fleeced. And what they’re doing is they’re saying, “We’ll agree to raise your taxes. If you approve this…” Donald Trump: (01:12:03)Saying we’ll agree to raise your taxes if you approve this radical left infrastructure deal, where most of the money, almost none of the money’s going to real infrastructure, which is roads, bridges, et cetera. I’m telling the Republican senators right now that we’re not going to stand for it if you raise our taxes. We had the greatest tax decrease in the history of our country, and we’re not going to have you raise it. In order to say you’ve made a bipartisan deal. You know, they’re dying to say, Matt, that we made a bipartisan deal. You don’t have to do that, because you’re getting fleeced. It’s all green new deal stuff. It’s nonsense. And it’s going to destroy our country. Donald Trump: (01:12:40)And inflation’s going to be a big problem. We can’t let it happen. Despite the pleading and begging of the outsourcers and globalists, I took on China like no president had ever done before. Imposing massive tariffs to protect American workers and bring jobs and factories and billions and billions of dollars back. You know that? Back to our shores. We made a great deal with China, which has immeasurably helped our farmers and manufacturers, and we put the Chinese Communist Party on defense for the first time ever in our history of our country. We never took in 10 cents. They’re paying us millions. Donald Trump: (01:13:24)It’s interesting. Biden, he wants to end the tariffs. If he does, China will take over the whole deal. Okay? But they’re finding it hard to do. He campaigned on ending tariffs, which was stupid. Although maybe not so stupid, right? You know what happened. You know what happened. But he campaigned on ending tariffs. So ridiculous. We’re taking billions and billions, and we convinced the world that we have to watch China. When I took over, we had a deficit with China of 507 billion dollars. That’s not sustainable. 507. Not million. 507 million’s a lot. 507 billion dollars. But now China is totally on the offense, making Joe Biden and our country look week, and pathetic. Donald Trump: (01:14:19)We ignored the hysterics of the socialist left and withdrew from the unfair one sided Paris climate accord. One of the great rip offs. Would have cost us a trillion dollars. We unleashed America’s energy resources, and achieved American energy independence for the first time in the history of our country. And we don’t need windmills in Texas and lots of other places. We don’t need windmills. They ought to end that program as quickly as they can. Donald Trump: (01:14:58)When the plague came in from China, I dragged the slow and complacent bureaucrats from the FDA, and the CDC into the Oval Office. I pushed them like they have never been pushed before, and thanks to the relentless efforts of my administration and me, we got miraculous therapeutics straight to patients with historic speed, and we produced three vaccines to end the pandemic in record time. Would have never happened. Would have never happened. We did it in less than nine months. They said a minimum of three years, probably five years, and sir, it probably won’t happen at all. If we didn’t have that, we would be in a position like perhaps over a 100 years ago, right? 1917. Over 100 people, I hear different number. But perhaps as many as 100 million people died. Donald Trump: (01:15:57)We beat back the failed foreign policy establishment to withdraw from the disastrous Iran nuclear deal. We recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, and Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. We ended the endless wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Somalia, and other countries. And we brought our beautiful troops back home. Now terrible things are happening in Afghanistan. We had everything in place to finish withdrawing responsibly, and Joe Biden is turning it into a total disaster. They don’t respect him. He’s leaving behind billions and billions of dollars of equipment. I told these generals, “I want every nail brought back home. I want the tanks brought back home. I want it all brought back home.” Instead, the Taliban is now parading around with our weapons that Joe Biden allowed them to capture. It’s a disgrace. Donald Trump: (01:17:13)But with all of that being said, we should get out. 21 years is enough. 21 years. 21 years is enough. Everything we do, we refuse to bow down to the radical left, the RINOs, the political establishment, and instead we insist on standing up for America, and making America great again and always putting America first. America’s got to be first. Donald Trump: (01:17:44)Every day, more people are realizing that we were right on all of the key issues, and that this is one reason why our endorsement has become, and it’s really not just my endorsement, it’s your endorsement, has become the most powerful weapon in politics. Last year, exact numbers. Because if they weren’t exact, they will come out at me, you wouldn’t believe. 120 of the 122 candidates we endorsed in Congressional primary elections won. So think of that. And the two that didn’t, actually they turned out to be great Trump people. They really did. They turned out to be great. Donald Trump: (01:18:26)But we had a great string of endorsements. We love the candidates we endorse. We’re endorsing a lot of good ones right now in the Senate primary elections. We were undefeated, 21 and 0. 21 and 0. Can’t say I’m happy about all of them, but that’s okay. So far in the 2022 election cycle, we are already 10 and 0 on endorsements, and you’re going to check this. Oh, they’ll be checking today. Matt, they’re going to be up there tonight checking. Oh, they want to find it’s not. It’s not 10 and 0, it’s 10 and 1. He lied, he lied. He’s a terrible person. Donald Trump: (01:19:02)In the face of the Biden administration’s far left campaign to transform our country and erase our history, we are not backing down. We will never back down. When we regain control of Congress, we will immediately regain control of our border, and it’s not that easy. I watched a lot of good Congressmen get onto it. What we have to do is redo the Trump edict. It’s not that easy. We negotiated with those countries, and it wasn’t simple. Very complex. We had it better than ever before. It’s so sad to see what happened. Donald Trump: (01:19:41)We will hold China accountable for the damage and suffering they have caused, and make them pay trillions of dollars in reparations to us and to the world. We will break up the big tech monopolies, and bring back free speech. We can’t let this continue. We will take back our elections, and finally, we will always include a thing called voter ID. That’s another thing. The Democrats are now saying, “Oh, we always wanted voter ID.” There was a poll. 88% of the people in the country want voter ID, so now the Democrats again, same old story. They’re saying, ” We want voter ID. We’ve always wanted voter ID.” Donald Trump: (01:20:34)These people are sick. We will completely defund and bar critical race theory. 1776, not 1619, if you don’t mind. And if government run schools are going to teach children to hate their country, we will demand school choice that we already have. If you listen to the media or watch the evening newscast, our country has really gone bad. All we talk about is race. That’s all they talk about. Race. The whole show. race, race. We don’t talk about our country being great anymore. We don’t talk about how America can lead the world. We don’t talk about stopping crime or the hundreds and hundreds of people that are being shot in Democrat run cities and what to do about it. Donald Trump: (01:21:31)We don’t talk about ending the drugs pouring across our borders. Which I had greatly reduced with our wall and so many other things that we’re doing. And most importantly, we never talk about the great future of our country. We don’t talk about any of this stuff anymore. The Democrat controlled media talks race, race, race for political reasons. And they always have, but never like this. But it’s hurting our country, and more than anyone else, our great minority communities. It’s hurting them very badly. Donald Trump: (01:22:05)The Democrat obsession with race is only dragging us backward into the past, and it is bringing our country down to a point where even China and Russia are lecturing us on human rights, race, and they’re doing it in a very humiliating fashion. This never happened. Never happened with me. During my administration, our country was respected again. It is no longer respected. Donald Trump: (01:22:37)In conclusion, our party and our movement, we’re all united by the same shared American values, and by unyielding resolve to defend our beloved nation for citizens of every race, religion, color, and creed. We take great pride in our country, and we teach the truth about our history. We celebrate our rich heritage and national traditions. We honor George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and all of our national heroes. Donald Trump: (01:23:13)And of course, we always respect our great American flag. We believe in patriotic education for our children, and we strongly oppose the radical indoctrination of America’s youth. We are committed to defending innocent life, and to proudly upholding the Judaeo Christian values of our nation’s founders. We embrace free thought. We stand up to political correctness, and we reject the intolerance of left wing cancel culture. Donald Trump: (01:24:03)We believe in our Constitution and in law and order. We want law and order. We demand law and order. We don’t want people shot and killed in our cities. We totally respect and support the men and women of law enforcement. They will never be defunded. We are devoted to our communities. We are loyal to our fellow citizens, and above all, we live by the words of our national motto, in God we trust. Donald Trump: (01:24:48)These are the convictions that define our movement today, and must define the Republican Party, which has truly become the party of the working man and woman. The working man, the working woman. That’s what’s happening. Look how many people are joining. We have a much different party than we had five years ago. You were in big trouble, Republicans, and look what’s happening. Now for the next 16 months, we must pour every ounce of our energy into winning a historic victory in the midterms. We will never give up our search for truth and justice for what happened in the corrupt presidential election of 2020 because without that truth, we cannot have an honest election in 2022 or 2024, no matter what they want to tell you. Donald Trump: (01:25:46)And our country will soon stand proudly for free and strong and proper elections again. The election fraud of 2020 is the single most requested topic for me and others to talk about. Ahead of the border, even ahead of crime. Because think of what they’ve done. What they’ve done is so sad. Look what’s happened to our country in just a short number of months. Everyone here today and every conservative all across our land needs to decide right now that together we will save this country. We must decide that we will not stop. We will not rest until our American heritage of freedom, liberty, and justice is once again safe and once again secure. Donald Trump: (01:26:48)We owe our country nothing less than that. Our glorious American inheritance was passed down to us by generations of American patriots who gave everything they had. Their sweat, their blood, and even their way of lives to build America into the greatest nation in the history of the world, and we are not going to let it be taken away from us by a small group of radical left Marxist maniacs. We’re not going to let it happen. Donald Trump: (01:27:24)We will protect and defend our cherished American legacy and freedom for ourselves, for our children, and for every future generation. My fellow Americans, our movement is the greatest in American history, and it has just begun. Donald Trump: (01:27:44)With your help, your devotion, your brilliance, and your drive, we will carry forward the torch of American liberty. We will lead the conservative movement and the Republican Party back to victory, and it will be a greater victory than this party has ever had. We will take back the House. We will take back the Senate, and then after witnessing all that has gone wrong in our country in such a short period of time, with our borders, with our economy, with crime, we will take back that glorious White House. That sits so majestically in our nation’s capital. Beautiful white house. That’s small letters. White house. That beautiful white house. And it is the most beautiful house of all. Donald Trump: (01:28:52)Working together, we will make America powerful again. We will make America wealthy again. We will make America strong again. We will make America proud again. We will make America safe again, and we will make America great again. Thank you. Thank you. Transcribe Your Own Content Try Rev and save time transcribing, captioning, and subtitling. Copyright Disclaimer Under Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Get a weekly digest of the week’s most important transcripts in your inbox. It’s the news, without the news.

right

jul president donald trump give speech cpac dallas tx july read transcript conservative political action conference speech transcribe content try rev save time transcribe captioning subtitle donald trump thank audience usa usa usa usa usa usa donald trump thank matt job mercede cpac hot item get lot people stand outside try anybody like slot anybody want pay respect cpac job thrill heart texas proud conservative patriot courageously lead battle frankly save country donald trump year election fake news medium say texas play play know play mean like close right totally play actually play say poll close texas donald trump win texas long listen play play right candidate state go play special place go way go bring energy donald trump tell go happen tell actually texas believe help today defeat radical leave socialist marxist critical race theorist think term secure border stop leave wing cancel culture restore free speech fair election america great simple simple donald trump beginning people room staunch fiercest supporter incredible movement great political movement history country challenge look fake news people challenge challenge donald trump want personally thank incredible support support cpac stop fight stop fight promise especially want thank wonderful extraordinary people incredible event possible know matt mercede schlapp thank thank stand thank thank great job great job take new level appreciate everybody appreciate audience win trump win donald trump true win win true texas conservative real leader ken paxton oh look fast draw love ken thank ken appreciate grateful join audience usa usa usa usa usa usa usa usa donald trump go home mom mom big supporter way go rough night grateful join wonderful wonderful political person wonderful person governor kristi noem governor thank kristi great job member congress ask great congress man woman stand right group group group warrior thank thank fellow warrior truly truly warrior donald trump countless conservative leader politician people love respect fight fight generation american conservative union help lead charge defend value protect country preserve glorious american heritage take heritage away go happen go happen donald trump rig election happen come today heritage threat like think happen bernie sanders say think happen mild comparison matter mere month joe biden bring country brink ruin right texas epicenter border migration crisis unlike see history country donald trump time totally obliterate energy industry tell administration achieve historic reduction illegal immigration happen extent close end horrible catch release catch criminal release country actually say nope call stay mexico work support mexico great president mexico friend great job opposite side spectrum get great terrific appreciate donald trump stop asylum fraud strike critical agreement country stop illegal immigration call fact remain mexico come release people come come year court case smart one want nice real smart one come percent donald trump reduce drug pour border high percentage history country people shut migrant caravan see caravan ready come right watch come caravan deadly people donald trump deal crippling blow deport criminal alien thousand thousand thousand build mile border wall exact wall border patrol want think use nice concrete plank knock say sir want steel concrete rebar wire sir drone democrat remember want drone say drone go stop people remember statement campaign thing obsolete like day come nowadays computer obsolete get well donald trump thing right wheel wall change thousand year wheel wall wall work wall work ask nancy pelosi nice wall house biden administration turn border single great disaster american history world history see border like country border like illegal border crossing year think think donald trump month row illegal alien minor arrive month united states state history major pipeline bad gang member world bring recruit state country run like business throw hell fast ice ice ice great patriot tough people ice disrespect disrespect border patrol brandon place probably hell brandon great job yes thank thank ice border patrol donald trump illegal youth arrive arrival nearly think resettle city town united states tax payer expense people city town idea come tax payer force pay relative fly central america join hear chain migration come illegally bring mother father grandparent brother sister aunt uncle anybody want come come donald trump west highway drive rapidly west highway excessive speed new york city hudson river beautiful new park see people work big group people decide right turn kill maim people want shape end go home miss leg miss couple arm dead happen right bring people family mother father brother bring take good care donald trump administration child time terrible thing happen suicide watch end place idea idea border country border ice removal low level great people patriot tough agency functionally shut america giant sanctuary city fight sanctuary city mean criminal alien mean administration send different message coyote human trafficker child smuggler vicious criminal cartel savage gang member president illegal alien criminal know trespass border catch detain send jail send hell come create secure border american history far donald trump border crisis help drive unprecedented crime wave crime wave democrat run city remember bloodshed violence city reach epidemic proportion homicide los angeles philadelphia atlanta portland time year think portland portland happen antifa happen blm people patriot conservative republicans stay jail extended period time destroy life go anymore donald trump new york city crime control record level prosecute course innocent republicans prosecute democrats know policy crime unpopular radical crazy try pretend lead defund police movement place disinformation say defund police know republicans call disinformation russia trump russia love russia love putin love everybody turn democrats right year figure gee awhile people actually believe stuff say defund police republicans call disinformation wise donald trump simple support defunde police vote radical left democrats happen city defunde police like want police cop street vote america republicans let simply vote maga america great maga maga maga maga far leave democrat defunde police lead crusade strip law abide citizen america god give second amendment right tell tell tell preserve right think easy easy pressure pressure republican waiver demand right bear arm shall infringe let happen thank thank second amendment leftist want destroy hard work abolish amendment probably amendment right radical left big tech attack free speech unlawful unconstitutional completely unamerican protect constitutional right liberty citizen week file major class action lot people join yep big class action lawsuit big tech giant sue facebook twitter google arrogance talk mercede guess donald trump announce try incredible think country way defund police sanctuary city crazy thing espouse way hear file want everybody honestly go far go far spoiled like spoiled child want toy dad want eventually bad thing happen donald trump take mark zookerbuck jack dorsey silicon valley billionaire federal court fighting stop assault liberty restore sacred right freedom speech single american think think think anybody believe talk subject year ago year ago believe donald trump addition malicious attack free speech silicon valley tyrant attack democracy big tech election interference outrageous assault republic american voter terrible thing happen country laugh world election study country go way mark zuckerberg spend million dollar election meddling virtually key swing state fund unmanned unprotected drop box deploy democrat run city heavily democrat precinct scoop ballot supposedly joe biden campaign basement biden substantially well swing state barack hussein obama black population terribly country place know louie right place beat obama black population think practice countless scheme illegitimately illegally boost democrat vote drop box late happen suppose tell happen late day show vote counting area donald trump time big tech giant work suppress diminish news coverage negative joe biden look story come wipe negative biden radical left democrats suppress horrendous example old newspaper america favorite great new york post break big scandal emerge presidential election provide extraordinarily detailed evidence corruption joe biden hunter biden know paint right piece hunter high good use tell studio paint paint set record high price person paint picture painting donald trump basis whatsoever twitter facebook ban new york post account terrible story election poll show joe biden voter switch vote know joe hunter biden scandal flip result numerous state worry win state win probably thing disagree matter find vote find vote report find vote little churn ballot donald trump truth cover giant impact election happen party presidential candidate happen laugh stock world laugh stock know know well people room democrats know furthermore big tech company interfere undermine sacred integrity ballot box censor honest discussion election fraud election fraud cancel thing want stay away cancel culture tough thing want close home get close read time magazine month ago cover story help way go far donald trump way go far want stay away talk election result time medium reference election hoax fraud unproven evidence evidence evidence see happen georgia day find vote delete georgia vote bad voter say try election lose election bad thing go country bad thing reputation wonderful brilliant country voting know watch smart happen donald trump governor georgia georgia secretary state let let way voting law pass far weak texas state hear mr attorney general signature verification imagine pass voting law get little good think oh pass notice state sue federal government know easy target governor secretary state will defend like guy defend donald trump speak truth true reason attorney general united states go georgia bad probably win defense will place work hard find right state look stacey abrams georgia get sign call mandate consent decree approve legislature illegal make easy democrat cheat win election texas louie doc ronny great doc ronny doctor congressman beat people people great donald trump say doc cognitive test say sir public say wrong say sir go pretty say hard say question get hard say let shot ace right ace donald trump doctor say see anybody ace question easy tell think joe cognitive test know maybe underneath somebody unusual unfortunately election person count vote far important candidate matter vote candidate get get record number vote disgrace nation truly scorn disrespect world forget radical left majority country majority close close crosstalk donald trump look policy way happen way weak military fight military fight budget military need strong military right strong having rebuild military great achievement sick tired military equipment old deplete brand new brand new great military come soon will able stop donald trump radical left cheat election fake news medium cheat polling like have point election wisconsin donald trump abc news washington post people hear call suppression love president go stay home let watch television harry say good idea harry go stay home janet point feel win state opinion win safe close fake number close point donald trump interestingly exact thing happen point people abc news washington post suppression point win state fake poll illegal fake poll people get well instead year ago get surprise say go let happen happen donald trump support woke leave people idea recent highly respect rasmussen poll voter medium truly enemy people think disagreed tell defunde police open border raise taxis run office go cut taxis time history go raise taxis oh go vote want raise raise taxis waste money green new deal nonsense donald trump want regulation take regulation president history give actually think louie important taxis cut taxis take regulation year highway approve road approve get go try go go wait little guess pretty soon bring day wait donald trump democrats terrible policy vicious smart stick mitt romney little ben sass bill cassidy bill cassidy campaign great state louisiana compaign trump friend ad trump trump trump trump trump vote impeach believe sort feel guy lightweight good senator john kennedy good good senator bill cassidy walk street louisiana have nasty thing say democrats like warmonger quote republican history country democrats liz cheney quote time time democrat get speech know fellow right live guess maybe long time speech quote liz cheney donald trump ruthless united romney type wonderful live like bad policy policy go destroy country like socialist communist movement history today leftist believe freedom believe fairness believe democracy believe marxist morality justify long hurt political opponent advance radical agenda party radical agenda like see eye radical left democrats turn law weapon partisan persecution persecution look incredible people like rudy giuliani mean incredible great mayor history city new york great crime fighter donald trump time weaponize irs conservative christians like tea party worse set law country left wing mob rioter rampager hell want whomever want set rule lawabide conservative americans happen republican simply want speak mind exercise right like talk rig election donald trump rudy giuliani mean far great mayor city realize mean right matt mean year ago hell happen city new york particular donald trump great crime fighter generation law license take away radical left fight election result see corrupt mean fight mean someday swing way right swing way probably will long time let happen standard apply rudy lawyer long free represent client livelihood depend thing want fight corruption donald trump rudy fight see election rig fight take away law license new york washington dc great man man live new york walk street proud city proud city anymore proud happen democrats fight viciously get catch lie election lie happen russia russia russia russia remember russia devin devin stand devin donald trump come basement office build basement white house say sir congressman go file file know shifty schiff say pure bullshit get understand bull great everybody frankly far concern great donald trump star left stand star thank barbara thank devin know sit devin receive presidential medal freedom jim jordan ohio incredible courage show thank get long time ago russia russia russia donald trump tell story campaign guy come sir know russia suppose know russia know russia know month later guy come different sir russia ask guy come hell go russia scam donald trump go year mueller collusion oh want remember angry democrats oh go send new york shot fact photocopy photocopy stuff beat washington lose job law license investigate crime rudy giuliani adam schiff donald trump schiff dishonest guy stand microphone lie like hell guy stand sad day union president trump work russia hell talk expose russia big thing pipeline europe shut biden open go fortune donald trump guy like andy mccabe james comey james clapper remember lover peter strzok lisa page perpetrator face consequence whatsoever know scam create create scam honest say want disappointed bill barr unable hold accountable countless abuse power democrats donald trump hold corrupt official spy campaign remember say spy campaign boy like lightning rod go author phony dossier hold responsible woman slander lie defame brett kavanaugh say brett kavanaugh affair lie badly numerous criminal referral lie congress illegal leaker people responsible corrupt election great crime want want understandable different man like say bill get ass country attack different man democrats viciously state want impeach go wild want impeach go impeach bill barr go impeach different understand different get impeach twice change bad donald trump guess understand day ago receive statement attorney highly respect pennsylvania bill barr allow investigate voter fraud believe understand philadelphia second corrupt place understand okay understand nation know detroit detroit corrupt philadelphia corrupt attorney allow investigate come letter know devin right matt big think letter want stay attorney sure willing provide give allow job see enthuse sudden like turn donald trump true justice department fail late night ballot stuffing take place georgia remember story water main break order people security leave premise go rampage stuff essentially ballot event good people court let turn bill barr tell sir look find look tape way water main remember water main remember say water main oh hear hear water main break say people run group people come boom boom boom donald trump easy look tape incredible tape fact republicans play nice kind game democrats base see witness prosecutorial misconduct go republican rethink game plan louie gohmert agree louie gohmert careful say actually louie gohmert bad democrat hold hold doc ronny right think louie hear time pretty amazing donald trump way durham disappear use welldone horowitz report incredible donald trump fox report john scott president trump speak conservative political action conference dallas let listen live donald trump new york times write vicious editorial james comey base horowitz report talk crime bad act commit comey mccabe durham like thank inspector general horowitz report want use guess deep state know hell think deep state wait durham read man name daryl cooper brilliant thread twitter tell story get read know fact steele dossier sole evidence justify spy trump campaign think spy campaign happen think imagine spy biden campaign obama campaign imagine happen spy campaign catch happen fbi know steele dossier dnc operation pay dnc crooked hillary clinton way angry person united states today go away know say hell get crosstalk people donald trump say actually race close new york times ask question happen different say tell well get million vote win big margin close hillary say cheat damn somebody somebody donald trump source tell fbi info totally unserious inform court keep spy trump campaign addition press crooked operation know election rule change big tech censor opposition political violence legitimize encourage left trump president united states ban social medium sleazebag ban sleazebag ban bad people far bad perfect far bad far donald trump perfect far bad inaudible far bad word entire system rig american people rig fair decent honest election decade conservative movement act matter policy fight washington prevail win small handful supreme court case disappointed supreme court disappoint battle big broad radical left methodically take giant centralized institution american life school system university bar association look happen rudy hollywood journalist big bank big tech supreme court get unexpected ruling justice want pack democrats position pack court want pack want look election say want donald trump gentleman right great state texas state think case standing good know want personally say sir president standing say kind system wait minute president say thing standing state get strong know justice look case look judge look case case go right think patriot judge go happen justice get way will pack word happen vicious thing look schumer statement say court step donald trump long protect congress guy like adam schiff lie lie lie immunity step building schumer say horrible thing say mafia like statement judge happen happen play ref know play ref well great bobby knight prime love bobby knight come great state indiana come endorse indiana bobby knight scream ref go change worried goal think donald trump happen supreme court happen want pack want judge know say say democrats smart unlucky number probably know look case win case opinion pack beautiful veto sit right oval office veto terrible thing democrats vicious supreme court kavanaugh yeah bill barr scream go impeach go impeach change people donald trump brett kavanaugh go impeach woman admit ultimately happen country scam prosecute prosecute brett kavanaugh scream go impeach time inaudible go impeach know vote democrats sad thing go person see hearing vicious horrible hearing think history country think bad new york city state far leave democrats actually run office promise prosecute family company know hear people know go donald trump go go trump win win lot people run win basis go know find like search crime matter law break crime oppose radical left democrat party lawless tyrannical behavior political persecution like straight communist country world leave happen america hand radical left democrats republicans understand level hell happen way maybe go change job donald trump mission resist poison fight republic heart decade career politician sell country ship away million million job send child die endless foreign war get away flagrant corruption imaginable people sell country vicepresident joe biden fly son hunter world air force suck money like vacuum clean hunter email collect million million dollar foreign nation include ukraine set aside cut big guy big guy joe biden allow joe biden say get billion dollar prosecutor hell imagine say say impeach happen imagine say get billionaire voila go brag know hell think know tape run happen happen know bill barr nice man bill barr republicans nice nice vicious vicious people destroy country hunter say give half salary pop pay vast amount money joe biden expense joe biden house like senator congressman right year louie know kind money mansion mansion louie gohmert mansion texas think get house need right louie want home bathroom bedroom use toothbrush right joe get lot toothbrush single member treacherous corrupt political establishment experience like deranged demented persecution direct family associate everybody come escalator great future lady great successful career meet career right cool cool confident person get well anybody love people love witch hunt begin america maga america great get vote million anybody history presidency far clinton far obama record million think history usually little bit second term win little bit tell great pollster somebody great john mclaughlin respected sir get million vote beat lose thank john get lose quote lose disgrace disgrace movement think movement strong tell certain way think donald trump forget election night well think wildest imagination say hell let lead poll harris lot people think joe go run know strange world go run radical left democrat love republican kick ass love like friend right okay think affectionately great great work hard see lot weekend democrats want want fast possible nice beautiful life sunday texas donald trump thank thank say matt mercede way poll come unfortunately want know know straw poll right bad fake good accurate poll know guess get announce want find go donald trump will will tell know matt will tell hell release tell story bad page news newspaper great will cover hate tell matt want convince bad paul know straw poll year ago get great straw poll time novice right cpac proud jump mean look room look outside thousand people try come mean thing time big place guess right time donald trump say matt importantly say mercede say death valley bad time bad slot fill say sir sunday afternoon people thing say okay matt friday night saturday night easy easy love hard way say time want sunday good fly look crowd get look love room look love donald trump saturday night louie doc saturday night saturday night byron go saturday night devin go somebody friday night good sunday love sunday know remind church okay honor say bad time care give bad time actually break record donald trump radical left fail political establishment hate movement simple reason take corrupt special interest face open border say bad border come prison come country think stupid let prisoner float caravan come country murderer drug dealer human trafficker woman woman stand absurd dictate political correctness call people get rich bleed country dry politician howl cry corporate interest washington lobbyist demand fair trade american worker great job finally end bad trade deal history country nafta bad trade deal want disrespect past people negotiate deal stupid corrupt withdraw horrible transpacific partnership destroy automobile business donald trump pull world health organization scam know world health organization pull like pipe organ china right pull call want guy nice guy want sir want want say pay million year china pay million year say okay let ask question million people include illegal alien hell know think idea million people china billion people pay pay let ask question pay yes say okay go think pull popular everybody include doc ronnie think amazing pull understand pipe organ china china say million yes sir okay turn donald trump rig election immediately say go go price pay know million term deal billion trillion lot money year year pay million pay million country large theory let think take fact reason happy start low matt instead say proportional right say want come million million million donald trump say go pay rip year control china total absolute control think matt second row act attorney general huh act take lot abuse thank matt thank thank think deal way country run way country run build aircraft carrier aircraft carrier sort problem gerald ford decide use magnet elevator bring magnet middle ocean big wave bullet shoot ship get magnet little glass water drop magnet end elevator donald trump throw plane decide electric instead steam right catapult call catapult year steam operate decide let electric ship construction year go cost half billion go end cost billion bad news work move tower center ship make hard pilot land way single hard thing pilot land aircraft carrier great pilot donald trump little bit claustrophobic carrier look big fly move rapid speed look massive ocean little deck land hard thing thing tight instead put middle wide ship thing thing sir ammunition say wait minute build tower want captain ship way say go visit ship interested see admiral admiral say sir admiral soandso thing sea trial work say admiral honestly think wonderful man good look guy actually like central casting want catapulter meet guy real great guy catapulter long jim sir year say let ask problem absolutely sir work say break graduate school mit fix steam power fix blowtorch hammer love steam face sir say seriously well say steam say electric sir forth automatically day long say good bad say unnecessary take minute second plane hook time sir set steam know say mean spend money spend million year ago try fix okay million donald trump work tell come good stuff say electric glass water commission throw electric circuit go work mean thing stupidly billion say sue shipyard sir meet architect say architect yes design ship question design ship tell foreign country laugh laugh stupid donald trump renegotiate korea trade deal build great economy history world record million people work close want negotiation tax increase senate republicans certain rhino walk white house getting fleece feel badly know guy like romney walk white house half senator louisiana want couple fine getting fleece come deal deal remember england deal want deal say deal minute later radical left hear biden agree go crazy biden say deal anymore getting fleece say agree raise taxis approve donald trump agree raise taxis approve radical left infrastructure deal money money go real infrastructure road bridge et cetera tell republican senator right go stand raise taxis great tax decrease history country go raise order bipartisan deal know die matt bipartisan deal getting fleece green new deal stuff nonsense go destroy country donald trump inflation go big problem let happen despite pleading begging outsourcer globalist take china like president impose massive tariff protect american worker bring job factory billion billion dollar know shore great deal china immeasurably help farmer manufacturer chinese communist party defense time history country take cent pay million donald trump interesting biden want end tariff china deal okay find hard campaign end tariff stupid maybe stupid right know happen know happen campaign end tariff ridiculous take billion billion convince world watch china take deficit china billion dollar sustainable million million lot billion dollar china totally offense make joe biden country look week pathetic donald trump ignore hysteric socialist left withdraw unfair sided paris climate accord great rip off cost trillion dollar unleash america energy resource achieve american energy independence time history country need windmill texas lot place need windmill ought end program quickly donald trump plague come china drag slow complacent bureaucrat fda cdc oval office push like push thank relentless effort administration get miraculous therapeutic straight patient historic speed produce vaccine end pandemic record time happen happen month say minimum year probably year sir probably will happen position like year ago right people hear different number million people die donald trump beat fail foreign policy establishment withdraw disastrous iran nuclear deal recognize jerusalem israel capital israeli sovereignty golan height end endless war iraq afghanistan syria somalia country bring beautiful troop home terrible thing happen afghanistan place finish withdraw responsibly joe biden turn total disaster respect leave billion billion dollar equipment tell general want nail bring home want tank bring home want bring home instead taliban parade weapon joe biden allow capture disgrace donald trump say year year year refuse bow radical leave rino political establishment instead insist stand america make america great put america america get donald trump day people realize right key issue reason endorsement endorsement endorsement powerful weapon politic year exact number exact come believe candidate endorse congressional primary election win think actually turn great trump people turn great donald trump great string endorsement love candidate endorse endorse lot good one right senate primary election undefeated happy okay far election cycle endorsement go check oh check today matt go tonight check oh want find lie lie terrible person donald trump face biden administration far leave campaign transform country erase history back regain control congress immediately regain control border easy watch lot good congressman redo trump edict easy negotiate country simple complex well sad happen donald trump hold china accountable damage suffering cause pay trillion dollar reparation world break big tech monopoly bring free speech let continue election finally include thing call voter d thing democrats say oh want voter d poll people country want voter d democrats old story say want voter d want voter d donald trump people sick completely defund bar critical race theory mind government run school go teach child hate country demand school choice listen medium watch evening newscast country go bad talk race talk race race race talk country great anymore talk america lead world talk stop crime hundred hundred people shoot democrat run city donald trump talk end drug pour border greatly reduce wall thing importantly talk great future country talk stuff anymore democrat control medium talk race race race political reason like hurt country great minority community hurt badly donald trump democrat obsession race drag backward past bring country point china russia lecture human right race humiliating fashion happen happen administration country respect long respect donald trump conclusion party movement unite share american value unyielde resolve defend beloved nation citizen race religion color creed great pride country teach truth history celebrate rich heritage national tradition honor george washington thomas jefferson abraham lincoln national hero donald trump course respect great american flag believe patriotic education child strongly oppose radical indoctrination america youth committed defend innocent life proudly uphold judaeo christian value nation founder embrace free thought stand political correctness reject intolerance left wing cancel culture donald trump believe constitution law order want law order demand law order want people shoot kill city totally respect support man woman law enforcement defunde devoted community loyal fellow citizen live word national motto god trust donald trump conviction define movement today define republican party truly party work man woman work man work woman happen look people join different party year ago big trouble republicans look happen month pour ounce energy win historic victory midterm search truth justice happen corrupt presidential election truth honest election matter want tell donald trump country soon stand proudly free strong proper election election fraud single request topic talk ahead border ahead crime think sad look happen country short number month today conservative land need decide right save country decide stop rest american heritage freedom liberty justice safe secure donald trump owe country glorious american inheritance pass generation american patriot give sweat blood way life build america great nation history world go let take away small group radical left marxist maniac go let happen donald trump protect defend cherish american legacy freedom child future generation fellow americans movement great american history begin donald trump help devotion brilliance drive carry forward torch american liberty lead conservative movement republican party victory great victory party house senate witness go wrong country short period time border economy crime glorious white house sit majestically nation capital beautiful white house small letter white house beautiful white house beautiful house donald trump america powerful america wealthy america strong america proud america safe america great thank thank transcribe content try rev save time transcribe captioning subtitle copyright disclaimer title usc section allowance fair use purpose criticism comment news reporting teaching scholarship research fair use permit copyright statute infringe weekly digest week important transcript inbox news news

This bill establishes a new federal criminal offense for knowingly misrepresenting the nature or source of DNA used in assisted reproductive technology or assisted insemination. The term assisted reproductive technology includes any treatment or procedure that involves the handling of human oocytes or embryos, such as in vitro fertilization, gamete intrafallopian transfer, and zygote intrafallopian transfer. The term assisted insemination includes any procedure that involves the handling of sperm including intrauterine insemination. A violation is subject to a fine, a prison term of up to 10 years, or both. Additionally, the bill makes the violation a predicate offense (i.e., an underlying offense) for prosecutions under the federal racketeering statute.

right

bill establish new federal criminal offense knowingly misrepresent nature source dna assist reproductive technology assist insemination term assist reproductive technology include treatment procedure involve handling human oocyte embryo vitro fertilization gamete intrafallopian transfer zygote intrafallopian transfer term assist insemination include procedure involve handling sperm include intrauterine insemination violation subject fine prison term year additionally bill make violation predicate offense ie underlying offense prosecution federal racketeering statute

Speeches, etc. “The pay pause has been very successful and we have had no major strikes because I think the nation has realised the fundamental truth of what the Government is trying to do,” Mrs. Margaret Thatcher, Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, told the women's section of Hartlepools Conservative Association at West Hartlepool yesterday. She was convinced that we now had a better chance than for some years of keeping prices stable and the pound worth its value. If the continual wage demands had not been halted, prices would have gone up, exports would have fallen sharply and we should have been unable to pay for the food and materials needed to maintain the standard of living to which we have become accustomed. Copyright © Margaret Thatcher Foundation 2024. All Rights Reserved.

right

speech etc pay pause successful major strike think nation realise fundamental truth government try mrs margaret thatcher joint parliamentary secretary ministry pension national insurance tell women section hartlepool conservative association west hartlepool yesterday convince well chance year keep price stable pound worth value continual wage demand halt price go export fall sharply unable pay food material need maintain standard live accustomed copyright margaret thatcher foundation right reserve

This bill expands the Summer Food Service Program, which provides meals to children and teens in low-income areas during the summer months when school is not in session, to include a home-delivery option in certain states. Qualifying states must have areas in which meals are inaccessible at program sites and in which electronic benefit transfer funds are not able to be fully used (e.g., due to the distance of eligible retailers). The Department of Agriculture must borrow from similar demonstration projects in its administration of the expanded program (e.g., the Meals-To-You Demonstration Project).

right

bill expand summer food service program provide meal child teen lowincome area summer month school session include homedelivery option certain state qualify state area meal inaccessible program site electronic benefit transfer fund able fully eg distance eligible retailer department agriculture borrow similar demonstration project administration expand program eg mealstoyou demonstration project

Speeches, etc. Mr. MacDermot I beg to move Amendment No. 259, in page 30, line 7, to leave out paragraph (b) and to insert: (b) shall not include the granting of any such annuities as are referred to in section 26(1) of the Finance Act 1956 (retirement annuities, etc.).” The Chairman With this Amendment can be taken Amendment No. 124 in page 28, line 44, at end insert— Provided always that nothing in this section shall prevent any society carrying on pension annuity business from availing itself of the provisions of section 24(1)(a) of the Finance 1956 to set up a fund exempt from income tax in respect of that part thereof which is referable to pension annuity business. Mr. MacDermot I begin by assuring the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) that the Government Amendment is designed to achieve what we understand to be the intention of his Amendment, namely, to ensure that the existing tax exemption under the Finance Act, 1956, for retirement annuity policies issued by friendly societies shall continue to remain unaffected by anything in the Clause. Mr. Pounder The Financial Secretary has correctly assumed the intention of my Amendment to be that friendly societies should enjoy tax exemption for these annuity policies. All assurance offices and not just friendly societies have enjoyed tax exemption on their pension annuity funds and my Amendment is to ensure that a friendly society should not be deprived of this because, for instance, it does this business by means of single premiums rather than annual premiums. Amendment agreed to. Further Amendment made: In page 30, line 34, leave from “if” to end of line 37 and insert: Mr. Pounder I beg to move Amendment No. 126, in page 30, line 43, after “made” , to insert: The object of the Amendment is quite simply to enable friendly societies to honour those proposals which were received together with cheques for premiums by the agents of the societies on 3rd May, but which, because of the intervention of the weekend and the Bank Holiday in Scotland on 2nd May, were not received by the societies until 4th May. It is as simple as that. Mr. MacDermot In spite of its simplicity, I cannot accept the Amendment. The dividing line has to be drawn somewhere when tax exemption has to stop. As I indicated earlier, there would have been a substantial argument for saying that we would be entitled to levy tax in future upon bonds which had already been issued, but we felt that this was a case in which at least some if not many people who had taken out these bonds had done so in the belief that the tax-exemption would continue for the life of the bond and that in spite of those words in small print in the advertisements which I read to the Committee, the words “under present legislation” , they may not have realised the full effect of those words as a warning that the tax position of the bonds might be changed. We therefore thought it right that where there were completed contracts before Budget day, the bonds should continue to enjoy tax exemption, but there is where the dividing line is drawn. If it is needed, we have a clear precedent in the action taken in 1956 when investment allowances were suspended generally. There was an exception for sums paid under contracts entered into not later than 17th February, 1956, which was the date when the decision to suspend was announced, but not for contracts which were under negotiation at that date. I appreciate that it might seem hard on the people who had sent in their application and their money, but I am afraid [column 505]that they did not have completed contract, so they did not qualify. Mrs. Thatcher My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) is right, and Niall MacDermotthe Financial Secretary is wrong, but in view of the hour we can best express our objection by voting in a moment or two against the grant the Clause stand part. The Chairman Does the hon. Member desire to withdraw the Amendment? Mr. Pounder No, Sir Eric. Amendment negatived. Question put, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:— The Committee divided: Ayes 153, Noes 102. Copyright © Margaret Thatcher Foundation 2024. All Rights Reserved.

right

speech etc mr macdermot beg amendment page line leave paragraph b insert b shall include granting annuity refer section finance act retirement annuity etc chairman amendment take amendment page line end insert provide section shall prevent society carry pension annuity business avail provision section finance set fund exempt income tax respect thereof referable pension annuity business mr macdermot begin assure hon member belfast south mr pounder government amendment design achieve understand intention amendment ensure exist tax exemption finance act retirement annuity policy issue friendly society shall continue remain unaffected clause mr pounder financial secretary correctly assume intention amendment friendly society enjoy tax exemption annuity policy assurance office friendly society enjoy tax exemption pension annuity fund amendment ensure friendly society deprive instance business mean single premium annual premium amendment agree amendment page line leave end line insert mr pounder beg amendment page line insert object amendment simply enable friendly society honour proposal receive cheque premium agent society intervention weekend bank holiday scotland receive society simple mr macdermot spite simplicity accept amendment dividing line draw tax exemption stop indicate early substantial argument say entitle levy tax future bond issue feel case people take bond belief taxexemption continue life bond spite word small print advertisement read committee word present legislation realise effect word warning tax position bond change think right complete contract budget day bond continue enjoy tax exemption dividing line draw need clear precedent action take investment allowance suspend generally exception sum pay contract enter later february date decision suspend announce contract negotiation date appreciate hard people send application money afraid column complete contract qualify mrs thatcher hon friend member belfast south mr pounder right niall macdermotthe financial secretary wrong view hour well express objection vote moment grant clause stand chairman hon member desire withdraw amendment mr pounder sir eric amendment negative question clause amend stand bill committee divide ayes no copyright margaret thatcher foundation right reserve

This bill requires the Department of Labor to award grants to states to develop, administer, and evaluate registered apprenticeship programs focused on early childhood education.

right

bill require department labor award grant state develop administer evaluate register apprenticeship program focus early childhood education

This bill rescinds specified funds that were provided by the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 for various programs and accounts. The bill rescinds funding that was provided for programs and accounts such as

right

bill rescind specify fund provide american rescue plan act program account bill rescind funding provide program account

Speeches, etc. Copyright © Margaret Thatcher Foundation 2024. All Rights Reserved.

right

speech etc copyright margaret thatcher foundation right reserve

Speeches, etc. Copyright © Margaret Thatcher Foundation 2024. All Rights Reserved.

right

speech etc copyright margaret thatcher foundation right reserve

Speeches, etc. Copyright © Margaret Thatcher Foundation 2024. All Rights Reserved.

right

speech etc copyright margaret thatcher foundation right reserve

Speeches, etc. The meeting of West ward of Finchley and Friern Barnet Conservative Association was held on Tuesday. Amongst those present were the prospective candidate for the Division (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher) and the Divisional chairman (Mr. Blatch). Mrs. Thatcher gave an address and while complimenting the ward on the number of Divisional officers who were members of the branch, said that she fully realised the heavy burden on the small band of willing members who last year achieved the re-election of Councillor Ferguson Taylor. She asked only two things of the members—success at both the municipal and General Elections and said how essential it was for the Young Conservatives to take a helping hand with this. Mrs. Thatcher said that some people looking forward to the coming budget voiced the criticism that Conservatives had only reduced taxes for those earning high incomes. In fact taxes had been cut for all. The Socialist programme would entail vast new taxes. Mr. Blatch thanked the ward for the excellent way the campaign last year was conducted, which, he said, was an example to all and asked that the same enthusiasm be shown this year. Re-elected were Mr. Meynell, president; Councillor Matthews, J. P., vice-president; Mr. E. H. Osborn, hon. treasurer; Mrs. E. M. Linde, hon. secretary. Committee members are Councillor Fergusoon Taylor, Miss Gauld, Mr. and Mrs. Jones, Mrs. Lauder, Mr. and Mrs. Mackrill, Mrs. Milne, Mr. Morgan, Mrs. Newcome-Wright, Mr. and Mrs. Webster and Mr. White. Hon. auditor, Mr. R. Carpenter. Copyright © Margaret Thatcher Foundation 2024. All Rights Reserved.

right

speech etc meeting west ward finchley friern barnet conservative association hold tuesday present prospective candidate division mrs margaret thatcher divisional chairman mr blatch mrs thatcher give address compliment ward number divisional officer member branch say fully realise heavy burden small band willing member year achieve reelection councillor ferguson taylor ask thing member success municipal general election say essential young conservative help hand mrs thatcher say people look forward come budget voice criticism conservative reduce taxis earn high income fact taxis cut socialist programme entail vast new taxis mr blatch thank ward excellent way campaign year conduct say example ask enthusiasm show year reelect mr meynell president councillor matthews j p vicepresident mr e h osborn hon treasurer mrs e m linde hon secretary committee member councillor fergusoon taylor miss gauld mr mrs jones mrs lauder mr mrs mackrill mrs milne mr morgan mrs newcomewright mr mrs webster mr white hon auditor mr r carpenter copyright margaret thatcher foundation right reserve

Speeches, etc. Order for Second Reading read. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Diamond) I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. We have now reached the stage when we start to implement my right hon. Friend's Budget proposals, proposals which the House unanimously regards as relevant to the needs of our country, novel in their conception, and challenging to certain habits of thought. I hope that I may be allowed to depart on this occasion from the normal tradition in introducing a Finance Bill, which has been to go through the Clauses one after another, explaining the effect and purpose of each. So many of the Clauses have already been described in speeches made from this Box earlier and, as the Press has correctly said, there are no surprises in the Bill, nothing that one was not expecting, and very little that is not administrative or has not been already explained. I am sure, therefore, that it will be for the convenience of the House if I deal with those matters which are of new principle, which alter existing taxes or which bring in new taxes. There are several Clauses which help international trade and exports. Clause I, for example, makes it easier for exported goods to qualify for relief from duty on their import content. Other Clauses give effect to undertakings which we have given to our partners in E.F.T.A. and concern, among other things, vodka and heavy oils, both of which, I am told, are lubricants, though one has to be careful which one uses for which purpose. There are many provisions defining with greater precision the position of the taxpayer, but I do not think that they involve any new principles. There are, of course the usual number of provisions relating to avoidance, and I think that I should say a word or two on the general topic of avoidance, particularly having regard to what the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) said during the Budget debate on 5th May. I am [column 477]glad to see the hon. Lady in her place. During her speech, she is reported to have said: I do not know whether Hansard correctly reported the hon. Lady's words because, obviously, she was referring to avoidance devices, not to anti-avoidance devices. Mrs. Margaret Thatcher (Finchley) indicated assent. Mr. Diamond I am not quite sure which way she actually put it, but I am sure that, if she had thought about it beforehand, she would have said it as I have just amended it. The hon. Lady went on: At that point, one of my hon. Friends said “Shame” , and we on this side, at all events, share that view. We do not take the view that high marginal levels of taxation on incomes of £200 a week and more, imposed by Parliament after full debate, can justify one section of the population in using the resources available to them to avoid and escape their fair share of the burden which Parliament clearly intended to impose upon them. We would not describe that kind of taxation decided upon by this House after full debate as confiscatory. We would regard a remark in that regard coming from the Opposition Front Bench as wholly irresponsible. [An Hon. Member: “What?” ] Wholly irresponsible. I am astonished that no right hon. Gentleman who shared the responsibility of government for 13½ years has risen to say anything about it. What we try to do in this House is to ensure that the will of the House is carried out. If there are any complaints about the kind of taxation imposed, this is the place to debate them. Once a decision is taken, patriotic citizens should pay their taxes and—— Mr. Nigel Birch (Flint, West) Does the right hon. Gentleman? Mr. Diamond Yes—and, moreover, comment like that must sound odd indeed [column 478]in the ears of millions of taxpayers who pay their taxes willingly and of those millions who are subject to the most rigorous of all Schedules, Schedule E, who have their taxes deducted under P.A.Y.E., who have no opportunity to reduce their burden, to take advice to see whether it is open to them, or even the means to do so. In those circumstances—— Mr. John Farr (Harborough) rose—— Mr. Diamond I will give way in a moment. I want to add a further point about the effect of a high level of tax on high incomes. For those who have high incomes and have to pay taxes it may be that the payment of taxes results in their having to forgo some additional luxury. But, for the ordinary man or woman, payment of taxes may mean that one of their children has to go without a pair of shoes. [Hon. Members: “Oh.” ] That is the difference. I could have hoped that Parliament would speak with one voice on the responsibility for paying taxes. Mr. Farr Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree, however, that it is the confiscatory level of taxation on, for instance, the £200 a week man which is the very reason that we in this country are suffering from the brain drain? Mr. Diamond I would not accept any such comment at all. I repeat the simple fact which hon. Members opposite seem to be unable to be aware of, that at all levels of income one can eat only three meals a day. In the Bill there are three Clauses relating to the new duties. Those are the Clauses which, I imagine, will attract the greatest amount of interest. There are Clauses dealing with the new betting duty, the references to the new investment incentives, and, of course, the Selective Employment Tax. The duties relating to betting and gambling were fully described in principle by my right hon. Friend in his Budget statement. It is clear that he is in the exceptional position of having won universal approval, at all events, for this tax. I need only draw the attention of the House to two aspects of the control of the new betting duty. First, it will be seen [column 479]that racecourse authorities may be required to assist the Customs and Excise in administering the duty, and, in particular, to deny access to their courses or tracks to bookmakers who have not complied with the fiscal law applicable to them. The Customs and Excise for a number of years have had co-operation from the proprietors of dog racing tracks in the administration of existing duties imposed on bookmakers operating on their tracks, duties now to be replaced by the general betting duty. I should like to pay tribute to the proprietors for that help. I am confident that there will be similar co-operation forthcoming from the horse racecourse authorities. Secondly, while we do not wish to sound in any way minatory I mention the provision in Schedule 2(20) for the withdrawal of a betting office licence in the event of a second conviction for an offence. While bookmakers have assured my right hon. Friend of co-operation in making the new duty work, it would be unrealistic to assume that there will not be some cases of attempted evasion. This stringent penalty is necessary both to protect the reputable bookmakers from unfair competition based on tax evasion and to make it clear and plain to others that such evasion will not be worth while. As to gaming, there is one relaxation in the scale of duty from the plan already announced. Where bingo and other dutiable games are played on the same premises, it will not be necessary to take out two licences. The higher rates of licence duty will cover the playing of all games, including bingo. There will be other details which perhaps we can usefully discuss in Committee. Clause 33 of the Bill provides for the abolition of investment allowances and the amendments—— Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne (South Angus) Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of the betting tax, would he not agree that the Chancellor said that the money from the tax was to be used to finance the Government's option mortgage scheme? Why is the tax not financing the mortgage scheme? Mr. Diamond The hon. Member is not accurate in what he says about my [column 480]right hon. Friend's statement. [Hon. Members: “Oh.” ] My right hon. Friend compared the amount coming from this source and the amount which would be available for another purpose. Every right hon. Gentleman knows that under no circumstances does one hypothecate a particular tax to a particular item of expenditure. It all goes into the same pool. [Hon. Members: “Answer.” ] My right hon. Friend did not say that and I have answered the hon. Member. Dame Irene Ward (Tynemouth) Read it out. Mr. Diamond The provisions of Clause 33 are to be read in conjunction with the measures giving the new investment grants described in the Industrial Development Bill, which received its Second Reading last week. Before I turn to the third of the new taxes, the Selective Employment Tax, perhaps I may say a word about the interrelation of the two taxes. It is sometimes argued that the way to discourage recruitment of labour into the service industries is by providing additional incentives to investment in labour-saving plant and equipment and that we have failed to do this. Conversely, so the argument runs, it cannot be right to encourage the recruitment of labour to manufacturing industries and, at the same time, to provide incentives for the kind of investment which reduces labour requirements. Both these views are mistaken so far as concerns service industries the imposition of a tax of these quite measurable proportions, and, in particular, the impact of a new and unexpected tax, would be sufficient of itself to encourage the acquisition of labour-saving equipment without a special inducement to investment. In manufacturing industry the need is both for additional labour and plant. It is by increasing the scale of industrial production that we shall get both a greater volume of production and greater efficiency. I now turn to the Selective Employment Tax, which is the main talking point of the Finance Bill. I wish to deal with some of the principles of the tax and then with the administration, about which there have been one or two grumbles. First, as to the tax itself, may I remind the House, because I think that [column 481]this has been overlooked in pursuing the argument about service versus manufacturing, that the main reason for introducing the tax was to provide revenue. Every political and economic commentator in the period leading up to the Budget was agreed that there was a need for £200 million to £300 million of extra revenue to provide the necessary element of deflation. I doubt whether there was ever such unanimity in the Press except when the Press told us that Labour would lose the Hull by-election. On this occasion, however, they were clearly right and all have accepted my right hon. Friend's Budget judgment. One way of raising the equivalent revenue would be to increase the rates of Purchase Tax in the way described when my right hon. Friend gave cogent reasons for not adopting those traditional methods. In particular, he had in mind the need to maintain a high rate of investment and full employment. It is clear that increases in Purchase Tax fall with severity on a limited sector of our manufacturing industries and have damaging effects, such as those on motor car production, for example. My right hon. Friend, therefore, turned to a new indirect tax which provides the necessary revenue—in particular, at the time of year when it is expected to be needed—which avoids depressing employment and investment, which avoids the pitfalls of the stop-go policy of the party opposite and which is widespread in its impact. Anyone, therefore, who seeks to criticise this tax must first say in the most precise terms exactly what alternative method he would have proposed for raising the necessary revenue and raising it at the right time and in the right way and avoiding stop-go. Any criticism which does not base itself on a positive alternative proposal is completely without validity. The Selective Employment Tax can be used—— Mr. T. L. Iremonger (Ilford, North) rose—— Mr. Diamond I have given way four times already. Mr. Iremonger I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. An alternative should have come from savings, which would have been available [column 482]if there had been more incentives in the economy. The right hon. Gentleman says that the object of this tax is to raise revenue, but is this really so? Is he not also saying that the object is to deflate the economy, to mop up surplus purchasing power, which is not at all the same thing? The Government could have perfectly well done without the revenue, for they are not spending all that much more and are boasting about their surplus. Mr. Diamond I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to make a speech now. Perhaps he will have an opportunity later, when I shall listen with interest. There is very little difference between raising revenue and saying that deflating is the purpose of the Budget. That is the purpose of every Budget nowadays. There is more than a revenue-raising purpose behind the tax. It is a contemporary tax which takes account of contemporary conditions, particularly full employment. Much of the criticism which I have read has provided the major justification for this aspect of the tax, for it has demonstrated the extent to which employers of all kinds have been stimulated into looking at their employment practices and considering how they should use their labour force more efficiently. It has been most gratifying to note that only a minority of employers appear to be taking the view that they should automatically pass on the whole of the increased cost and that, therefore, there is no need for them to consider the efficient deployment of their labour. Here again, we see further proof of the wisdom of adopting this kind of indirect tax, because if we had instead increased Purchase Tax the general reaction would immediately have been to put up the price of goods by the corresponding amount. Purchase Tax, because of its nature, has come to be regarded as something which is automatically added on at the end of the bill and paid for by the consumer. It is much more encouraging to greater efficiency to have a tax which, by its very selectivity, makes employers question themselves about their use of the scarcest of our resources—manpower. Mr. Anthony Royle (Richmond, Surrey) rose—— Mr. Diamond By providing—— Hon. Members Give way. Mr. Diamond No. I have given way five times now. Hon. Members Three. Mr. Diamond Moreover, by providing premiums the tax encourages recruitment into manufacturing, and to a certain extent could also encourage the flow of labour from services into manufacturing. That would be all to the good. For too long our fiscal policies have encouraged the flow of labour into services, with the result, as was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech, that 90 per cent. of the increase of our labour force in the past five years has gone into services and only 10 per cent. into manufacturing. I say “for too long” because if we as a nation wish to increase our productivity we can most readily do so in the field of manufacturing. The available statistics indicate very clearly—— Mr. Richard Sharples (Sutton and Cheam) On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order even for a Minister to read his speech word for word from a prepared text? Mr. Speaker The hon. Gentleman knows that Ministers, like back-benchers, are allowed to make use of copious notes. Mr. Diamond I was saying that it is in manufacturing that the increase in productivity is conditioned and limited by the increase in the numbers of employees attracted to it. All the statistics clearly show that this country, in particular, has been limited in its increase in productivity because it has denied manufacturing the necessary increase in the volume of labour. All the international statistics, comparing countries at a similar stage of development, have shown that we are virtually at the bottom of the list as regards the proportionate increase in our labour force in manufacturing. This has been going on for a long time, and it is high time that we took note of it and tried now to encourage the employment of labour in, and particularly the recruitment of labour into, manufacturing. The tax is fully justified as a revenue raiser, as a wise beginning in broadening the tax base, as a step towards redressing the balance of taxation [column 484]between services and manufacturing, and as an encouragement to greater efficiency and productivity in manufacturing. In this way we shall grow more competitive in the manufacture of goods for both the home and overseas markets. A number of hon. Members, on both sides of the House, have questions about the administration of the tax which they would like answered. I thought it right first to describe at some length the various weighty arguments in support of the tax because, although it is easy to criticise detailed points in the proposed administration in isolation, no such criticism has any real validity unless those who criticise offer, at the same time, an alternative tax which would do all the things to which I have referred. We shall be only too happy to listen to suggestions for improving the tax. Clearly, there could be arguments about its ultimate effects, about the various rates at which it is to be imposed, or on detailed points of administration. We have deliberately delayed finalising all these detailed points until we had an opportunity, which, in fiscal matters—— Mr. A. Royle rose—— Mr. Diamond —can only arise after the proposals have been published to this House, of discussing with the various interests concerned the best method of achieving our objectives and also of listening to representations by those who are likely to be affected. The administration which we propose must be based on simplicity and the minimum use of additional labour. This tax is infinitely variable in both rates and area of impact. It can be as sophisticated or complicated as Parliament may desire, but with complexity inevitably goes the engagement of large numbers of civil servants with the necessary skills. We do not think that it would be consonant with the spirit of the tax, or would pay sufficient regard to the shortage of labour, to introduce too many complications. We are, therefore, keeping it simple and, as far as possible, making it capable of being used with existing machinery. For this reason we are compelled to make the tax universal in its application and are adopting other methods, which will be described in more detail when the Ministry of Labour Bill [column 485]becomes before the House, of dealing with payment of refunds or premiums. To get a totally new tax launched and accepted it should be capable of being easily grasped and understood. Its outline should remain clearly visible, rather than being hidden behind a host of subtle refinements. The logic of all this is that for the time being, at all events until everyone is used to the working of the new tax, we should use the administrative machinery which is available to us and avoid, as far as possible, unnecessary refinements and complexities. In the light of these principles, we have considered the group of employees comprising the elderly, the part-time and the disabled. The argument which has been put forward is that the Selective Employment Tax will bear disproportionately heavily on these categories, with the result that there will be not merely a transfer of labour, but, in certain cases, a loss of employment. For both economic and social reasons, these questions deserve the most careful and sympathetic consideration. I very much doubt, however, whether the tax will have the effect on which the whole of this argument is based. So long as the policy of full employment is maintained—and this the Government are determined to do—it does not seem that there can be an overall falling-off in the need for workers in these groups. Moreover, we must remember that the tax falls on the employers and not on the employees. In the case of part-time workers, any scheme for exemption or refund would, by the very nature of the part-time employment, be complicated and open to serious risk of evasion and abuse. Disabled employees—and no category merits more careful consideration—will continue to be covered by the special quota system under which employers with 20 or more work people are legally bound by the Disabled Persons Employment Act, 1944, to employ a minimum number of disabled persons—that is to say, 3 per cent. of their labour force. More importantly, it must be remembered that generally they do as good a job as the next man. To suggest otherwise would be to do them a great disservice. As to the more seriously disabled who may require sheltered employment, the Government, of course, provide this [column 486]through bodies such as Remploy. For all these reasons, therefore, my right hon. Friend does not feel that it is necessary to take any special steps at the present time—[Hon. Members: “Shame.” ]—concerning these three most important categories. Mr. Nicholas Ridley (Cirencester and Tewkesbury) rose—— Mr. A. Royle rose—— Mr. Diamond I hope that those two hon. Members, who have been bobbing up and down the whole time and to whom I have given way on many occasions, will have regard to the fact that I have already given way five times—[Hon. Members: “Three.” ]—that they have been bobbing up and down a dozen times during one paragraph dealing with the same item, and that had they had any responsible interest in wanting to hear about this topic they would have sat down and waited until I got to the end. If they will be good enough to contain themselves until I have got to the end of the paragraph, about which the House is anxious to hear, if the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) is not, I will be glad to give way to his hon. Friend. Mr. Farr On a point of order. Is it not the case, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister is making a parody of Parliamentary dialogue by reading so exactly from what is obviously a written statement? I suggest that he not reading from copious notes, but is reading word for word, line by line, a prepared speech which has been put into his hands, properly prepared by Dr. Kaldor. Mr. Speaker Order. The hon. Member has been in Parliament long enough to know that what he has raised is not a point of order. Mr. Archie Manuel (Central, Ayrshire) A schoolboy trick. Mr. Diamond It will, perhaps, interest the House to know that I have a number of announcements to make concerning a number of categories in which hon. and right hon. Members, on both sides, have expressed a great deal of interest. In accordance with the normal practice of the House, I propose to read precisely what I have carefully prepared to say about it. [column 487] I repeat that for the various reasons which I have given my right hon. Friend does not feel that it is necessary to take any special steps at the present time. In any event, many people will be in employment where the tax is reimbursed or where a premium is paid already. We will, of course, keep their circumstances under review. Given, however, the need to get a simple scheme into operation this year, my right hon. Friend does not feel that there is any need for special arrangements at the present time. I repeat that we shall watch the position closely in case it is found right and possible to give them special treatment under a more refined scheme later. Mr. A. Royle I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does his decision also exclude the Star and Garter Home, where over 200 disabled men, who were disabled in two world wars, are involved and the tax will cost the hospital over £10,000 a year? Mr. Diamond I wish that the hon. Member had waited. I have told him several times that I have a number of announcements to make. He has asked me about a charity. I shall talk about charities presently. Mr. Paul Dean (Somerset, North) May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question concerning the disabled? Mr. Diamond I am sure you will forgive me. Mr. Speaker, for saying that we are on Second Reading of the Finance Bill. We shall have a long Committee stage of the Bill and of an associated Bill. I shall be at the service of the House and of the Committee to answer as many questions in as much detail relevant to the various Clauses as hon. Members may require, as has happened in the past. I am sure that this will satisfy the hon. Member. A related question is the effect of the tax upon disabled employers. The Government recognise that these represent a class which merits particular, sympathetic consideration. It is not possible to exempt them from the Selective Employment Tax itself, but the Government hope to bring forward proposals to deal with the real hardship which might otherwise result. [column 488] We have considered the effect of the Selective Employment Tax in relation to various bodies which receive grants from the Exchequer. There are a large number of these bodies and the amount of assistance which they receive varies greatly from case to case. The Government have decided that the effect of the Selective Employment Tax on these bodies should be regarded in just the same way as any other cost increase and, indeed, in exactly the same way as one would regard an increase of indirect taxation. That means that as a general rule the effect of the tax will be taken into account with all other costs when the level of the grant is next reassessed in the normal course of events. I recognise, however, that there may be exceptional cases where a grant-aided body finds itself itself in financial difficulties before the end of the current period. In these and future cases the Government will consider requests for assistance on their merits. We will, of course, expect the grant-aided bodies concerned to have first made any possible economies in manpower. I next come to charities. The Government recognise that charities are in a somewhat special, indeed unique, position. My right hon. Friend will be meeting the National Council for Social Services and the Churches Main Committee after Whitsun. He is looking forward to a useful discussion with them. There are, of course, a great number of charities. A fair proportion will not be directly affected by the tax, but there are many who will be faced with serious problems. It is the Government's intention to consider in principle how and in what way they might be recompensed. Finally, the House will wish to know the Government's decision on two particular industries affected by the Selective Employment Tax. First, extractive industries. The position here is that nine-tenths of all employment in mining and quarrying is under the National Coal Board, which is to get the refund along with the nationalised industries generally. We think that it would be right for the remaining one-tenth in the other extractive industries to be treated in the same way. These include stone and slate, chalk, clay, sand and gravel extractions. [column 489]This will also help the construction industry. In the case of forestry, after discussion with some of the interests concerned we have considered the most appropriate machinery for giving effect to the policy of the White Paper relating to forestry. In the light of the decision to make individual repayments to agriculture and horticulture it has been decided to make similar arrangements for private forestry. Power will, therefore, be taken in the Ministry of Labour Bill for repayment of the tax to be made to private woodland owners through local offices of the Ministry of Agriculture, and the Department of Agriculture for Scotland. Details will be announced in due course. Sir Harmar Nicholls (Peter-borough) The right hon. Gentleman is puzzling me. At one point he explained, very properly, that before the Budget he could not have more than preliminary discussions to see how the ideas would work, and that the post-Budget period could be used for further discussions. Now he seems to be giving categorical decisions which one would have expected to have been made in Committee on the Bill when, one would have thought, proper consideration could have taken place. Are his decisions on these matters now ruling out any further Amendments we might move in Committee? Mr. Diamond I am quite at a loss to know what the hon. Gentleman is complaining about. I am not quite sure whether he is saying “Thank you” or not. He said that I had got him confused. He has certainly got me confused. If he is asking me whether it would be out of order for him to put down Amendments, I can only say, Mr. Speaker, that I wish I could say “Yes” , but I am afraid not, and I shall look forward to any Amendments he cares to put down—— Sir Harmar Nicholls And look at them sympathetically? Mr. Diamond —and look at them with the same sympathy as I always do. Last year my right hon. Friend introduced an important new tax directed towards establishing a greater sense of social justice, to increasing efficiency in production, to lightening the burden on those companies which look more to [column 490]future growth than immediate high returns. This year we are continuing the process of modernising our tax system. We are creating a new source of revenue, spreading the burden more widely and more evenly, and keeping in the forefront of our minds at all times the need to maintain full employment and a high level of investment. No one can doubt that the Labour Government, in their fiscal policy, are ever conscious of their social responsibilities, and both imaginative and resourceful in their determination to strengthen our economy. Mrs. Margaret Thatcher (Finchley) John DiamondThe Chief Secretary at least chose an unusual method of introducing the Finance Bill, and I must say that seldom have I heard a speech to lead me with more pleasure into the “No” Lobby at the end of the debate. The Chief Secretary described the new tax as “modernising” the tax system. Some modernising! If he had read his own professional journal last week he would have discovered that this tax was first introduced in 1777, when it was a tax upon servants, and that, ironically enough, in 1873 it was abolished with respect to hotel employees—only to be reimposed less than 100 years later. He made a number of announcements and he made noises of sympathy which extended only to the sermon part of his speech and not to the announcement of practical points of policy. It was extremely disappointing. He quoted conclusions from a number of international statistics, with most of which I could not agree in any way. I have always been taught to be very careful about comparing international statistics, and I gratuitously pass on the advice to the Chief Secretary. I now come to the main part of his thesis, which was the Selective Employment Tax. This is, of course, entirely the core of the Budget. James CallaghanThe Chancellor has chosen to make it the core of the Budget, and I believe that it has left him with very little manœuvring space to deal, as he should, with cases on their merits when they are presented to him from all parts of the House, as I am sure they will be. This is his choice. It is our job to criticise the measures which he puts forward in his Bill and not to [column 491]attempt to impose another Finance Bill; that is not our task. We dislike this Bill. The Chancellor has never show himself inhibited from introducing a Budget at any time of the year other than that traditional for a Budget, and indeed it may be that we shall have another Budget before the end of this year. We dislike intensely the method he has chosen for implementing his proposals and also we dislike not being in a position even now of knowing the full implications of the tax. Indeed, almost every word the Chief Secretary said made it clear that he is not ready to bring in this tax. It should be delayed till next year—at least till his proposals have been sorted out. We are in a difficult position in putting forward Amendments to this Bill without knowing what the next Bill will contain, and we are in a difficulty because of the terms of the Money Resolution to the Bill. Now, as to the tax itself. Seldom has a tax caused such an upheaval and such widespread dismay. From all sides there have been criticisms of it; indeed, from all sides criticisms have been sent to the Chancellor, and it is those criticisms which have led the Chief Secretary to make some of the noises of sympathy he has made today. There are certain criticisms which go to the root of the tax and certain criticisms which lead to mitigating its effect in relation to certain groups of people. I shall try to deal, first, with those which go to the root of the tax. The White Paper says that one of the objects of the tax was to redress In fact, however, services have often borne the brunt of indirect taxes on commodities; they have borne the brunt of petrol tax. and they have borne the brunt of Purchase Tax. Indeed, in the days when we used to have Budgets which reduced Purchase Tax—those days, of course, are long since gone—those Budgets caused shopkeepers a good deal of trouble because they lost a lot of money through Purchase Tax having financed the holding of goods which were liable to that tax. But there are certain other services which have borne a lesser [column 492]proportion of taxes. These are the services which the Chancellor is proposing to tax now. They are not luxury services. They are the essential and vital services. They are food, housing, clothing, insurance—and, therefore, saving—financing, and all the specialist services, including research. This is a widespread tax. It is widespread tax upon essential and vital services. If its object is to take money out of the consumer's pocket—that is to reduce demand—it will only work through rising prices. I thought I heard the Chief Secretary say that he thought that most industries would absorb the tax. If they do, the absorption will come from money which would otherwise have gone in savings and into modernising. It would seem, therefore, to be a backward step and not a forward step. The psychology of the Budget has not been lost upon the country. I think it will work only by price rises, but if prices do rise the Chancellor has arranged his Budget in such a way that he can blame someone else for the rises. This, of course, is a frequent occurrence with the present Government, for they are always ready to pass on the blame to somebody else while ready to take credit for the things which go right. The second objection, which goes to the root of the tax, is that it will hit export earners very badly indeed. I mentioned in my earlier speech on the Budget the special case of export houses and other export services. These services already suffer compared with manufacturing industry, because at least exports which attract tax get the drawback of tax. At least if one exports manufactured goods one gets an export rebate. Export services get no such rebate and are, therefore, in a bad position compared with manufacturing, and in this case if there is a balance to redress it will go to services. It will hit the hotel and catering trades very badly, and I understand that tourism is our fourth biggest dollar earner. It will also hit insurance and finance. The whole trend of financing exports recently has been to have a series of measures which will make it easier and easier to get finance and enable manufacturers to sell to people who cannot pay immediately. Yet these very finance houses will be the ones to be penalised in the Budget. They are the ones who [column 493]are enabling some of the manufacturers to do the exporting. That is a very serious objection to the tax. I noted that the Chief Secretary said, or I thought that he did, that the tax was infinitely variable in its impact and in its area. In that case, he can do a lot of the things which later in his speech he refused to do, and we shall make certain that we table Amendments which I hope we shall be successful in moving in order to put some of the things right. The next objection which goes to the root of the tax is the completely artificial classification between manufacturing and services. In so far as one manages to export products—and this is a vital part of the whole Budget strategy—it is a matter of teamwork between all sides of industry. It is no use being able to produce the goods if one cannot distribute, finance and sell them. Numerous Questions have been put to various Departments of Government to try to elucidate in more detail the exact classification. So far, they have been unsuccessful. Only last Monday there was an Answer from R. Gunterthe Minister of Labour about the precise classification of head offices which said that the hon. Member must await the publication of the Bill. That means that we cannot discuss in detail the precise effect of the tax upon even manufacturing industry, not knowing the exact definition of “manufacturing industry.” We should have had the other Bill long before we had to discuss the Second Reading of this Bill. But the essential point is that the whole of exporting is really part of one process, and it is quite artificial to try to divide it between the manufacturing and service industries. There is one further objectionable aspect of the tax, and I refer to the financing of it. In the Budget debate, the Chancellor said: Three weeks have passed. I hope that the Chancellor has considered and will tell the House when he winds up what his decision is and how far he is going [column 494]to allow the banks to relax their credit restrictions and lend money to enable manufacturers and others to meet their very considerable obligations under the tax. We believe that it is quite wrong to force everyone to borrow at 7 or 7½ per cent. in order to give an interest-free loan to the Government. We shall table Amendments designed so that the impact of the tax does not come until the end of the financial year when the mechanism for repayment of premiums should be ready. I say “should” because for most taxes it would be an insult to call them half-baked. With this tax in its present state, it would be a compliment. The Chief Secretary, like all hon. Members, is worried about the administration of the tax. He will agree that I have some idea of the National Insurance administration, and I do not accept for a moment that it is necessary to collect the tax in respect of every single person. National Insurance is an excellent system of administration. There are already some 35 different insurance stamps and some 60 different rates of National Insurance contributions. That is a considerable number of permutations and combinations, and if given a reasonable amount of time to administer the tax properly—and no tax should be introduced before it is capable of being administered properly—it will not be necessary to take in the tax in respect of every single employed person. The Ministry could deal with it in a much better way by taking in the tax only from those whom it is desired to make liable to it. Apart from those objections which go right to the root of the tax, there are a number which could be used to mitigate the effect of it. During the course of the Bill and of the Ministry of Labour Bill later, we shall table many Amendments to mitigate the effect of the tax on people who are deserving cases. I anticipate that we shall get back to the days of Government majorities of the kind that we had under the previous Governments, when back bench Members spoke to Amendments on merit and even voted on merit. I anticipate that we shall be joined on this side on the occasion of this Finance Bill, unlike the last one, by many hon. Members opposite, [column 495]because a lot of these Amendments are not party political matters at all. I imagine that the Chancellor's own back benchers will be just as annoyed with him as we shall be if he does not give in. The Chief Secretary referred to some of the cases. I was very disappointed in what he had to say about charities. By a decision taken in principle many years ago, charities have always been exempt from direct taxes and direct rates have been mitigated. There is no new decision to take here. It is one which is as old as the hills. Charities are exempt from the effect of direct taxation, and that is a principle from which the Chancellor should start now. He should build the tax around that, so far as it relates to charities. Most hon. Members have had a large number of letters from charities in their constituencies and all over the country about the effect of the tax upon them. I want to refer to one in particular which came from the charity called “Help the Aged” . It put the point most cogently: That is the essential point. In so far as he is taxing charities, he is not taxing something rather cold and abstract. He is taking money directly from those whom the charity is designed to help. The point was cogently put again in a letter published in The Times on 20th May, 1966: These cases speak for themselves. It is not a question of whether charities can be exempted from the tax; they must be exempted from the tax. We hope that the Chancellor will change his mind and announce that they will be exempt when he replies to the debate. Employees of all religious bodies should also be exempt from the tax. I have had representations from all kinds of religious bodies—from the Church of England the Free Church and the [column 496]synagogues—and I should have thought that that again would have gone without argument. I come to another aspect about which we feel strongly. We feel that employees of educational establishments should be exempted from the tax. There are half a million children educated in independent schools. I understand that the tax would cost some £6.9 million. If they were all to close down there would be educational chaos. We think that the fiscal instrument should not be used to give vent to any political feelings that hon. Members opposite may have about independent schools. I come to a different category of employees—employees of nursing and convalescent homes, private hospitals and old people's homes. Not all are registered charities. Most of them, in fact, save a far greater liability from falling on the State. It would be far better for the State to do a little to help them, or at least to refrain from penalising them, than to take over all the buildings and obligations. These organisations should be free from the tax. The Chief Secretary referred to the employees of disabled persons who require whole or part-time help. He suggested that he would have some proposals to make, but he did not say what those proposals were. This is another example of the way in which the tax has not been thought out. The Chancellor has several hours between now and winding up the debate to find out what these proposals are. I hope that he will tell us exactly what he proposes to do to help those disabled who have to employ people to look after them. Another group of employees of organisations which we shall endeavour to help are those who work for organisations for the promotion or study of science, literature and the arts. It took us on this side of the House many years to exempt the theatre from Entertainments Duty. This Budget is a reverse step; it is, in effect, putting an entertainments tax on the theatre once again. For all those categories which I have mentioned we shall table Amendments, and I hope that we shall be successful in moving them. It would be even more helpful to the passage of the Finance Bill if the Chancellor were to give in to some of them at the outset. They all [column 497]speak for themselves and I hope that he will consider them very carefully. Another aspect of the same group of Amendments concerns other employees who certainly should be excluded. The Chief Secretary referred to these—the part-time workers. It is inequitable that part time for this purpose should be defined as eight hours a week merely because the tax comes under the National Insurance Act. Why should it not be 20 to 21 hours a week as under the Redundancy Payments Act? I am delighted to note that I appear to have some support in this matter from hon. Members opposite. If that were done it would make a very considerable difference to the incidence of the tax, and it would help those in the retail trade who have to rely on this part-time labour to a considerable extent. It would also help a number of the old folk, many of whom do not work for more than about 20 hours a week but for whom it is most important that they should be able to continue work and that work should be available for them. The Chief Secretary referred to disabled employees. I hope that they will be excluded from the incidence of the tax, because it would be a great incentive to employers to employ more than the minimum quota if disabled workers were excluded from the operation of the tax. I hope that the Chancellor will consider the problems of the handicapped and disabled people and will agree that these people, too, should be exempt. We shall also table Amendments designed to raise the absurdities of a tax which treats farming, horticulture, forestry, tourism, catering, hotels and the construction industry differently from some of the manufacturing industries. This matter will arise to some extent on this Bill and to some exent on a later Bill, but we should have discussions on this Bill about the classifications. The Chief Secretary referred to certain aspects of the Selective Employment Tax. First, he mentioned the appeal procedure. It is obvious that if we are to impose a tax which falls on employed but not on self-employed, there will be a number of questions for determination as to classification. Under the National Insurance Act at present—and I assume that this will apply in this case—such questions are for the determination of the Minister. [column 498]It is rather strange that Miss M. Herbisonthe Minister of National Insurance should have jurisdiction to determine what are essentially taxation matters. We shall have to look very carefully at whether a proper appeal procedure is provided for this tax. Under certain circumstances the Minister can refer the matter to the courts, but we are here dealing with a tax, and it is wrong to have the National Insurance appeals machinery applying to this tax. Very few people have referred to a fact which struck me the moment the Chancellor announced the tax—that it is a staggeringly high impost, for 25s., or 25 bob-a-nob, as one of the newspapers put it, is very high indeed. When I think how carefully we used to consider the question of raising National Insurance contributions and how we were always wary of raising them as by as much as 3s. a week for the employer, I realise just how high this tax is; and the higher it is the more important it will be to get the appeal procedure right. Any new tax should be thoroughly considered before being presented to the House—not afterwards but before. The requisite decisions have not been taken, and the House will have to do the work of the Executive throughout the Finance Bill by making essential decisions on policy. Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, West) The hon. Lady has suggested certain exemptions from the tax. Some of us might agree about some of them. Has she, or has her right hon. Friend, made any attempt to estimate what the loss to the Revenue would be from those exemptions? Has she any suggestion as to an alternative source of that revenue? Mrs. Thatcher It is difficult to assess the loss to the Revenue when it is so difficult to assess the yield of the tax. The Chancellor pointed out that with a new tax it is very difficult to assess the yield. When he cannot even decide what is a manufacturing establishment and what is not, it is even more difficult. I come to what the Chancellor called his general Budget judgment in relation to this tax. There have been a number of views about the general Budget judgment in relation to this tax. I recognise at the outset that it is a very difficult year in which to make a general [column 499]Bugetary judgment. There is the unknown effect of the imports surcharge being taken off at the end of November. We do not know whether quotas or licensing will be imposed a couple of days before the imports surcharge is due to come off. We cannot get an undertaking from D. Jaythe President of the Board of Trade on this point. We do not know the effect of the present strike on exports and imports. We do not know how far the terms of trade will continue to turn against us or how far copper prices will rise, although we know that they almost certainly will rise. We do not know the cost of sanctions against Rhodesia. All this makes it a very difficult year. I accept that at the outset. But even accepting that, in relation to the tax itself the judgment is by no means clear cut. The Economist, too, shares this view. The Chancellor put his estimate of the deflationary effect of this tax at £315 million. But the Economist points out that he will have to return a part of that in the quarter beginning in the next fiscal year. Other commentators have put the deflationary effect of this tax this year at only £135 million, which is the amount of net non-returnable receipts this year. Others have said that the effect of the tax is deflationary by some £240 million a year because that is what it would do in a full year. This is a very wide discrepancy, and if it is as wide as this I doubt very much whether I am under any obligation to propose alternative sources of taxation. Moreover, even since the Chancellor framed his Budget there have been a number of other Measures agreed to which will require many Supplementary Estimates to be placed before the House. Indeed, the Chancellor must have begun to feel that the economy is in very much better shape now to give his approval to the Measure which was brought before the House yesterday and which required another £65 million of expenditure. The Chancellor shakes his head. Perhaps the economy is not in very much better shape after all. Undoubtedly he will tell us tonight. It may be that there is an alternative explanation—what we know as the “lump it” explanation, which was referred to at the Dispatch Box by [column 500]D. Houghtonthe former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on one occasion, when he said that the Government would do what they liked about the social services and if the international financiers did not like it they could lump it. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give us the true explanation. I now turn to certain other specific taxes mentioned in the Budget. The Chief Secretary has given us a number of details about these taxes. The Second Reading of the Finance Bill is not the place to discuss them in detail, but there are a few comments that I should like to make. Everything that we said last year about the complexities of the Capital Gains Tax has been abundantly borne out in fact and can be substantiated by those whose duty it is to try to operate this tax, whether inside or outside the Inland Revenue. I do not know who is complaining most. Even the Chief Secretary will have noted that there was a meeting of accountants last week at which their grumbles were very vociferous and entirely warranted. This tax will probably go down in history as the tax which had the highest cost of collection in proportion to its yield. In some cases the requisite calculations are impossible to make even when presented to the Treasury. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills), on 8th March, 1966, asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer: That would be a standard calculation if we were having to do it for Capital Gains Tax purposes, and one would have expected the Treasury to be able to provide an answer. Not a bit of it; the reply was: That was very helpful. That was what the Question was about. The answer went on: It is extraordinary how the Treasury and the Inland Revenue expect taxpayers to do what they themselves cannot do. [column 501] The Bill provides some specific reliefs from Capital Gains Tax and we shall table Amendments to these. There is one point to which I want to refer now. In the Bill the Chancellor has allowed to life assurance funds the same Capital Gains Tax level as we wrested from him in the middle of one night in respect of investment trust funds last year. But this rate is too high for life assurance funds. These funds are mostly held by people who would not be liable to the maximum Capital Gains Tax rate and who, if they were individuals, would be able to choose the alternative basis of assessment. It is quite unfair that these individuals should be penalised because they hold their savings in life assurance funds rather than individually. This is specially important now that the majority of savings are done through life assurance companies. There are also special reasons why life assurance companies warrant more relief than they will at present obtain in respect of dividends paid out of pre-1966–67 profits. They are reasons which do not apply to ordinary companies but do apply to life assurance companies, and we shall have something to say about this matter when the time comes. I now come to a further small but important necessary relief from some specific taxation proposals. I refer to the adverse effect of bunching dividends on age relief, where a person over 65 years of age receives age relief if his investment income does not exceed £900 during the fiscal year. It may be that the bunching of dividends takes his or her income well above that amount, and I would have thought that this was a case where specific reliefs should be provided to take this into account, so that these people are not penalised. In my last speech on the Budget I devoted a section to what might be entitled “Women and Children Last” . I shall confine my remarks now to the effect of the Budget on married women, and the way in which I think the taxation effect may be alleviated. The difficulty is that what the Government preach and what they practise are two entirely different things. There is nothing unusual about that with this Government, but there must come a time when the process [column 502]comes to an end. The National Plan, on page 38, in paragraphs 11 and 12, says: The National Plan is attempting to make it easier. Part of the debate on the Gracious Speech was devoted to Ministry of Labour matters and this theme came up again. But as soon as we had an assurance on the matter along came the Chancellor with his fiscal measures, which make it infinitely more difficult. It would be so much easier if the two Departments worked together and pulled in the same direction instead of opposite ones. There are three fiscal ways in which the Chancellor could encourage married women to return to work. Here I should declare an interest. I am at work—at least I hope that the Chancellor considers that replying to his Budget is being at work. First, tax relief could be given for domestic help, without which a married woman cannot contemplate going back to work. There is a legal decision which prevents any expenditure on domestic help from ranking for relief from tax. It is about time we reversed that decision and made special statutory provision. A second way would be to provide that the first £1,000 of a wife's earnings—because many of the women whom we want back are highly trained, and it has cost the State a lot of money to train them, and they can command high salaries—should not count for Surtax purposes. A third possibility would be a considerable extension of the point of earned income relief. Whichever way the Chancellor wishes to do this, the essential point is as The Times put it the other day in a short piece of doggerel, that The idea has been floated about that the taxes in the Budget could one day be used to raise revenue in place of Income Tax. It is important to get one fact clear. This tax is not in substitution for any other tax; it is in addition to taxes which are already severe. This is a bad tax, and for that reason we shall vote against it tonight. Copyright © Margaret Thatcher Foundation 2024. All Rights Reserved.

right

speech etc order second reading read chief secretary treasury mr john diamond beg bill read second time reach stage start implement right hon friend budget proposal proposal house unanimously regard relevant need country novel conception challenge certain habit thought hope allow depart occasion normal tradition introduce finance bill clause explain effect purpose clause describe speech box early press correctly say surprise bill expect little administrative explain sure convenience house deal matter new principle alter exist taxis bring new taxis clause help international trade export clause example make easy export good qualify relief duty import content clause effect undertaking give partner efta concern thing vodka heavy oil tell lubricant careful use purpose provision define great precision position taxpayer think involve new principle course usual number provision relate avoidance think word general topic avoidance particularly have regard hon lady member finchley mrs thatcher say budget debate column hon lady place speech report say know hansard correctly report hon ladys word obviously refer avoidance device antiavoidance device mrs margaret thatcher finchley indicate assent mr diamond sure way actually sure think say amend hon lady go point hon friend say shame event share view view high marginal level taxation income week impose parliament debate justify section population resource available avoid escape fair share burden parliament clearly intend impose describe kind taxation decide house debate confiscatory regard remark regard come opposition bench wholly irresponsible hon member wholly irresponsible astonish right hon gentleman share responsibility government year rise try house ensure house carry complaint kind taxation impose place debate decision take patriotic citizen pay taxis mr nigel birch flint west right hon gentleman mr diamond yes comment like sound odd column ear million taxpayer pay taxis willingly million subject rigorous schedule schedule e taxis deduct paye opportunity reduce burden advice open mean circumstance mr john farr harborough rise mr diamond way moment want add point effect high level tax high income high income pay taxis payment taxis result have forgo additional luxury ordinary man woman payment taxis mean child pair shoe hon member oh difference hope parliament speak voice responsibility pay taxis mr farr right hon gentleman agree confiscatory level taxation instance week man reason country suffer brain drain mr diamond accept comment repeat simple fact hon member opposite unable aware level income eat meal day bill clause relate new duty clause imagine attract great interest clause deal new bet duty reference new investment incentive course selective employment tax duty relate betting gambling fully describe principle right hon friend budget statement clear exceptional position having win universal approval event tax need draw attention house aspect control new bet duty see column racecourse authority require assist custom excise administer duty particular deny access course track bookmaker comply fiscal law applicable custom excise number year cooperation proprietor dog race track administration exist duty impose bookmaker operate track duty replace general bet duty like pay tribute proprietor help confident similar cooperation forthcoming horse racecourse authority secondly wish sound way minatory mention provision schedule withdrawal bet office licence event second conviction offence bookmaker assure right hon friend cooperation make new duty work unrealistic assume case attempt evasion stringent penalty necessary protect reputable bookmaker unfair competition base tax evasion clear plain evasion worth game relaxation scale duty plan announce bingo dutiable game play premise necessary licence high rate licence duty cover playing game include bingo detail usefully discuss committee clause bill provide abolition investment allowance amendment mr j brucegardyne south angus right hon gentleman leave subject bet tax agree chancellor say money tax finance government option mortgage scheme tax finance mortgage scheme mr diamond hon member accurate say column hon friend statement hon member oh right hon friend compare come source available purpose right hon gentleman know circumstance hypothecate particular tax particular item expenditure go pool hon member answer right hon friend answer hon member dame irene ward tynemouth read mr diamond provision clause read conjunction measure give new investment grant describe industrial development bill receive second reading week turn new taxis selective employment tax word interrelation taxis argue way discourage recruitment labour service industry provide additional incentive investment laboursave plant equipment fail conversely argument run right encourage recruitment labour manufacturing industry time provide incentive kind investment reduce labour requirement view mistake far concern service industry imposition tax measurable proportion particular impact new unexpected tax sufficient encourage acquisition laboursave equipment special inducement investment manufacture industry need additional labour plant increase scale industrial production shall great volume production great efficiency turn selective employment tax main talking point finance bill wish deal principle tax administration grumble tax remind house think column overlook pursue argument service versus manufacturing main reason introduce tax provide revenue political economic commentator period lead budget agree need million million extra revenue provide necessary element deflation doubt unanimity press press tell labour lose hull byelection occasion clearly right accept right hon friend budget judgment way raise equivalent revenue increase rate purchase tax way describe right hon friend give cogent reason adopt traditional method particular mind need maintain high rate investment employment clear increase purchase tax fall severity limited sector manufacturing industry damaging effect motor car production example right hon friend turn new indirect tax provide necessary revenue particular time year expect need avoid depress employment investment avoid pitfall stopgo policy party opposite widespread impact seek criticise tax precise term exactly alternative method propose raise necessary revenue raise right time right way avoid stopgo criticism base positive alternative proposal completely validity selective employment tax mr t l iremonger ilford north rise mr diamond give way time mr iremonger oblige right hon gentleman give way alternative come saving available column incentive economy right hon gentleman say object tax raise revenue say object deflate economy mop surplus purchasing power thing government perfectly revenue spend boast surplus mr diamond sure hon gentleman want speech opportunity later shall listen interest little difference raise revenue say deflating purpose budget purpose budget nowadays revenueraise purpose tax contemporary tax take account contemporary condition particularly employment criticism read provide major justification aspect tax demonstrate extent employer kind stimulate look employment practice consider use labour force efficiently gratifying note minority employer appear take view automatically pass increase cost need consider efficient deployment labour proof wisdom adopt kind indirect tax instead increase purchase tax general reaction immediately price good corresponding purchase tax nature come regard automatically add end bill pay consumer encouraging great efficiency tax selectivity make employer question use scarce resource manpower mr anthony royle richmond surrey rise mr diamond provide hon member way mr diamond give way time hon member mr diamond provide premium tax encourage recruitment manufacturing certain extent encourage flow labour service manufacturing good long fiscal policy encourage flow labour service result point right hon friend chancellor exchequer budget speech cent increase labour force past year go service cent manufacturing long nation wish increase productivity readily field manufacture available statistic indicate clearly mr richard sharple sutton cheam point order mr speaker order minister read speech word word prepared text mr speaker hon gentleman know minister like backbencher allow use copious note mr diamond say manufacture increase productivity condition limit increase number employee attract statistic clearly country particular limit increase productivity deny manufacture necessary increase volume labour international statistic compare country similar stage development show virtually list regard proportionate increase labour force manufacturing go long time high time take note try encourage employment labour particularly recruitment labour manufacture tax fully justify revenue raiser wise beginning broaden tax base step redress balance taxation column service manufacturing encouragement great efficiency productivity manufacturing way shall grow competitive manufacture good home overseas market number hon member side house question administration tax like answer think right describe length weighty argument support tax easy criticise detailed point propose administration isolation criticism real validity criticise offer time alternative tax thing refer shall happy listen suggestion improve tax clearly argument ultimate effect rate impose detailed point administration deliberately delay finalise detailed point opportunity fiscal matter mr royle rise mr diamond arise proposal publish house discuss interest concern good method achieve objective listen representation likely affect administration propose base simplicity minimum use additional labour tax infinitely variable rate area impact sophisticated complicated parliament desire complexity inevitably go engagement large number civil servant necessary skill think consonant spirit tax pay sufficient regard shortage labour introduce complication keep simple far possible make capable exist machinery reason compel tax universal application adopt method describe detail ministry labour bill column house deal payment refund premium totally new tax launch accept capable easily grasp understand outline remain clearly visible hide host subtle refinement logic time event working new tax use administrative machinery available avoid far possible unnecessary refinement complexity light principle consider group employee comprise elderly parttime disabled argument forward selective employment tax bear disproportionately heavily category result merely transfer labour certain case loss employment economic social reason question deserve careful sympathetic consideration doubt tax effect argument base long policy employment maintain government determined overall fallingoff need worker group remember tax fall employer employee case parttime worker scheme exemption refund nature parttime employment complicated open risk evasion abuse disabled employee category merit careful consideration continue cover special quota system employer work people legally bind disabled person employment act employ minimum number disabled person cent labour force importantly remember generally good job man suggest great disservice seriously disabled require shelter employment government course provide column body remploy reason right hon friend feel necessary special step present time hon member shame concern important category mr nicholas ridley cirencester tewkesbury rise mr royle rise mr diamond hope hon member bob time give way occasion regard fact give way time hon member bob dozen time paragraph deal item responsible interest want hear topic sit wait get end good contain get end paragraph house anxious hear hon member cirencester tewkesbury mr ridley glad way hon friend mr farr point order case mr speaker minister make parody parliamentary dialogue read exactly obviously write statement suggest read copious note read word word line line prepared speech hand properly prepare dr kaldor mr speaker order hon member parliament long know raise point order mr archie manuel central ayrshire schoolboy trick mr diamond interest house know number announcement concern number category hon right hon member side express great deal interest accordance normal practice house propose read precisely carefully prepare column repeat reason give right hon friend feel necessary special step present time event people employment tax reimburse premium pay course circumstance review give need simple scheme operation year right hon friend feel need special arrangement present time repeat shall watch position closely case find right possible special treatment refined scheme later mr royle grateful right hon gentleman give way decision exclude star garter home disabled man disabled world war involve tax cost hospital year mr diamond wish hon member wait tell time number announcement ask charity shall talk charity presently mr paul dean somerset north ask right hon gentleman question concern disabled mr diamond sure forgive mr speaker say second reading finance bill shall long committee stage bill associated bill shall service house committee answer question detail relevant clause hon member require happen past sure satisfy hon member related question effect tax disabled employer government recognise represent class merit particular sympathetic consideration possible exempt selective employment tax government hope bring forward proposal deal real hardship result column consider effect selective employment tax relation body receive grant exchequer large number body assistance receive varie greatly case case government decide effect selective employment tax body regard way cost increase exactly way regard increase indirect taxation mean general rule effect tax take account cost level grant reassessed normal course event recognise exceptional case grantaided body find financial difficulty end current period future case government consider request assistance merit course expect grantaide body concern possible economy manpower come charity government recognise charity somewhat special unique position right hon friend meet national council social service church main committee whitsun look forward useful discussion course great number charity fair proportion directly affect tax face problem government intention consider principle way recompense finally house wish know government decision particular industry affect selective employment tax extractive industry position ninetenth employment mining quarrying national coal board refund nationalise industry generally think right remain onetenth extractive industry treat way include stone slate chalk clay sand gravel extraction column help construction industry case forestry discussion interest concern consider appropriate machinery give effect policy white paper relate forestry light decision individual repayment agriculture horticulture decide similar arrangement private forestry power take ministry labour bill repayment tax private woodland owner local office ministry agriculture department agriculture scotland detail announce course sir harmar nicholls peterborough right hon gentleman puzzle point explain properly budget preliminary discussion idea work postbudget period discussion give categorical decision expect committee bill think proper consideration take place decision matter rule amendment committee mr diamond loss know hon gentleman complain sure say thank say get confused certainly get confused ask order amendment mr speaker wish yes afraid shall look forward amendment care sir harmar nicholl look sympathetically mr diamond look sympathy year right hon friend introduce important new tax direct establish great sense social justice increase efficiency production lighten burden company look column growth immediate high return year continue process modernise tax system create new source revenue spread burden widely evenly keep forefront mind time need maintain employment high level investment doubt labour government fiscal policy conscious social responsibility imaginative resourceful determination strengthen economy mrs margaret thatcher finchley john diamondthe chief secretary choose unusual method introduce finance bill seldom hear speech lead pleasure lobby end debate chief secretary describe new tax modernise tax system modernising read professional journal week discover tax introduce tax servant ironically abolish respect hotel employee reimpose year later number announcement noise sympathy extend sermon speech announcement practical point policy extremely disappointing quote conclusion number international statistic agree way teach careful compare international statistic gratuitously pass advice chief secretary come main thesis selective employment tax course entirely core budget james callaghanthe chancellor choose core budget believe leave little manœuvring space deal case merit present part house sure choice job criticise measure put forward bill column impose finance bill task dislike bill chancellor inhibit introduce budget time year traditional budget shall budget end year dislike intensely method choose implement proposal dislike position know implication tax word chief secretary say clear ready bring tax delay till year till proposal sort difficult position put forward amendment bill know bill contain difficulty term money resolution bill tax seldom tax cause upheaval widespread dismay side criticism side criticism send chancellor criticism lead chief secretary noise sympathy today certain criticism root tax certain criticism lead mitigate effect relation certain group people shall try deal root tax white paper say object tax redress fact service bear brunt indirect taxis commodity bear brunt petrol tax bear brunt purchase tax day budget reduce purchase tax day course long go budget cause shopkeeper good deal trouble lose lot money purchase tax having finance holding good liable tax certain service bear less column taxis service chancellor propose tax luxury service essential vital service food housing clothing insurance save financing specialist service include research widespread tax widespread tax essential vital service object money consumer pocket reduce demand work rise price think hear chief secretary think industry absorb tax absorption come money go saving modernise backward step forward step psychology budget lose country think work price rise price rise chancellor arrange budget way blame rise course frequent occurrence present government ready pass blame somebody ready credit thing right second objection go root tax hit export earner badly mention early speech budget special case export house export service service suffer compare manufacturing industry export attract tax drawback tax export manufacture good get export rebate export service rebate bad position compare manufacturing case balance redress service hit hotel catering trade badly understand tourism fourth big dollar earner hit insurance finance trend financing export recently series measure easy easy finance enable manufacturer sell people pay immediately finance house one penalise budget one column enable manufacturer exporting objection tax note chief secretary say think tax infinitely variable impact area case lot thing later speech refuse shall certain table amendment hope shall successful move order thing right objection go root tax completely artificial classification manufacturing service far manage export product vital budget strategy matter teamwork side industry use able produce good distribute finance sell numerous question department government try elucidate detail exact classification far unsuccessful monday answer r gunterthe minister labour precise classification head office say hon member await publication bill mean discuss detail precise effect tax manufacture industry know exact definition manufacturing industry bill long discuss second reading bill essential point export process artificial try divide manufacturing service industry objectionable aspect tax refer financing budget debate chancellor say week pass hope chancellor consider tell house wind decision far go column allow bank relax credit restriction lend money enable manufacturer meet considerable obligation tax believe wrong force borrow cent order interestfree loan government shall table amendment design impact tax come end financial year mechanism repayment premium ready taxis insult halfbake tax present state compliment chief secretary like hon member worried administration tax agree idea national insurance administration accept moment necessary collect tax respect single person national insurance excellent system administration different insurance stamp different rate national insurance contribution considerable number permutation combination give reasonable time administer tax properly tax introduce capable administer properly necessary tax respect single employed person ministry deal well way take tax desire liable apart objection right root tax number mitigate effect course bill ministry labour bill later shall table amendment mitigate effect tax people deserve case anticipate shall day government majority kind previous government bench member speak amendment merit vote merit anticipate shall join occasion finance bill unlike hon member opposite column lot amendment party political matter imagine chancellor bencher annoyed shall chief secretary refer case disappointed charity decision take principle year ago charity exempt direct taxis direct rate mitigate new decision old hill charity exempt effect direct taxation principle chancellor start build tax far relate charity hon member large number letter charity constituency country effect tax want refer particular come charity call help aged point cogently essential point far tax charity tax cold abstract take money directly charity design help point cogently letter publish time case speak question charity exempt tax exempt tax hope chancellor change mind announce exempt reply debate employee religious body exempt tax representation kind religious body church england free church column think go argument come aspect feel strongly feel employee educational establishment exempt tax half million child educate independent school understand tax cost million close educational chaos think fiscal instrument vent political feeling hon member opposite independent school come different category employee employee nursing convalescent home private hospital old people home register charity fact save far great liability fall state far well state little help refrain penalise building obligation organisation free tax chief secretary refer employee disabled person require parttime help suggest proposal proposal example way tax think chancellor hour wind debate find proposal hope tell exactly propose help disabled employ people look group employee organisation shall endeavour help work organisation promotion study science literature art take house year exempt theatre entertainment duty budget reverse step effect put entertainment tax theatre category mention shall table amendment hope shall successful move helpful passage finance bill chancellor outset column hope consider carefully aspect group amendment concern employee certainly exclude chief secretary refer parttime worker inequitable time purpose define hour week merely tax come national insurance act hour week redundancy payment act delighted note appear support matter hon member opposite considerable difference incidence tax help retail trade rely parttime labour considerable extent help number old folk work hour week important able continue work work available chief secretary refer disabled employee hope exclude incidence tax great incentive employer employ minimum quota disabled worker exclude operation tax hope chancellor consider problem handicapped disabled people agree people exempt shall table amendment design raise absurdity tax treat farming horticulture forestry tourism catering hotel construction industry differently manufacturing industry matter arise extent bill exent late bill discussion bill classification chief secretary refer certain aspect selective employment tax mention appeal procedure obvious impose tax fall employ selfemploye number question determination classification national insurance act present assume apply case question determination minister column strange miss m herbisonthe minister national insurance jurisdiction determine essentially taxation matter shall look carefully proper appeal procedure provide tax certain circumstance minister refer matter court deal tax wrong national insurance appeal machinery apply tax people refer fact strike moment chancellor announce tax staggeringly high impost bobanob newspaper high think carefully consider question raise national insurance contribution wary raise week employer realise high tax high important appeal procedure right new tax thoroughly consider present house requisite decision take house work executive finance bill make essential decision policy mr william hamilton fife west hon lady suggest certain exemption tax agree right hon friend attempt estimate loss revenue exemption suggestion alternative source revenue mrs thatcher difficult assess loss revenue difficult assess yield tax chancellor point new tax difficult assess yield decide manufacturing establishment difficult come chancellor call general budget judgment relation tax number view general budget judgment relation tax recognise outset difficult year general column judgment unknown effect import surcharge take end november know quota licensing impose couple day import surcharge come undertaking d jaythe president board trade point know effect present strike export import know far term trade continue turn far copper price rise know certainly rise know cost sanction rhodesia make difficult year accept outset accept relation tax judgment means clear cut economist share view chancellor estimate deflationary effect tax million economist point return quarter begin fiscal year commentator deflationary effect tax year million net nonreturnable receipt year say effect tax deflationary million year year wide discrepancy wide doubt obligation propose alternative source taxation chancellor frame budget number measure agree require supplementary estimate place house chancellor begin feel economy well shape approval measure bring house yesterday require million expenditure chancellor shake head economy well shape undoubtedly tell tonight alternative explanation know lump explanation refer dispatch box column houghtonthe chancellor duchy lancaster occasion say government like social service international financier like lump right hon gentleman true explanation turn certain specific taxis mention budget chief secretary give number detail taxis second reading finance bill place discuss detail comment like say year complexity capital gain tax abundantly bear fact substantiate duty try operate tax inside outside inland revenue know complain chief secretary note meeting accountant week grumble vociferous entirely warrant tax probably history tax high cost collection proportion yield case requisite calculation impossible present treasury hon friend member belfast north mr stratton mill march ask chancellor exchequer standard calculation have capital gain tax purpose expect treasury able provide answer bit reply helpful question answer go extraordinary treasury inland revenue expect taxpayer column bill provide specific relief capital gain tax shall table amendment point want refer bill chancellor allow life assurance fund capital gain tax level wrest middle night respect investment trust fund year rate high life assurance fund fund hold people liable maximum capital gain tax rate individual able choose alternative basis assessment unfair individual penalise hold saving life assurance fund individually specially important majority saving life assurance company special reason life assurance company warrant relief present obtain respect dividend pay profit reason apply ordinary company apply life assurance company shall matter time come come small important necessary relief specific taxation proposal refer adverse effect bunch dividend age relief person year age receive age relief investment income exceed fiscal year bunching dividend take income think case specific relief provide account people penalise speech budget devote section entitle woman child shall confine remark effect budget married woman way think taxation effect alleviate difficulty government preach practise entirely different thing unusual government come time process column end national plan page paragraph say national plan attempt easy debate gracious speech devote ministry labour matter theme come soon assurance matter come chancellor fiscal measure infinitely difficult easy department work pull direction instead opposite one fiscal way chancellor encourage married woman return work declare interest work hope chancellor consider reply budget work tax relief give domestic help married woman contemplate go work legal decision prevent expenditure domestic help rank relief tax time reverse decision special statutory provision second way provide wife earning woman want highly train cost state lot money train command high salary count surtax purpose possibility considerable extension point earn income relief whichever way chancellor wish essential point time day short piece doggerel idea float taxis budget day raise revenue place income tax important fact clear tax substitution tax addition taxis severe bad tax reason shall vote tonight copyright margaret thatcher foundation right reserve

This bill requires the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to establish rules stating that it will no longer review or approve any authorization application for equipment that is on the list of covered communications equipment or services. (Listed communications equipment or services are those that the FCC determines pose an unacceptable risk to national security or the security and safety of U.S. persons.) The rules may not allow the FCC to retroactively review or revoke an equipment authorization.

right

bill require federal communications commission fcc establish rule state long review approve authorization application equipment list cover communication equipment service list communication equipment service fcc determine pose unacceptable risk national security security safety person rule allow fcc retroactively review revoke equipment authorization

This bill requires the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to establish an applied research open network architecture testbed at its Institute for Telecommunication Sciences, which shall develop and demonstrate network architectures and applications, equipment integration, and interoperability at scale. In addition, the NTIA must award grants to private sector entities based in the United States to participate in eligible standards-setting bodies (e.g., the Telecommunications Industry Association).

right

bill require national telecommunication information administration ntia establish apply research open network architecture testbe institute telecommunication science shall develop demonstrate network architecture application equipment integration interoperability scale addition ntia award grant private sector entity base united states participate eligible standardssette body eg telecommunication industry association

Speeches, etc. Mrs Thatcher, Leader of the Opposition, declared today that the Palestinian issue was “more than a refugee problem” and that its solution was essential for a final Middle East settlement. However, she emphasized that all parties to the conflict had rights, including the Palestinians, and only when these were reconciled could there be a solution. At a press conference at the end of her talks with Egyptian leaders, Mrs Thatcher refused to be drawn on the question of a role for the Palestine Liberation Organization in the peace process. But her remarks on the wider nature of the Palestinian problem appeared to go some way to support the coming Arab campaign at the United Nations Security Council to have it defined as a political issue. Clearly, the Palestinian question absorbed much of the time during Mrs Thatcher's discussions with President Sadat, as she prepared for the Syrian leg of her “front line” Arab tour, she said that the personal contacts she had made in Egypt had taught her a lot about the problems of the region. Mrs Thatcher said that she regarded “unilateral pronouncements” on the Middle East as unwise at such a delicate stage in the negotiating process. She defined Conservative Party policy as one based on United Nations Resolution 242, which calls for Israel withdrawal from occupied Arab territory in return for peace, and a solution to the Palestinian problem. She went on to repeat the EEC stand outlined at the recent General Assembly debate, which called for a recognition of Palestinian rights to national identity in return for Israel's right to exist within secure boundaries. She emphasized that this embodied the “two limbs” of the Middle East problem and said that only if it were tackled in such a way could there be a solution. Although she would not endorse the EEC policy as identical with that of the Conservative Party, Mrs Thatcher said it was crucial that any agreement should be two-sided. “I am interested in a settlement of the Middle East problem” , she said, rising to repeated questions on the subject, “a final and lasting solution.” What was needed was a reconciliation of the rights of all the parties. “Ultimately, if we are to get a settlement, we have to get a reconciliation between the two. This is not aided by unilateral pronouncements, but only by diplomatic activity between the two of the kind that resulted in the Sinai agreement.” Mrs Thatcher went out of her way to praise this agreement between Egypt and Israel as a “courageous and wise” move. But she said that it was only a “first step” towards a solution and that it was vital that the momentum towards peace should be maintained by all involved. Discussing a possible British role in expanded Geneva peace talks and suggesting that she could be one of the big power guarantors, Mrs Thatcher said that Britain was willing to play a role. “I imagine that when we get a final Middle East settlement we will not get one without some international guarantee of the frontiers, because obviously every single state will be looking for some guarantee of its own right to exist in the area.” Throughout, Mrs Thatcher went out of her way to avoid any comment which might be construed as criticism of the British Government's policies. On arms supplies to Egypt, she said that her party's policy was to look at each case on its merits and to judge whether it would ultimately jeopardize a Middle East settlement. Copyright © Margaret Thatcher Foundation 2024. All Rights Reserved.

right

speech etc mrs thatcher leader opposition declare today palestinian issue refugee problem solution essential final middle east settlement emphasize party conflict right include palestinians reconcile solution press conference end talk egyptian leader mrs thatcher refuse draw question role palestine liberation organization peace process remark wide nature palestinian problem appear way support come arab campaign united nations security council define political issue clearly palestinian question absorb time mrs thatcher discussion president sadat prepare syrian leg line arab tour say personal contact egypt teach lot problem region mrs thatcher say regard unilateral pronouncement middle east unwise delicate stage negotiating process define conservative party policy base united nations resolution call israel withdrawal occupy arab territory return peace solution palestinian problem go repeat eec stand outline recent general assembly debate call recognition palestinian right national identity return israel right exist secure boundary emphasize embody limb middle east problem say tackle way solution endorse eec policy identical conservative party mrs thatcher say crucial agreement twoside interested settlement middle east problem say rise repeat question subject final lasting solution need reconciliation right party ultimately settlement reconciliation aid unilateral pronouncement diplomatic activity kind result sinai agreement mrs thatcher go way praise agreement egypt israel courageous wise say step solution vital momentum peace maintain involved discuss possible british role expand geneva peace talk suggest big power guarantor mrs thatcher say britain willing play role imagine final middle east settlement international guarantee frontier obviously single state look guarantee right exist area mrs thatcher go way avoid comment construe criticism british government policy arm supply egypt say partys policy look case merit judge ultimately jeopardize middle east settlement copyright margaret thatcher foundation right reserve

Speeches, etc. (Except Clauses 5, 14, 16, 17, 33 and 49) STANDING COMMITTEE A Thursday 30th January 1975 [PART I] [Mr. Richard Crawshaw in the Chair] Clause 18 Transfers and chargeable transfers 4.0 p.m. Mr. John Pardoe I beg to move Amendment 465, in page 15, leave out lines 10 to 17 and insert: The Chairman With this we are to take the following Amendments: No. 428, in page 15, line 10, leave out “if” and insert “unless” . No. 429 in page 15, line 11, leave out first “not” . No. 430 in page 15, line 11, leave out second “not” . No. 441, in page 15, line 12, leave out from “person” to end of line 17. No. 603, in page 15, line 12, after “benefit” , insert “in money or money's worth” . No. 431, in page 15, line 14, leave out from “other” to end of line 17. No. 604, in page 15, line 14, leave out “not connected with each other” . Mr. Pardoe I must thank the Committee for awaiting my return. It was clear from the Chief Secretary's mood last night that the only thing that could possibly have persuaded him to allow the Committee to rise when it did was the thought that, if he did not do so, he would miss my moving this amendment. I am therefore grateful to him for timing things so excellently that we start our proceedings with this amendment this afternoon. [column 486] I warn the Committee and the Chief Secretary that, in keeping with the long-standing tradition that the Liberal Party turns into a pumpkin at midnight, I do not intend to proceed beyond midnight tonight—not even on this amendment. The amendment is extremely modest and very reasonable and can probably be dealt with very quickly. Indeed, it is so reasonable that I await the Chief Secretary's reasons for refusing it with bated breath. The real question that I am asking in this amendment is: who has to prove that a transaction is intended to confer a gratuitous benefit on a person? The Bill states on page 15, line 10: My amendment states: The Bill as drafted refers to the gratuitous benefactor. It is he who, under the terms of the Bill as drafted, would have to show that it was not so intended. Under my amendment it is the Inland Revenue which would have to show that. It seems to me that we are here at the point where we have to consider whether the long-standing tradition that we are all innocent until proved guilty survives even in matters of taxation. This is the point that I want the Chief Secretary to address himself to in replying. Why is it necessary in this particular case to throw overboard that longstanding tradition, namely, that an individual is innocent until proved guilty, and to place the burden of proof on the individual? There is no good reason why the burden of proof should not be on the Inland Revenue, as indeed it is in virtually all other tax matters. The Chief Secretary may dissent from that view, but I think I am right in saying that in virtually every other case where one is dealing with the Inland Revenue one puts up that one's expenditure in the course of parliamentary duties is a taxable deduction. It is up to the Inland Revenue to show that it is not. That remains true in virtually every other aspect of tax law. The second point I should like to put to the Chief Secretary is this. If he [column 487]insists that it must be for the gratuitous benefactor to show that it was not so intended as a gratuitous benefit, how shall that proof be shown? What exactly does one have to produce to show that one did not intend to make a particular gift—either a direct gift or a gift in kind or in various other ways—a gratuitous benefit? Therefore, what will suffice as proof if the Bill stays as it is, and why is it necessary for the Bill to be as it is rather than as suggested in my amendment? Mr. Graham Page I support the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) in this amendment and it will be seen that some of those amendments which we are discussing with his amendments seek to do very much the same thing. The amendments in my name—Nos. 428, 429 and 430—would achieve much the same objective as the hon. Gentleman's Amendment No. 465. I support everything the hon. Gentleman said about the proof necessary, under the clause as drafted, from the donor. The donor is required to prove a negative here. There is a wonderful double negative in the first two lines of subsection (4): and so on. So one starts off with the proposition that any disposition is a transfer for value which is caught for tax under this clause unless the donor proves that it is not such a thing. First, the donor has to decide what is a disposition. That is not defined in the clause. Then, having decided that this must be a disposition within the meaning of this clause, he is caught for the tax unless he discharges the burden of proof. That is something of an innovation in this type of tax law. Normally one is merely required to make a return of the property, whether it is income or capital gains or whatever, and one is decently believed to be honest. If there is anything doubtful about it, it is for the Inland Revenue to prove that one is telling a pack of lies. To start off by assuming that the citizen is dishonest in making his returns is a gratuitous insult. By Amendment No. 603 my right hon. Friend and my other colleagues wish to define more clearly the meaning [column 488]of “benefit” . The word “benefit” comes in the third line of subsection (4) of this clause and it is in the phrase: A benefit might be a monetary benefit or it might be any sort of benefit. We need some indication in the Bill of what is meant by that word. Therefore, by Amendment No. 603, in order to give elucidation to the provision, we seek to add the words I do not think it is necessary to spend any more time on that. The purpose is obvious, the words are reasonable, and I hope that they will be accepted. Amendment No. 441 would delete paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (4). In trying to understand the purpose of subsection (4) as a whole, I turn to the memorandum given to us by the Treasury, which describes subsection (4) in this way: It seems to me that that purpose is well carried out in the first three lines of subsection (4): and that paragraphs (a) and (b) are really superfluous. Paragraphs (a) and (b) require the donor to prove several other matters before he can escape the tax on a disposition. First, under paragraph (a), he would have to prove that the disposition Why is it necessary to require him to prove also that the transaction was at arm's length? Surely the tax falls on the disposition if it is a gratuitous benefit without any other conditions applying. Secondly, what is meant by the words at the end of paragraph (a): Amendment No. 604 seeks to delete those words. They do not seem to add anything one way or the other to the subsection. I will read the paragraph again: [column 489]One has a vision of two people at arm's length not connected with each other. This conjures up all sorts of pictures in my mind which have nothing whatever to do with bestowing gratuitous benefits. Even if the Chief Secretary tells us that that is absolutely necessary, that this is another negative that the donor must prove if he is to escape tax, there is also paragraph (b), which is dealt with in Amendment No. 434. However, as that amendment is not included in this, perhaps I had better leave that and confine myself to paragraph (a). To some extent I must admit to the Chief Secretary that these are probing amendments. However, I never think that it is worth while putting a probing amendment unless one can suggest a constructive solution. That is what the amendments are intended to do. I believe that Amendment No. 465, in the name of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North, is much more than a probing amendment and deals with something really basic to the clause. The others, however, are constructive suggestions to make the clause perhaps easier to administer. I know that some hold the principle that in Opposition one should never improve a Government Bill but let them stew in their own juice, but on this side of the Committee we are being reasonable, and therefore I am putting forward constructive amendments to try to make this a better clause. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Joel Barnett) May I deal first with the points raised by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe). I am obliged to him for telling us that he and his fellow Liberals always like to turn into pumpkins at about midnight, or shortly thereafter. The only thing which he did not explain was why he then sought to turn all the rest of us into pumpkins, and, when he failed with the vote, nevertheless decided in true democratic fashion to ignore that vote and go himself. Nevertheless, we are obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his efforts. 4.15 p.m. The hon. Gentleman said, first, that in taxation generally the taxpayer is innocent until he is proved guilty. He told us that that was the case virtually everywhere in the tax system. I do not know [column 490]where the hon. Gentleman read that, but I regret to tell him that it is not correct. The general rule in income tax matters is that the burden of proof lies on the taxpayer in any disputed matter of fact. Questions of motive and intention are matters of fact of which the taxpayer alone has full knowledge. That applies, for example, when accounts have not been submitted and the inspector of taxes submits an estimated assessment. The burden of proof is then on the taxpayer to show that that estimated assessment is incorrect and that the accounts which he has submitted show the correct figures. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take it from me that what he said is strictly not so, and I shall try to explain why it is not. I can understand the hon. Gentleman's perfectly reasonable desire to put the onus of proof on the Revenue. In the present case, the capital transfer tax, only the parties to a transfer can, by the very nature of things, be in full possession of all the facts. It would be impossible for an inspector of taxes to be in possession of the facts. No doubt, it is possible to do as is done with income tax matters, where the inspector of taxes raises an assessment and leaves the burden of proof to the taxpayer. That is precisely the situation, so I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is seeking to change. The burden of proof is on the taxpayer. I see that the hon. Gentleman is looking at me somewhat oddly. Lest he is worried about the position of the taxpayer, let me assure him that the taxpayer is fully protected by this system, because he is protected by the rights of appeal provided by paragraph 7 of Schedule 4, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have noticed. The hon. Gentleman asked me also what the taxpayer would have to prove. The answer is perfectly reasonable. Subsection (4) of Clause 18, to which the amendments relate, limits the wide initial charge provisions of subsection (2) by excluding certain transactions. They are, first, where the transaction was not intended and second, where it was made, broadly, on arm's length terms. It seems to me quite reasonable for the taxpayer not to [column 491]have to pay capital transfer tax when those tests have been met. It might be as well if I now came to the variety of amendments which the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) has on the Paper. Mr. Nicholas Ridley Can the Chief Secretary give us laymen a few examples of what a disposition which is not a transfer of value could be? What has he in mind in this subsection? Mr. Barnett I know that the hon. Gentleman is a very patient fellow. I shall deal with that question in replying to the similar points put to me by the right hon. Member for Crosby. Let me begin by assuring the right hon. Gentleman that no one is assuming that taxpayers are all dishonest. I hope that I have never said any such thing in this Committee. I certainly have no wish to do so. In coming to the various points raised by the right hon. Gentleman, I hope that he will forgive me if I do not take them in precisely the order in which he put them. May I say that I appreciate the way in which he put them; he told us that they were probing amendments, but, because he always likes to be constructive, he adds construction to the probing amendments. The effect of Amendment No. 604, in the names of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) and her hon. Friends, would be to make Clause 18(4)(a) read: It would destroy the relationship we have now between paragraphs (a) and (b) of the subsection without, I am advised, achieving any particular purpose. There are two reasons for dealing separately with transactions between connected persons and those between unconnected persons. First, where the persons involved in the transaction are not connected it is reasonable to state the relevant condition in a form which will give the assurance that ordinary business transactions between strangers will not fall foul of the capital transfer tax. I am sure that the right hon. Lady would not wish to do that. The second reason is that transactions between connected persons clearly call for closer scrutiny in order [column 492]to ensure that there is no deliberate disguised benefit. It is perfectly reasonable, if we are to have a capital transfer tax, to ensure that it is not readily avoided. The effect of the amendment would be to leave connected persons with two possible ways of satisfying the relevant conditions: first, by showing that the transaction was in fact at arm's length, or second, that it was such as might be expected in a transaction at arm's length between unconnected persons. The distinction between these two possibilities is more verbal than real because, where the persons involved are connected, the Revenue would be unlikely to accept that the first alternative was satisfied unless the second also was satisfied. I hope that makes the matter reasonably clear. If it does not I shall be happy to take it further. Mr. Graham Page Where do we find any definition of who are connected persons? Is that in the Bill or have we got to guess at it? Mr. Barnett I have not started on the right hon. Gentleman. Mr. Page I thought I was helping the Chief Secretary. Mr. Barnett I always appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's help. I turn now to his Amendment No. 441. Subsection (4) of Clause 18 cuts down the wide initial ambition of charge by excluding certain transactions which were, first, not intended to confer gratuitous benefit on any person and, second, broadly, on arm's length terms. The amendment would remove the second leg of the test: for a transfer to be let out, the taxpayer would have to show only that it was not made in a transaction intended to confer a gratuitous benefit. The right hon. Gentleman is, therefore, seeking to remove one of the tests. He argues that if it can be demonstrated that a transfer was made without intention to confer gratuitous benefit, this should be enough. Why trouble the taxpayer with the further burden of proving arm's length? The answer is that a pure test of intention, though in principle it may appear sufficient, would not on its own be sufficient to protect the revenue. An intention test by itself could let through cases where a gift was effectively made yet the Revenue would have [column 493]considerable difficulty in contesting a claim of no intention to confer a gratuitous benefit. I submit to the Committee that what we are doing here should have its approval, because we are seeking to restrict the initial charge. We are giving perfectly good reasons which, for most taxpayers, it should not be too difficult to prove, that is, (a) that it was unconnected, and (b), that it was an arm's length transaction. That should not be difficult for any transaction that is not a gratuitous benefit. I come now to Amendment No. 431. This amendment would exclude from the second leg of the test the criterion that the transfer was such as might be expected to be made in an arm's length transaction between unconnected persons. It mitigates the otherwise stern test that the transfer should have to be strictly a transaction at arm's length between unconnected persons. When the right hon. Gentleman told me it was a probing amendment, I could then understand why it was put down. But its effect would be contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind, or what I have in mind. It would leave the taxpayer at a disadvantage because subsection (4)(b) would exclude from the charge to tax certain transactions between connected persons provided that they were such as might be expected to be made at arm's length between unconnected persons. The purpose of this part of the provision is, while letting through genuine transactions between connected persons, to ensure that a charge arises where an asset is transferred to a connected person in circumstances which would not ordinarily be contemplated at arm's length. The sale of part of a controlling holding of shares in a private company just sufficient to deprive the vendor of control at a price not reflecting the loss of control is one of the things I have in mind. Then I come to Amendment No. 603, one of the right hon. Lady's. They are all taken together. I do not know whether the right hon. Lady prefers me to leave it at this stage. Mrs. Margaret Thatcher I do not wish to stop the Joel BarnettChief Secretary, but his briefs do not make the clause live at all. To me what he is saying is [column 494]doubledutch. Later on, we shall give him an example of what we think might be gifts and ask him whether, in his view, they come within the clause. He must know that almost every organisation has been bombarding us with representations as to what this means. When is a gift not a gift? When is it a disposition? The kind of language he is treating us to does not really help. Mr. Barnett I am sorry if the right hon. Lady finds it difficult to follow. The fact is that if a gift or transfer is not an arm's length transfer between unconnected persons or, in certain circumstances, between connected persons—I am sorry to speak in this kind of terminology but it is important—there is a distinct possibility that it will be caught under the capital transfer tax. Mrs. Thatcher Let us talk in human terms. Some of us have children at university on a university grant. That, some people would say, is wholly inadequate by the time one has been through a means test, but one has to maintain them. Let us take the example of a young person who reaches 21. One uses one's maximum gift to give him money for his 21st birthday for a car. All one's excluded gift has gone and one is then into charge if the next transaction is a gift. Then one realises that he has not enough money to maintain himself. His grant is £400 or £500 a year. We know it costs him £900 a year to stay at university. Therefore, one has to give him a maintenance grant of £400 a year. That is between father and son; it might be mother and daughter, or mother and son. That frequently happens. Is that maintenance in those circumstances—the Chief Secretary would say between connected persons—a gift? I have many other examples, but this kind of example I understand. Mr. Barnett Perhaps the right hon. Lady was not able to follow that example because it raises an issue that will come later in our debates. She instanced a parent seeking to give his or her son a car which, say, meets the £1,000 test and meets the out-of-income test. This is an example to which we shall come later—if hon. Members were to accept all the rest on the nod, I should be happy. [column 495]4.30 p.m. In defining an arm's length transaction, let us first accept that a father and son would be connected persons. Mrs. Thatcher Yes. Mr. Barnett I am glad the right hon. Lady accepts that. May we secondly accept that the right hon. Lady is talking not about an arm's length transaction, but about a situation that we shall debate later? She is talking about whether a maintenance payment should be treated as a transfer. One would have to consider the total given by the father to the son. Mrs. Thatcher Only if it is. In that case, the Chief Secretary has just said that a maintenance payment is a chargeable gift under subsection (4). If that is so, it is absolutely scandalous. Mr. Barnett What the right hon. Lady is saying is correct—but only in this sense—before she looks for applause. It is true that it would be treated as a transfer under the capital transfer tax if the taxpayer in question had given in excess of a capital sum of £1,000, not once but once a year. In that sense she is right: it would be caught. That is the purpose of the capital transfer tax. If the right hon. Lady says that she does not like that, I can understand it. But that is the way in which the capital transfer tax has been drafted. She may later seek to increase the £1,000 figure, but that would be under a separate provision. I am not seeking to be difficult, but I doubt whether a gift to a son can be said to be an arm's-length transaction. The right hon. Lady's argument will arise when we discuss the general question of the amount a father or mother should be allowed to give a son or daughter for maintenance costs, in other words, the amount that should not be subject to capital transfer tax. Mrs. Thatcher The issue is much more fundamental than amount; it is whether it is completely exempt. I must confess that I am somewhat surprised that an ordinary maintenance payment to a young person who is working away, perhaps on a wage, but insufficient to keep him or her, at university or not, is the sort of transfer that comes into charge. [column 496]That means that the amount given by a parent to maintain a son or daughter is the kind of payment that comes into charge. Parents might have paid £1,000 to charity, or something like that, or have got rid of their £1,000 exemption elsewhere, but even if they had, if this kind of maintenance payment did not come into charge, it would not matter. What strikes me is that the Government have brought ordinary maintenance payments between parents and children into charge. That is amazing. Mr. Barnett With the greatest respect to the right hon. Lady, I understand that she and hon. Members on her side of the Committee live in a different kind of world, but I must tell her that £1,000 of capital per year, plus as much as the parent likes to give out of income to help maintain a son or daughter at university, seems to us a perfectly reasonable figure. I do not know whether the right hon. Lady is suggesting that we should allow an unlimited figure. If that were done, there would be a massive hole in the legislation. If, on the other hand, she is suggesting that the figure of £1,000 should be larger, I come back to what I said a few moments ago, that that is quite separate from what we are now discussing. But I certainly could not accept any suggestion that we should allow an unlimited figure. Sir John Hall I want information on this point, because a similar issue arises over the maintenance of parents. Where a son is called upon to maintain his aged parents, say, in a nursing home, and has to pay for it out of capital—it could be well in excess of £2,000 or even £3,000 a year if he had two parents in a nursing home—is that regarded as chargeable under the provisions of the clause? Mr. Barnett The answer is “Yes” , as it stands at the moment. But I was trying to say that the question of the size of the gift, or what the amount should be out of income—I am sorry to have to repeat it—will be debated. It may be that the Committee will decide that the figure should be higher, but we cannot decide that on this amendment. I am sorry if the right hon. Lady does not take the point. Perhaps we can deal with her point more quickly when we reach that part of the Bill. Mrs. Thatcher The things that one would regard as transactions within normal families in the helping of parents, maintaining aged invalid parents and so on, are to be subject to the Chief Secretary's capital charge. One could go on a cruise, or spend it on the dogs and not be charged, but if one maintains one's young children when they are starting out in life, or one maintains aged parents, on goes the capital transfer tax. Mr. Barnett We are back to the point. Under the Bill as it stands, one may maintain an aged parent or a young daughter if it is within the £1,000 limit and if it is out of income, but that is something quite separate and we are to discuss it later. Nobody could argue—I am sure that the right hon. Lady is not arguing—that under the amendments we are discussing the two people concerned are not connected persons. I am sorry for using the language of the Bill. That is what we are debating. They are connected persons. Nobody can dispute that these are not arm's length transactions. I have to use the language of the Bill, because we are debating it, and I cannot do better than that. We shall debate later the question of how much should be exempt, and I shall be happy to look at it. Mr. David Howell We should get on much faster if the Chief Secretary could follow the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and, indeed, of my right hon. Friend, and give us some everyday real life examples of what he means. So far, we have elucidated that connected persons means father and son and mother and daughter. Does it mean all relatives? If he could do that, we should understand more of what he is talking about. Mr. Barnett I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has read every page of the Bill. I know exactly where it is, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman does and has forgotten. Clause 45(4) on page 33 defines connected persons. Mr. Nigel Lawson Is the Chief Secretary saying that the situation referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), and the sum of £1,000, shows that we on the Opposition side are living in a world totally different from that of his hon. Friends, as though £1,000 a year is a vast [column 498]sum of money? The sum of £1,000 a year is an allowance of less than £20 a week. If a person gives a few Christmas presents, and birthday presents to his children, all these things have to be totted up so that there is less than £1,000 left. Is he really suggesting that that is such a vast sum? This is not a large allowance to make for the maintenance of children or maintenance of aged parents, as has been pointed out by my right hon. Friend. Again, will the Chief Secretary give some indication of the test of whether it is out of income. What is the logic behind it? Will the Government treat more generously the person, in this case, with the gift? Is not there anywhere some de minimis rule so that every Christmas and birthday present does not have to be recorded and totted up because at the end of the year the amount might come to over £1,000? Mr. Joel Barnett I do not want to trespass on your generosity too much, Mr. Crawshaw, but I know we shall reach the point about the out-of-income test at some time. The hon. Gentleman's patience in these matters is well known and he would not wish me to go so widely out of order to answer his question, but I shall be happy to do so when we come to that part of the Bill. I hasten to assure the hon. Gentleman that £1,000 of capital plus as much as possible out of income, the definition of which will come later, is a substantial figure for the vast majority of people. I am not saying that there will not be others who want to give more. I am saying that for the vast majority of people it is not an unreasonable amount. Whether it is an amount that the Committee will in due course accept is something which will have to be discussed at a later point. I cannot help the Committee any more on the size because we shall debate it. Mrs. Thatcher I do not want to stop the Chief Secretary, but even when I left the Ministry of Education the annual cost of going to an Oxford or Cambridge college was about £1,100 a year. If the income test was used upon a person and he received only the £50 minimum grant, by virtue of allowing his child to go to an Oxford or Cambridge college, having obtained a place, having failed the income test for grant, he would be actually into charge by allowing him that facility which [column 499]others would have got free, totally at the cost of the State. Mr. Barnett The right hon. Lady is right, as the Bill stands. That would be the case if none of the £1,100 could be taken out of income and the £1,100 was out of capital. Then £100 would be caught. I have never sought to deny that. Indeed, I thought I had repeated it frequently and have said that we would come to it when we debate whether it should be more or less and how we define the question of out-of-income. The right hon. Lady is right as the Bill stands, but whether it should be amended will have to wait a while until we reach the appropriate clause. Therefore, I hope that the right hon. Lady will understand that I cannot go further on the amount at this stage. 4.45 p.m. Mr. Graham Page May I ask the Chief Secretary this question? Let us suppose I sell a piece of land. This is a disposition. It may well be that there is some dispute over the value of the land and perhaps I have not sold it for its full value. Have I first to submit to the Inland Revenue a valuation of that land in order to get over subsection (2)? To prove that it is a disposition for full value, I suppose one has to produce some evidence to that effect, and then go on to prove that it was not intended to confer a gratuitous benefit. How on earth one proves that I do not know. Does one have to go into the habits of the purchaser? If one happens to have sold him a house next to a convenient pub and he is a heavy drinker, he is getting a greater benefit from taking over that house. I am exaggerating, of course, but I want to know what is meant by “benefit” if we are not to put the words “money or money's worth” after it. I want to know, not only what is a benefit, but how one is to prove that the purchaser did not get any gratuitous benefit. Then it has to be proved that the transfer was at arm's length, if it is not to be a taxable transfer, and that it is not between connected persons. On each occasion of a conveyance of land of that sort, does one have to enter in one's returns that the purchaser was not an aunt, uncle, son or whatever it may be in the form of a connected person? Is one going to be asked for an affidavit to the effect that the purchaser is in no way related and that the transaction was at [column 500]arm's length? Subsection (4) puts the burden on the citizen to prove this. It says that he must show it, which I presume does not mean just saying it. Perhaps it will be accepted if the citizen says “The purchaser was not my aunt, uncle or any other relative” . Will that be taken as showing that this is not a taxable transfer? Why on earth could not the draftsman of this clause say that a taxable transfer is one that is a gift, or a gift is a taxable transfer? It is so simple to put it in the positive instead of in double negatives, and even treble negatives as it is in this clause. It is extremely painful to try to understand this clause. I have turned it round with “unless” , “ifs” , “buts” and all the qualifications and I thought I had it right in the beginning, but the Chief Secretary has assured me now that I have got it all wrong. At least that is what I understand from what he says. I would have liked to have seen a perfectly simple clause, and if the Chief Secretary would say that he will consult again with the parliamentary draftsmen—I know how eager the parliamentary draftsman is not to make the slightest error, and to that extent is sometimes a little more verbose than we would wish—perhaps the parliamentary draftsman could find a simpler phrase to express what the Chief Secretary wants. Mr. Joel Barnett I appreciate that it might be painful to the right hon. Gentleman, and I can assure him that I would very much prefer simpler clauses. One of the problems is—I hate to say this to the right hon. Gentleman—that it might be easier to understand if we waited until we got to the particular point in the later amendments on this clause. The right hon. Gentleman is referring to what might be euphemistically called the “bad bargain” amendment, which we will be coming to shortly, and I see him nodding. In fact, I could put his example the other way round—where there clearly would be a benefit. If the right hon. Gentleman himself transferred a piece of land that he knew to be worth £1 million for £1,000 to a connected person in his family, I would consider that that might conceivably be a gratuitous transfer, although, of course, one would have to look more closely into the circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman asks whether the taxpayer would have to include it on his tax returns. If the taxpayer is satisfied [column 501]that he has transferred a piece of land perfectly properly at arm's length value, and secured a reasonable price for his land in normal circumstances, and if he knows that there is no question of giving anybody a benefit, he will not include it on his tax return as a capital transfer liable to capital transfer tax. It is perfectly understandable I hope the right hon. Gentleman takes the point. On the question of the bad bargain, we shall be coming to that matter later in further amendments on the clause. I have no doubt we shall have opportunities to discuss it there. Mr. Graham Page Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, may I put this to him? Under Schedule 4(2) one would need to make returns on every single disposition. That is why I ask whether, on making the return saying “I have sold this piece of land during the year” , the citizen has to add so much proof necessitated by the word “shown” in subsection (4)? Mr. Ridley I apologise for missing part of the Chief Secretary's speech, but I would like to ask him a hypothetical question to see how it is, or is not caught, by the subsection. If one is selling a house in a hurry because the money is needed quickly to pay debts, one virtually takes the first offer that comes along. Subsequently an adjacent similar house is sold for a higher price because its owner has waited for the best offer. Is that a disposal which confers gratuitous benefit? It clearly would have been more advantageous to wait to receive a higher price. In a sense, that person has given a gift to the purchaser of the house. If it so happens that one's aunt bought the house, one presumably has severe tests to pass before one is allowed to get away with that circumstance. Another example is a topical one—the sale of the British Petroleum holding, which Burmah Oil Company owned, to the Bank of England. Let us suppose that the Burmah Oil Company had been a private individual—which is a circumstance very easy to envisage in these days of Bennery and national enterprise—and that the Government drove a hard bargain and sought a large block of shares at some 20 per cent. below the market value. Presumably the directors of Burmah Oil would have made a gratuitous transfer on its disposal to the Government. I know this does not come [column 502]into it because it is a corporate and not a private matter. However, if Burmah Oil had been a private company and those shares had been sold cheaply to the Government, as they were to the Bank of England—presumably, Burmah could have obtained more if it had fought and bargained harder, which is a view shared by many of my hon. Friends over that disgraceful transaction—in that case the directors would have been surcharged for capital transfer tax liability on the amount by which they did not realise the full potential of the firm. I am not saying that it is likely that connected persons would be involved in such a transaction, but would such a transaction be caught? Mr. Joel Barnett Again, I regret to have to tell the hon. Gentleman—I know he has read the amendments very closely—that we are coming to the matter that we have referred to as a “bad bargain” . Clearly if the transfer is one that is at arms' length it is all right: it will not be caught. I doubt if the hon. Gentleman's aunt would have any difficulty in this matter, or that he would himself have difficulty if he were transferring his house to his aunt. If he knew his house to be worth £200,000—I am sorry if I have underestimated the price—— Mr. Ridley It is worth nothing like that. Mr. Barnett But if it were to be priced at £200,000 and he transferred it to his aunt for £50,000, I think it would not be unreasonable to say he would be conferring a gratuitous benefit on his aunt. He would be aware of it, so if he then said that he was unaware of it on his tax return, clearly he would be telling an untruth. I am not suggesting for one moment that he himself would do such a thing. I am giving an example. In general terms, I doubt if there will be the sort of difficulties the hon. Gentleman referred to. We shall be discussing the question whether there was a bad bargain on another amendment, and I hope it will be possible to satisfy hon. Gentlemen on that point. Mr. John Cope I do not want to delay the Committee on this matter, but I thought I heard the Chief Secretary say to my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) that, even if there had been an element of gratuitous [column 503]benefit on the face of it, nevertheless, if it was at arm's length that was all right. I do not read the Bill like that. It says that one has to satisfy both tests. Clause 18(4) says that it: and in addition— Therefore, even if it is made at arm's length one still has the test of gratuitous benefit, or lack of gratuitous benefit to pass. And that did not seem to me to be what it was saying to my hon. Friend. With a large number of assets the value is not a defined thing. A house can have a lot of values. For example, whenever a house is auctioned the seller says to his estate agent “I want to sell this house” . They discuss the value and what it will eventually get, and the seller says “I will put a reserve price on it of £10,000” . Meanwhile, the buyers come along and one says “I am prepared to pay £12,000” , and another comes along and says “It is near the golf course. I play golf, so I am prepared to pay £13,000” . The second buyer gets the house, not for £13,000 but for £12,100, because all he needs to do is bid a little more than the first buyer. Therefore, what is the value of the house? In a sense, by paying £12,100 the buyer is getting £900 worth of gratuitous benefit, because he is prepared to pay £13,000. In one sense, therefore, that is the value. In another sense, however, it is the other way around. He is paying more than the seller asked on the basis of his advice, and this is where the test of gratuitous benefit is extremely difficult and complex. It is a provision which has to be passed by all transactions whether or not they are at arm's length. Mr. Lawson May I probe a little further. I should like to know more about something which puzzles me. If the Chief Secretary has already explained it, I hope he will not mind explaining it again for my benefit. It concerns the second criterion that has to be satisfied. Subsection (4)(b) says: What does [column 504]mean? Is this intended to bring in the possibility of an arm's length transaction between connected persons? It would seem to be perfectly reasonable that this should be treated equally with arm's length transactions between unconnected persons. If that is the case, surely paragraph (a) should say, “that it was made in a transaction at arm's length” and not contain the words Surely, if a transaction is at arm's length that is good enough, and it does not matter if the persons are connected. Indeed, it seems to be an absurdity. If it is the distinction between arm's length transactions between persons who are connected and persons who are not connected, one would have to go a boringly long way round and say that if A and B are connected, A transfers it on an arm's length basis to C who is not connected, and in turn C will transfer it—again on a genuine arm's length basis—to B. Therefore, a deal takes place on an arm's length basis all the way along, but, of course, there is no direct transfer between the connected persons. If the transactions are at arm's length, I cannot see why it matters if they are connected. Therefore, I should like some clarification on paragraph (b). I turn now to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) about helping one's child to pay his way through university, as many parent quite reasonably want to do. I hope this does not make them candidates for extinction in the Socialist Utopia. Many firms say to their employees “We will pay for you to go to university if, when you are qualified, you come back into the firm” . Supposing a father says to his son, “I will pay for you to go through university if you come into the family business afterwards” . That would seem to be a genuine arm's length type of transaction. Many large companies such as ICI adopt this practice. Can the Chief Secretary assure us that the small family business will not be treated less favourably than ICI, Shell or Unilever in situations of this kind? 5.0 p.m Mr. Joel Barnett May I first say to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope) that if I unintentionally misled him into thinking I was not dealing with both tests it was because, when I answered the hon. Member for [column 505]Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), I was dealing with just one of the tests. I was dealing with the test as to whether he intended to confer a benefit. The other test was perfectly clear; they were connected persons. The question whether he intended to confer a benefit would be known between him and his aunt. That is why it is necessary to put the onus on the taxpayer, which brings me back to the original point we started on an hour ago with the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe). An inspector could not possibly know whether there was an intention on the part of the taxpayer to confer a gratuitous benefit. I thought it had been made crystal clear, from our discussion during the last hour, that an inspector of taxes would never know whether a gratuitous benefit was intended. I hope that that deals with the point made by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South. If not, no doubt he will tell me. The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) raised a point on subsection (4)(b): He could envisage a situation where the arm's length test might not be needed. Let me give as an example a situation where a man had 51 per cent. of the shares of a private company, which was a controlling interest. He transferred 2 per cent. of the shares. That 2 per cent. might have a modest value—a minority interest. If that was transferred to a connected person, the 51 per cent. would remain in the family and it is important to know that particular aspect of the transfer. Am I carrying the hon. Gentleman with me? Mr. Norman Lamont If the person with the 51 per cent. holding had no intention of passing control to his cousin but sold the shares to a cousin as an arm's length transaction at the market price, is not the effect of the Bill that he would have this intention attributed to him? Mr. Barnett Not necessarily. If it is an arm's length transaction at the market value it would not be caught under this provision. That is perfectly reasonable. But the hon. Gentleman shows how impossible it is to put this in simple terms. It is a complex area and if we did what [column 506]the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) suggested in the amendments we could leave large loopholes, making it possible to transfer for the benefit of others who would not otherwise be able to do so without being liable to capital transfer tax. That is why such clauses have to be less simple than hon. Gentleman would like. Finally, let me come to the point repeated by the hon. Member for Blaby about paying for a student through university. We shall come later to the question of the allowable amount not liable for capital transfer tax. Usually, before a taxpayer has to pay the whole of the grant he has to have a reasonable income, not enormous. Mrs. Thatcher About £5,000 gross. Mr. Barnett About £5,000 gross. It is just possible that out of that there might also be something spare out of income. But we will come to that later. Whether it would be a gratuitous transfer would depend entirely upon what figure we eventually decide to have in the Bill for the limit of the £1,000 capital. That is crucial to whether it would be a gratuitous transfer in the case of a student. It would be impossible to discuss that without knowing what the figure will be. At the moment we can discuss it only in the context of £1,000. I cannot go further than that, as I cannot discuss that clause. Mr. Lawson I was not asking the Chief Secretary to discuss that. I know we will come to it eventually, but he has not taken my point. When he says it is an arm's length transaction and that it is all right, does he include arm's length transactions between connected persons? He has not answered that question. Mr. Barnett I answered it about 45 minutes ago. There are two tests, the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope) mentioned. Subsection (4) is the provision which cuts down the wide initial ambit of charge by excluding transactions which were not intended to confer gratuitous benefit on any person and were broadly on arm's length terms. The word “broadly” would, I think, deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South. If it was an arm's length transaction the house could have been sold at a slightly higher [column 507]figure in certain circumstances, but it was, nevertheless, an arm's length transaction in broad terms. The test, therefore, is a composite one, to be considered against the facts. This is why it has to be for the taxpayer to say whether, in his view, it was his intention to confer benefit, as nobody else could know. Mr. Lawson I take entirely the point about the first test. It is the second test on which I am trying to get the Chief Secretary to be more precise. I know that he keeps reading from the Bill, but this is not clear enough. I take it that he is now saying that if it has passed the first test—that there was no intention to confer gratuitous benefit and that there was no gratuitous benefit that is fine. In the second test, it is an arm's length transaction, but one between connected persons. If it is not, that is all right. The fact that it has been between connected persons does not exclude it from the arm's length provision. In a sense, therefore, A could say that he was making a transaction at arm's length between persons whether or not connected with each other. If it is so that the second case is met, and if it is an arm's length transaction even though between connected persons, with the type of case we have discussed, of paying to go through university, we do not have to worry about the £1,000 test, the incomes test or such things, as it could perfectly well be an arm's length type of payment. Many companies pay for young men to go through university on a perfect arm's length basis. The private business man with a family business might do exactly the same. Mr. Barnett I must disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The comparison that he has put to the Committee of a company that seeks to pay for a student to go through university is quite different from the position of a parent giving a certain amount of money to help his student son or daughter go through university—paying the grant, in place of the grant, or whatever. That is a totally different thing. In most cases the parent is helping the young person to survive at university, to pay the expenses and the little bit extra. That is quite separate from what a company does. The relationship between a company and the man or woman it is [column 508]seeking to put through university is not the same as that between a parent and a son or daughter. Let me proceed to the other points. The presumption about most transactions in the everyday world must be a matter for judgment in each case. There is no other way of seeing it, but there will be instances where it might transpire that one of the parties may appear to have made a bad bargain of the kind referred to by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope), because he sold a house at a figure lower than that at which it might otherwise have been sold. In that case it will be excluded from the charge by the wording of subsection (4), because the facts will demonstrate that there was no intent to confer gratuitous benefit and, in the second test, that the transaction was at arm's length. It appears that the hon. Gentleman is still puzzled and I am sorry about that. If I am wrong and that is not what happens under the subsection, I shall be happy to look at it, but I am advised that that is the way the subsection would be interpreted. I hope that that will be to the satisfaction of the hon. Gentleman, because it entirely meets his point. Mr. Cope I think it meets my point, but when the Chief Secretary reviews this as he has kindly said he will, I should have thought it sufficient to rely, in the case of unconnected persons, on the test that the transaction is at arm's length. A house at auction is a clear example of a transaction being at arm's length. It would be unlike the Revenue to try to pursue a gratuitous benefit in respect of a house at auction. Nevertheless, it seems that by having the gratuitous benefit test as well as the arm's length test, even with unconnected persons, this effect may follow. A man may have a house near a golf course. The house itself may have the values to one person of just being a house and garden but to another person it will have the additional, gratuitous benefit of being near the golf course. That is not an example which I expect the Inland Revenue to pursue, but there might be others which it might be tempted to pursue as long as there are these two tests to fulfil. Mr. Joel Barnett The hon. Gentleman is right. It would not be pursued. For one thing, the taxpayer would know that he has not conveyed any gratuitous transfer and that it is an arm's length transaction. Mr. Cope Arm's length is not sufficient. Mr. Barnett The two tests would be met under subsection (4), as I have explained. If they are not met, that is not our intention. But it is our intention to meet them and, as we see it, it is met under the wording of the subsection. If it is not, I shall make sure that it is. Mr. Norman Lamont I am sorry to pursue this point, but does gratuitous benefit include a retaining control of a company within a family? As I understand it, if part of a controlling interest is given away, one is assessed in respect of that slice of the equity to more than if it were sold to another person. Therefore, if someone sold to a close relative and were given the market price, would there be an assessment on top of that? Is that the position? Mr. Barnett The hon. Gentleman, most unusually for him, could not have been listening, because I dealt precisely with that point. If a man has 51 per cent. of the shares in a close company and he sells 2 per cent. to his son, that is a totally different matter because the 51 per cent. control remains in the family. Let us return to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe). I hope that he will agree, following all the ramifications of the discussions we have had over the last hour-and-a-quarter, that it would be—to put it mildly—somewhat difficult for the Inland Revenue to prove whether there had been a transfer, from the many examples given. It is also a fact that there is nothing new here in the tax law. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment. Mr. Pardoe It is clear from the way the debate has gone this afternoon that we are on the battlefield on which the greatest number of court actions will take place over the years about this capital transfer tax. With all the willingness that he has shown to answer the questions put to him, the Chief Secretary has not shed any light on a host of legal problems that will crop up. I accept what the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) said about finding the whole clause extremely difficult to understand. When I first tried to understand it and could not do so I turned to the Inland Revenue's original Press notice, thinking that the Press office must have put it in [column 510]simplified form. That notice said: that was not too difficult, but it went on— It was at that point that I realised that putting the burden of proof on the individual was utterly wrong, because, if the Chief Secretary is right in saying that all our deliberations this afternoon must lead us to conclude that the Inland Revenue cannot prove any of these things, it equally must lead us to conclude that individuals are not going to be able to prove these things. The right hon. Gentleman may be right in saying that I was wrong in the generality of my assertion that in tax matters, as in other legal matters, the burden of proof is on the accuser and not on the individual. That may well be true. Nevertheless, a charge has crept in regarding the incidentals of tax matters. But it ought not to do so when we are concerned with a general imposition of this kind and when, as we have seen from our deliberations this afternoon, it will be virtually impossible for the individual to prove anything at all. 5.15 p.m. If I make a gift, I have to prove a variety of things to avoid the tax. First, as the right hon. Member for Crosby has pointed out, I have to prove a negative, and it is notoriously difficult in law, as in life, to prove a negative. Secondly, I have to prove an intention. Heaven help me! How do I prove an intention in this kind of area? Thirdly, I have to prove that it was at arm's length. That is a legal term, and obviously the courts are fairly well able to deal with decisions of that kind, but I am bound to say that individuals, who will have to work this clause to their own satisfaction, are not all that well-equipped to do so. Even worse than that, not only do I have to prove that it was at arm's length, but according to subsection (4)(b): That is even more complicated than paragraph (a). Lastly, I have to prove that there was no element of gift. The right hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) has put a series [column 511]of examples to the Chief Secretary and he has not really answered them. I am sure that, as the hon. Lady said, she has a whole host of other examples, and there are one or two examples that I would mention because they demonstrate the appalling difficulties that will face any individual. I suppose that, because there is a general obligation on a parent to maintain children under the age of 18, if I pay for the cost of my children's education—and I know that that is a hideous crime to some hon. Gentlemen, although quite a lot of hon. Members on the Government side pay for their children's education, so let us have no humbug about that; they may be ashamed of it, but it is true—does that obligation go to the extent of maintaining them in private education? How much of the cost of that private education is my obligation and how much of it is not? I am assuming that it is coming out of capital, so the Chief Secretary must not come back at me and say that I am paying it out of income. Secondly, what about games between parents and children? Let us suppose that A plays a round of golf with his son every weekend for a £50 stake. During a year he wins 10 times and his son, being the better golfer, wins 40 times. Over the year the son wins £1,500. Did I intend to lose those games to my son? Is it or is it not a chargeable gift? If it can be argued that I am the better golfer and, therefore, the fact that I am a better golfer but lost means that I intended to lose—— Mr. John Tomlinson Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that playing golf 40 times a year would suggest that he probably was not devoting enough time to reading the Finance Bill? Mr. Pardoe I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that since my National Service days I have not swung a golf club at all. Golf is the prerogative of the Labour Party, as a Hampstead golf club knows only too well. I come now to a more complicated instance. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) is a director of the Playboy Club. Let us suppose that I go to the Playboy Club—I hope nobody will raise the question, because I have never been inside it—and lose money hand over fist to my son, or to any other relative. If the wheel is fixed, I suppose that there is a [column 512]clear intention to lose, but if the wheel is not fixed, there is not a clear intention to lose. What is the Chief Secretary's answer to that? Let us suppose I take on a bet with somebody who is a relative, a bet that obviously cannot come right, not an open bet, but a bet, for instance, that the Prime Minister will honour a certain promise in the manifesto. We all know exactly what the outcome of that will be. So I can confidently expect to lose money to my son on that sort of bet. Is that intended? Is that a chargeable gift or is it not? I hope that the Chief Secretary recognises that the complexities of proof that have arisen in the course of our debate this afternoon show the necessity not, as he thinks, for the individual to prove his case, but for the Inland Revenue to prove its. Therefore, the argument must come down in favour of the amendment, which has been supported by the Opposition. The Chief Secretary must recognise—and I hope his right hon. Friend the Chancellor will recognise—that the complications we are debating today arise almost entirely out of the decision to make this a donor tax. If it was a donee tax, there would be no difficulty about it. If I receive a gift, it is either part of my income, in which case I am subject to income tax, or it is a gift, in which case I am subject to capital transfer tax, or accessions tax, as I would have it. It is easier to prove that I have received a gift—— Mr. Barnett Could the hon. Gentleman help me? I know of his great knowledge of the donee base tax. Would the four examples be liable to tax under a donee based tax? Mr. Pardoe The first of the four examples I have given concerns paying for education. It is easy to see whether that is a gift. In an accessions tax there might be a specific provision to exempt education. Here there is not, so we do not know. That is why I have moved the amendment, because there is a whole host of things that I do not know. What about the golf example, too? Again, in the accessions tax there has to be a specific definition of whether one has received a gift or not. But it is a great deal easier to prove whether a person has received a gift than to prove an intention to give one. That is the point. However, we are not now debating the accessions [column 513]tax, although I should be happy to do so at any time. The simple point I am making is this. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that his reason for conversion from a donee tax to a donor tax was administrative complication. I am saying that this kind of tax raises enormous and hideous legal complications of its own which are in no way compensated by the small administrative conveniences. I therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman, if he is not prepared to accept the amendment now, will reconsider the matter and come forward with some further provision on Report. Mr. Joel Barnett The hon. Gentleman has made the best case against the amendment that has been made so far, since four o'clock this afternoon. He has explained in clear terms how difficult it would be for an inspector of taxes to know whether there was an intention to convey a gratuitous benefit. If a man lost £1,500 to his son in a golf match, regularly every week, 50 times a year or whatever, he would know only too well whether that was a gratuitous benefit. But the Inland Revenue would not know. It would be up to him to say, because he is the only person who would know. The same applies in each of the examples he gave. Indeed, he made the point for me when he said that in his donee-based tax, which I do not necessarily rule out, there must be a definition. We are talking here about a definition. Even with a donee-based tax, only the transferor and the transferee can judge—or certainly they would be the best able to judge—whether there was an intention to confer a gratuitous benefit. The hon. Gentleman is a reasonable man sometimes. I hope, therefore, that he will recognise that he has made a powerful case against his amendment. Let us consider again the fourth example, a bet with a relative, in which a lot of money is lost, on say, how many seats the Liberal Party would lose at the next General Election—a fairly easy bet, in fact. It would be possible for the transferor to know whether in so doing he was giving a gratuitous benefit and trying to avoid the capital transfer tax. The hon. Gentleman has given four examples. I assure him that without the clause there would be many who would be able to find much more elaborate ways of avoiding the capital transfer tax. The hon. [column 514]Gentleman was hardly trying when he came up with four. The right hon. Lady, who has greater knowledge of these matters, would no doubt be able to come up with a lot more. There are many ways in which avoidance would be possible but for the clause. That is why it is there—to stop avoidance, some of the forms of which the hon. Gentleman has given. Mr. Pardoe The right hon. Gentleman has got the argument entirely upside down. One has to be certain about this beforehand. It is not a question that can be settled after the event, as he seems to think. If a person gets it wrong, if by some mischance he gives something that he never intended as a gift, and the Inland Revenue says “Prove that you did not intend it to be” , and he cannot do so—in a host of the illustrations he cannot prove it—he will be subject to a whacking tax perhaps some considerable time after the event when his financial circumstances may be very different. Therefore, he has to know in advance. Because of the area of uncertainty in this whole section of the tax, I claim that it is up to the Inland Revenue and not up to the individual. 5.30 p.m. I am not competing with the right hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) in putting forward examples of the hideousness of this tax. We could go on for a long time swapping examples, no doubt. It is not difficult to think them up, and one does not have to have a great deal of working knowledge of the tax system to do so. I give the right hon. Gentleman the gifts definition in the donee tax, which is very simple. It is a gift when, if it was not, it would otherwise be chargeable to income tax. That is a very simple definition, if the right hon. Gentleman would like to think about it. The Chief Secretary got the bet entirely wrong. It is almost impossible for anyone, psychological expert or the right hon. Gentleman, to estimate how many seats the Liberal Party will lose or gain at the next election because it has absolutely no relation in equity to the number of votes we shall win. Mr. Graham Page I think that I have reduced one and a half hour's talking into 57 words. I believe that I can express what the Chief Secretary has been trying [column 515]to tell the Committee all this time. Here it is: When I transfer an asset no capital transfer tax is payable if I can show that I did not intend to confer a gratuitous benefit on anyone, and if I can show that it was in a transaction which is of such a kind that it might be expected to be at arm's length between unconnected persons. I put that on the record, believing that it is exactly what this clause requires. My objection is on two points. I said, “if I can show” . I want to know how I have to prove this, particularly as I have to prove abstract matters of intention. Second, what is a benefit? This is where I think we need the words in one of our amendments. I hope that I have put it clearly and that the Chief Secretary will think about it again. Mr. Norman Lamont This question of the price or value of blocks of shares transferred between people, particularly between people within a family, is fraught with difficulty. What sort of valuation can one place on them? The Chief Secretary seems to assume that there is always a difference between the market price of shares and the market price of 51 per cent. but that will not in every case be so. The premium on the market price that will be paid for control will vary enormously from situation to situation, and in some situations there will be no premium. People will just not wish to have control of a company. There will be many companies people do not want to get involved with. They may wish to run away from the problems, and the market value may well be the actual realistic value for transferring the shares, either between managers or between members of the family. The second problem is whether one always will be able to distinguish where a business has been family-controlled whether, the sale of shares is an arm's length transaction. Let us take a common situation—a second-generation family business. By second generation I do not mean that it is intended to be passed on to the second generation of the family; it is simply that a new generation of management is coming into the company. There may be no intention that the control of the business should be retained within one family. In this common situation, the original founder of the business has asked in a lot of younger [column 516]managers but he also has one son there as an executive. The founder of the business, owning 100 per cent. of the equity, then decides that he will give the executives in his company, including his son, a chance to have a stake in the business and he sells blocks of shares to seven managers. One of those seven is his son. Although this is done only to put his son on the same basis with the six other managers, and although he is diluting his ownership of the company, nevertheless, mathematically, the fact of giving it to his son will mean that the Revenue could take the view that family control was not being lessened. It seems to me that the business question of transferring or selling shares at the market price will be very difficult to disentangle. Mrs. Thatcher I come back to the aspect in which I am interested, transactions in ordinary family life between parents and children or an invalid relative for the ordinary duties and expenditures—to use a neutral word—that take place within a family. This point has been put to the Revenue in a memorandum sent in by all the chartered accountants, submitted to the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue on behalf of the Councils of the constituent members of the Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies. Under Clause 18, they have asked: The Joel BarnettChief Secretary has not answered that point at all. It has been put to the Inland Revenue. The accountants think that expenditure on education, training and maintenance is not a transaction which confers a gratuitous benefit in those circumstances. When I refer to subsection (4), I do not see that it is out of charge completely. The accountants do not know. I do not know. What does the Chief Secretary intend?—never mind what the clause says. The question is again taken up—I am sure the Inland Revenue will have seen it—in an article in the British Tax Review for this quarter, written by Professor Wheatcroft, a former taxing master in [column 517]courts. He says, on page 6: Professor Wheatcroft continues: But how does the position change at 18, particularly with regard to a person in the sixth form? Is it on the 18th birthday? I see nothing in the Bill about this. I see nothing about an obligation to maintain. The third case that has come in is that of a mentally retarded or handicapped child who becomes a young person, and the parents regularly pay out of capital to a home to maintain the child. Is that a transaction intended to confer a gratuitous benefit on the child, or is it an arm's length transaction between the parent who pays that sum and the home which provides the maintenance? I do not know. Some legal and accountancy advisers do not know. The Chief Secretary has not said what he intends or given us the benefit of what he thinks this clause means. The fourth case I have is a particularly piquant one which came in only this morning. An estate was severely in deficit to the Inland Revenue. The widow was left with nothing, but the tradition of the family was that they never got into debt. The grandmother, to retain the tradition of the family to have no debts, literally paid over the amount of the debt to the Inland Revenue. They now think that she is actually going to be charged as a gift to the widow on the amount which she need not have paid, but did pay, to cover the debt that would otherwise have been due to the Inland Revenue. What I am concerned about is that the ordinary expenditures within a family should not be made an extra charge to a capital tax, because I do not think that that was ever the intention of those who originally thought that they would be in favour of a gift tax. It goes straight to the heart of what is, and what is not, a chargeable transfer. Mr. Joel Barnett I shall first deal with the points made by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Lamont). [column 518]He said that there could be circumstances when transferring 2 per cent. out of 51 per cent. need not necessarily be a gratuitous transfer, even if it were transferred for a price which was the equivalent of a minority value. That is quite right. The hon. Gentleman gave his own example. If I may quote him, he said that there was no intention to retain control, and he transferred seven blocks to managers, one of whom was a son. I said a considerable time ago that it will depend upon the circumstances in each case. If the prices received for the transfers of those shares meet the tests, which we have discussed at some length, they will not be caught. It is as simple as that. But, if they do not meet those tests, they will be caught. However, I hasten to assure the hon. Gentleman that it must be a matter that is decided in each case, because there will certainly be occasions when there will be no need for a premium when a man transfers a number of shares so ending his control. It may be a perfectly genuine transaction, but it will depend upon the circumstances in each case. I turn now to the observations by the right hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). I am sorry to say that I must deal with these comments on these series of amendments on the general point, because the detailed issues of which the right hon. Lady spoke come up later when I shall be happy to deal with them. She spoke about ordinary transactions between the family, the maintenance of a son or daughter at school or university, whether there was an obligation to maintain. All these questions come up under later amendments. It is a complex area not directly relevant to these amendments. I hope that the right hon. Lady will take it from me that I am not in any way seeking to avoid the questions. I shall be happy to come to them when we reach the relevant stage. I assure her that I shall deal with them properly, adequately and directly when we get to them. Question put, That the amendment be made:— The Committee divided: Ayes 16, Noes 17. [column 519] Division No. 11.] Cope , Mr. John Fairgrieve , Mr. Russell Hall , Sir John Howell , Mr. David Lamont , Mr. Norman Lawson , Mr. Nigel MacGregor , Mr. John Newton , Mr. Tony Page , Mr. R. Graham Pardoe , Mr. John Parkinson , Mr. Cecll Rees , Mr. Peter Ross , Mr. Wm. Ridley , Mr. Nicholas Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret Wiggin , Mr. Jerry Barnett , Mr. Joel Bates , Mr. Alf Boothroyd , Miss Betty Callaghan , Mr. Jim Davies , Mr. Denzil Dunnett , Mr. Jack Gilbert , Dr. John Graham , Mr. Ted Hamling , Mr. William Harper , Mr. Joseph Hayman , Mrs. Helene Hoyle , Mr. Douglas Hughes , Mr. Mark Sedgemore , Mr. Brian Tomlinson , Mr. John Ward, Mr. Michael White, Mr. Frank R. Question accordingly negatived. 5.45 p.m. Mr. Wm. Ross I beg to move Amendment No. 45, in page 15, line 17, at end insert: I do not think that this amendment is anywhere near as controversial as the last, and no doubt we shall be able to pass away from it quickly when the Chief Secretary accepts it. We are seeking to clear up what we consider to be a defect. For instance, if someone's wife when visiting a next-door neighbour slips on the floor, breaks her leg and claims, if the householder in whose dwelling the leg was broken was insured, well and good; however, if not, the injured person may have a legal claim against him. In these circumstances, it would appear that as the Bill is drawn a sum paid with or, more likely, without acknowledgement of liability, as an ex gratia payment to such a person could be held as intending to transfer a gratuitous benefit. I should like to assure Labour Members that we do not wish to create a loophole by way of bogus ex gratia payments. But surely it is not intended to catch transfers in conditions such as payments made in lieu of damages awarded by a court. The amendment may not be the right way to achieve the object, but if there is no way of meeting the point elsewhere, surely the Government will make an amendment to meet it here. Mr. Joel Barnett I am pleased to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that there is no question of seeking to catch the type of case to which he refers where there is no collusive intent, in other words, where the two people are not colluding in order to [column 520]make a transfer. What he seeks to provide is already in the Bill. Money paid in bona fide settlements of a legal claim is already excluded by the subsection as it stands. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is the way it is and, as it meets the intention of his amendment, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw it. Mr. Graham Page May we have this a little more clearly from the Chief Secretary? Let us suppose, for example, that there was an oral agreement to create a settlement—it does not need any formal document to create a trust or a settlement—and the beneficiary under it took action to enforce that oral arrangement or informal arrangement. This would come within the terms of the amendment. It would be made by way of settlement of a legal claim with or without admission of liability. If the Chief Secretary says that this sort of situation is already covered, how wide does that cover go? It looks as though we are creating a loophole, but the Chief Secretary shakes his head when I say that. Perhaps he could develop this case a little further and tell why it is not becoming a loophole. Mr. Barnett The reason is that if the legal claim is a clear sham between the two parties in order to ensure that a gift is transferred, it would be caught, because it would not meet the two tests. Mr. Graham Page In the example that I gave it might not be a sham at all. It might be a legal action where there was some doubt as to whether an informal trust had been created. If a legal claim is made, it may be that it will escape the tax. Mr. Barnett As long as there was not collusive intent to make a transfer to avoid the tax. If there were such a sham collusive [column 521]intent, it would be caught. It would not meet the two tests that we have been debating at some length. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) instanced where there was no such sham, where there was a perfectly legitimate arrangement about the legal claim. That would not be caught, I am assured, under the subsection. Mr. Lamont Is the Chief Secretary specifically referring to this subsection? Is he not resting his argument on any of the schedules? Mr. Barnett No—Clause 18(4). Mrs. Thatcher May I ask what is the procedure? One would expect this not to be collusive but straightforward, so presumably the subject would not return it in his schedule. Would the procedure be that the inspector raised an assessment on it and then it was up to the person to prove that it was genuine? Mr. Barnett Yes, but I cannot see the sort of circumstances of the kind where there was a perfectly legal claim, no sham of any kind, and the Inspector would seek to raise an assessment. As the right hon. Lady knows, there are many situations for income tax purposes where a taxpayer, for example, does not submit a return. He is liable under Schedule D and does not submit accounts, and the inspector of taxes raises an estimated assessment. It is up to the taxpayer to prove that that estimated assessment is wrong by submitting the necessary information. But in the sort of circumstances that the hon. Member for Londonderry is putting to the Committee I cannot imagine that the inspector of taxes would seek to raise a claim, and there would be no reason why the taxpayer should put it on his tax return. There would be no liability to capital transfer tax. Mrs. Thatcher If it is a legal claim, and the sum is made in settlement of a legal claim, it is often far better to make it out of court than to go to court. I do not understand what the Chief Secretary means when he says, “if it was a sham or with collusive intent” . If it was a legal claim, and in settlement of a legal claim, the other things would be very difficult to prove or disprove. Mr. Barnett One can imagine all kinds of situations where there is a claim. As the [column 522]right hon. Lady said, the best advice usually is to settle it out of court. But it certainly would not be a sham or collusive claim and, therefore, it would not be liable to the tax. I hope that I have made that clear. Mr. Graham Page It may be a legal claim to a gratuitous benefit. That is why I used the words “trust or settlement” . May I have the Chief Secretary's assurance that it would be included as conferring a gratuitous benefit, even though it is made by legal claim to enforce a trust? Mr. Barnett I say again that if the case that the right hon. Gentleman gives as an example does not meet the two tests that we have been discussing at length it would certainly be caught, because the example he appeared to be giving was one in which it was intended to confer a benefit. It would therefore be caught. But that is not the point that the hon. Gentleman is making in his amendment. At least, I did not think that it was. He was not saying that there was an intention to confer a gratuitous benefit under the terms of capital transfer tax. Mr. Denzil Davies I do not want to make life difficult. I just want to draw attention to a constituency situation in which there may be some difficulty. I have a constituent who died underground working for the National Coal Board. The cause of death was heart attack. The widow was told that there was no legal claim against the National Coal Board as the death was not caused as a result of industrial injury. The board, however, had made a payment, as it often does in such cases. In this case I think it was £500, so it would not fall within these provisions anyway, and I am not suggesting that it would. But there could be payments made which are truly ex gratia payments where there is not a legal claim, and where people, having looked at it, will say that there was not a legal claim, just as in the case I have mentioned. I am not seeking to make life difficult for the Chief Secretary. I am not asking for an answer, But there is a possibility, albeit a fairly remote one, that there will be cases of that kind. Mr. Barnett I take my hon. Friend's point. But in the example he gives there certainly would not have been a collusive action of the kind that would be caught. I [column 523]should not have thought so, at any rate. If I am wrong, I will let the Committee know. My understanding is that it would not be caught. Mr. Lamont It was for precisely the same reasons that we raised the point and I asked the Chief Secretary whether he rested his assurances simply on Clause 18, because one had noticed that in Schedule 9(1)(3) the wording used about liabilities was: That wording had put in one's mind precisely the fears that the hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) has expressed. Mr. Barnett I was referring to Clause 18. Mr. W. Ross I am not perfectly clear about what happens if there is no acknowledgement of liability. What happens if payment is made without acknowledgement of liability between connected persons? Mr. Barnett It rests on whether it is a sham claim. The point the hon. Gentleman is making is that there was no liability but it is a perfectly genuine claim; it was not a sham. They could have avoided legal liability, but it was settled out of court. As the right hon. Lady said, it was not a sham claim. It was settled perfectly genuinely. That would not be caught because it was a perfectly genuine transaction. Mr. W. Ross I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Mr. Graham Page I beg to move Amendment No. 442, in page 15, line 25 at end insert: The Chairman With this we are to take Amendment No. 697, in page 15, line 25, at end insert: Mr. Page Amendment No. 442 is more than a probing amendment. It is an amendment of considerable substance, a subsection I seek to insert into Clause 18 to exempt a certain type of transaction, that is, a transaction which may occur on the occasion of the dissolution or annulment of marriage, or a separation of married persons, to the satisfaction or partial satisfaction of a claim for maintenance. I hope—if I may put in a parenthesis—that by using the word “maintenance” I have not excluded capital. I certainly intended to cover the transfer of capital and not merely of income. [column 539] It has been recognised elsewhere in the Bill, in Schedule 5 paragraph 14, that where the property is put into a settlement upon dissolution of marriage some provision should be made in this respect. I suggest that it would be right in this case to exempt any settlement or transfer of property when a divorce occurs. This is perhaps more frequent now than it was a few years ago. For example, the rights of the ex-wife in the matrimonial home are recognised far more by the courts than they used to be. Almost invariably now, upon dissolution of marriage, or upon a legal separation, there is a settlement of property, a gift from one side or the other, and it is a transaction we should recognise as being free from capital transfer tax. I do not know whether it is right to draw the simile, but we recognise gifts between spouses as being free from the tax, and it is right and proper, when a marriage breaks down, that we should recognise that a reasonable property settlement on that breakdown should be free of capital transfer tax. Mr. Parkinson I wish, first, to express my support for the amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), and I wish to direct attention to my Amendment No. 697. It raises a matter which will not be unfamiliar to the Chief Secretary, as we talked about it at some length earlier this afternoon. I remember talking to my father-in-law some years ago about the problems of educating my children. He said: “You do not have to worry. As long as you are earning enough to pay the interest on your overdraft, you are solvent” . That was before capital transfer tax. If anybody worked on that principle now, any of his school fees in excess of £1,000 would immediately, according to what the Chief Secretary told us this afternoon, move into the range of being a disposition. The whole of his income and the first £1,000 would have gone, and anything over that would be a disposition. It is important that the Chief Secretary should satisfy our apprehensions. At present, with high rates of tax—hon. Members opposite may make a great deal of this; I see the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) reaching for his handkerchief, and I know he is sympathetic to [column 540]people with this sort of problem—it will be more difficult for anyone to afford to pay out of income for the education of his children. It would be absurd if one were to reach the stage of having to make some sort of return. I see the Chief Secretary making threatening, or perhaps encouraging, gestures. One could find oneself wasting a lot of time, and the Revenue's time, if one had to make returns because one was spending one's income plus £1,000 and that expenditure was going towards the maintenance, education or benefit of one's child. This is the moment that the Chief Secretary hinted at earlier in the afternoon—he can say that he accepts the point, he will set at rest the fears of thousands of parents, and tell us what we are all anxious to hear. Mr. Joel Barnett As the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South (Mr. Parkinson) said when we were debating the general situation on the first series of amendments, I said that I should deal with this matter when we came to it. But let me first deal with Amendment No. 442, moved by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). I am again happy to tell him not that I am accepting his amendment but that it is not necessary. There is no need for it because the situation, I am advised, is already adequately covered by Clause 18 (4). Paragraph 14 of Schedule 5 provides that: in a situation similar to that mentioned in this amendment— I know that the right hon. Gentleman has in mind the fear that a disposition in the circumstances he described otherwise than by way of a settlement would be taxable. If a disposition is not intended to confer gratuitous benefit on any person and is at arm's length, it is exempt from capital transfer tax because Clause 18 (4) provides that such a disposition is not a transfer of value. A disposition by which a sum was paid in full or partial satisfaction of a bona fide claim for maintenance would satisfy the test in Clause 18 (4), and the sum paid under it would not be liable to tax. I hasten to add I am not talking about maintenance for children, which I am coming to now. But I hope that the right [column 541]hon. Gentleman is content that his amendment—I see he is shaking his head, which is a pity—but I am advised that the danger he is seeking to guard against is met. However, no doubt he will come back to it. I come now to Amendment No. 697—— Mr. Ridley May I refer to Amendment No. 442 again? It says: The Chief Secretary said that it did not apply to children. Could he clear up that doubt now? Mr. Barnett I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here, but I said that I was coming back to the maintenance and education of children on Amendment No. 697, which is directly on that point. The amount paid to maintain a son or daughter through education would as a general rule be met out of income or out of the £1,000 capital annual exemption. However, let me hasten to add that I entirely acknowledge that in some circumstances it may not be. 7.0 p.m. On the other hand, there is a clear obligation on a parent to maintain his child. It would depend on how much the parents transferred to the child and what was paid for maintenance. But in general there is a liability on a parent to meet the normal costs of the maintenance and education of a child. Therefore, this would be accepted as normal, parental responsibility, and normal expenditure of that kind would not be liable to capital transfer tax. However, if, by some mischance, that is not the case under the present drafting, I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall look at it to see that such expenditure is not caught. I have no wish to catch normal parental liabilities to maintain a child. I hope that that is reasonably clear, but if it is not, in any event I have promised the Committee that I shall look at it to see whether it is caught in that way, and to see if anything requires to be done. I shall certainly consider the inclusion of the amendment if it is necessary. With that assurance, I hope that both hon. Gentlemen will feel able to withdraw their amendments. Mr. MacGregor I wish to clarify the position with the Chief Secretary. The [column 542]topic to which I particularly wanted to direct my attention was that of university fees. I know that the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) cast aspersions on those who sent their children to Oxford or Cambridge. He seemed to assume that this problem would arise only with those universities. As someone who has been at both a Scottish university and an English provincial university, I assure him that if one has more than one child, one can easily find oneself paying more than £1,000 a year in university fees and maintenance at any university in the United Kingdom. The Chief Secretary has concentrated on maintenance. Perhaps this was a slip. He did not promise to look at the question again in the context of educational fees. With fees increasing every year and with the high rates of income tax at the higher income levels, it is not possible for people to meet those fees out of income particularly if they have more than one child unless they accept a standard of living well below that of those with much lower gross incomes. It is unfair to ask them to do that. I have long been a believer in the abolition of the parental means test for universities. We are not discussing that now, but it has implications. Mr. William Hamling Is the hon. Gentleman also an advocate of the idea that people who enjoy certain things in life should pay the full cost of them? Mr. MacGregor I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman has in mind, and I am sure that you, Mr. Crawshaw, would not want me to follow him down that avenue. However, it is obviously only possible to pay those fees by using capital. That capital may well have been built up over an earlier period of years out of saved income, for which people may have made sacrifices in their standard of living, recognising that with no other capital but with higher income levels, they would have to face this problem if their children went on to university. This is an important consideration. In my view, the means test for parental contributions to universities is an unfair discrimination against the child and not against the parent. Unless the amendment is accepted and the reference to education specifically included, the capital transfer tax would also be an additional unfair discrimination against the child. Mr. Joel Barnett If I did not make it clear before, let me say that the maintenance of the child by the parent—the parental liability—would include expenditure on education, because that would not be a transfer of value to the child under the terms of capital transfer tax, although I hasten to add, lest this be considered any imputation against Oxford, Cambridge, or any other university, that I have no doubt that it is of considerable value to be educated there. But it is not considered a value, as we understand it, under the terms of capital transfer tax. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's point, but, as I said earlier, if it does not, I have promised—and I will meet that promise—to look at it again. Mr. Norman Lamont I apologise for hearing only the last of the Chief Secretary's remarks. I wanted to support my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) at another meeting. However, when the right hon. Gentleman said that he would look at the subject raised by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor), did he include when the child is over the age of 18? Mr. Joel Barnett This is a subject that we want to consider. Normal costs of education would be a parental liability. We want to look at how that is defined. I hope that answer satisfies the hon. Gentleman. I can see that it does not satisfy the right hon. Lady. Mrs. Thatcher There may be a point of which the right Joel Barnetthon. Gentleman is not wholly aware and of which I should not be wholly aware but for having served in another Department. It arose with one of his fellow Treasury Ministers the other day during Question Time. He pointed out that a parent's duty towards his student son or daughter to meet his parental contribution was not an enforceable obligation, and therefore could not be allowed for tax. The Chief Secretary nods his head: he remembers the point. It is not enforceable on the parent to make his contribution in the means-tested operation. There are a number of students who are therefore in considerable difficulty. The Chief Secretary rested a good deal of his argument upon the word “obligation” . There is no obligation except a moral obligation. Mr. Hamling Parental obligation. Mrs. Thatcher There is a parental obligation, not a legal obligation. There are times when the parental obligation is not met. Therefore, if one regards it as a parental obligation fine; but taxing statutes tend to be legal obligations rather tightly drafted. Therefore, one would get a number of consequences. First, there would be no legal obligation to maintain a child after the minimum school-leaving age. A number of problems will arise from that, and I hope the Chief Secretary will take them into account. The second consequence concerns the situation whereby one's child is fully grown up but handicapped. Again, there is a moral obligation to maintain, and it is often expensive to do so. People go to enormous lengths and make great sacrifices to do it. But it is not a legal obligation. Either parents put aside capital, or sometimes they will set aside capital in the form of income. All of these possibilities, I believe, need to be looked at very carefully. Mr. Joel Barnett The right hon. Lady is on precisely the sort of area at which I wish to look, and that is why I promised the Committee that I should look at it. Mr. Ridley While the Chief Secretary is looking he will have to look quite wide. If my right hon. Friend's definition of a parental obligation is taken seriously, it goes into all sorts of other areas. One has a parental obligation to feed one's children, and to provide a roof over their heads. If they cannot get a job after leaving university, has one a parental obligation to support them? We are getting into a much wider area than simply education. I hope that the Chief Secretary will consider it in that wide context rather than only the narrow context of school fees. Mr. Barnett The answer is “Yes” . Mr. Graham Page May I go back to Amendment No. 442. It seeks to exempt disposition on the occasion of a dissolution of a marriage. I cannot see how on earth the Chief Secretary can say that this is exempted by subsection (4). There must so frequently be an element of gratuitous benefit about a settlement of this sort that I cannot see how he can say that it is cleared by that subsection. One would have to prove the value of the ex-wife's married status to say that there was no element of gift about it, that it was a strictly legal claim that she had on her [column 545]ex-husband. Frequently, of course, these are settlements in which there is very much a gratuitous benefit given by one party to the other. I do not think that we can rely on subsection (4) disposing of these cases. If the Chief Secretary feels that they are already covered, I assume that he accepts the principle in the amendment. Therefore, I hope that he will look at it again. It is necessary to cover those cases where there is a direct gift, a direct transfer. I suppose that any adviser of those who are dissolving marriage in this way would say “The last thing you should do is to give anything to each other as you may well be liable for capital transfer tax” . So they resort to paragraph 14 of Schedule 5 and make a settlement, because if it were given, the ex-wife might well become liable for the capital transfer tax on the ex-husband's gifts to his mistress—I refer to subsection (7) of Clause 23. It is a little way ahead, Mr. Crawshaw, but that is its effect. That is why it is so important that the direct gift of capital from one spouse to another on the dissolution of marriage should be exempt in the same way as a settlement is exempt. I hope that the Chief Secretary will give an assurance that he will look again at this point, particularly in view of what I have said about the impact of Clause 23 (7). I do not wish to divide the Committee on this issue because the Chief Secretary accepts the principle. I just want to see that it is in the Bill. Mr. Ridley What happens when such a settlement is made on the children of a marriage dissolved or subject to separation and at a later stage that settlement is divided among those children? I imagine that tax would not be chargeable on that second break-up of the settlement, just as it was not on the first granting of the settlement for the benefit of the children's maintenance. This question may not arise on the clause, but it is important to know: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will put it in the right language if the Chief Secretary has not understood what I am getting at. Mr. Joel Barnett I understand what the hon. Gentleman is getting at, but it is not the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making. I was giving the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that, on the advice I am given, his amendment is covered by the subsection as it stands. I can certainly assure him, however, that if, when we look at it again—as we always do when the right hon. Gentleman makes these points, because we are very conscious of his detailed knowledge of these matters—it seems that we might have been wrong, naturally we shall look at it again. But our present advice is that his amendment is not necessary. I do not think that I can go much further than that. Mr. Page If the right hon. Gentleman puts it in that way and says that he will look at it again—— Mr. Ridley We have not had an answer to my question, except for the astonishing statement that it was different from my right hon. Friend's, which was why I made it. Mr. Barnett I do not know why it should be so astonishing that the hon. Gentleman has made a point not covered by the amendment. We are discussing only the amendment. Mr. Page We must come back to that in the “Clause stand part” debate. My hon. Friend has raised an important point that I had not noticed when I put down the amendment, and it certainly ought to be dealt with. However, if the Chief Secretary is willing to consider this again and if I am not precluded, should that consideration fail to produce anything on his side, from bringing it back myself on Report, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 7.14 p.m. Sitting suspended. Mr. Graham Page I beg to move Amendment No. 608, in page 15, line 36, leave out subsection (7). The Chairman With this we are to take the following amendments: No. 646, in page 15, line 39, after ‘right’, insert ‘over an asset’. No. 443, in page 15, line 41, leave out from ‘right’ to end of line and insert No. 788, in page 15, line 39, after ‘right’ insert No. 437, in page 15, line 23, at end insert No. 440, in page 15, line 41, leave out ‘not’. Mr. Page As you have said, Mr. Crawshaw, we can discuss conveniently and consider two groups of amendments. One group includes Amendments Nos. [column 550]646, 788 and 443, which seek to narrow and clarify subsection which is so wide and vague, and then there are our old friends Amendments Nos. 439 and 440 on the question of the burden of proof. I start with the major amendment, No. 608 seeks to delete subsection (7), which is an extraordinary subsection. The clause deals with the definition of the transfer of value and when a disposition becomes a transfer of value and tax falls upon it, and we then have this final subsection— With great generosity it says at the end of the clause that if this was not deliberate, the clause will not take effect. Perhaps I am not being quite accurate there. It is that if the assumed and fictitious transferor is able to show that the omission was not deliberate, the transfer does not rank for taxation. I have a horrible feeling that when the Chief Secretary and the Financial Secretary were being briefed by their departmental chiefs on Clause 18, the Chief Secretary suddenly said “We have not dealt with the case of someone who omits to exercise a right.” He turned to the Financial Secretary and said “Just run off a clause on this.” The Financial Secretary did so, and so we get this rather vague and, I think, extraordinary subsection. When the Financial Secretary handed back his draft to the Chief Secretary, the Chief Secretary said “We must say something about it being deliberate or nor deliberate” . Thus the last line was added straight off the cuff. That must be how this subsection got into the clause in such an extraordinary form. The omission to exercise a right may arise in all sorts of instances. I suspect that what the Chief Secretary had in mind in requiring this subsection in Clause 18 was someone failing to exercise the right to take up shares in a company. That is obviously what he had in mind. He shakes his head. I do not know whether he says that he did not have that in mind, or whether he means that he had a lot more in mind. If he did not have it in mind, I commend that to him. It is the only case in which it [column 551]would be reasonable to have a subsection of this kind. The words are, “omission to exercise a right” . There may be inumerable rights—in contract, in tort, in marriage law—all sorts of rights if we are thinking of legal rights. It may be any sort of right—a moral right, a spiritual right. We have tried in the amendments to pin this down a little more. For example, suppose the Chief Secretary is knocked down by a bus—— Mr. Joel Barnett Not again! Mr. Page —as he goes out of the House. There are buses running today, I understand. Yesterday, I could not have given this example. In his generosity, although he is knocked about very badly—he has lost a few teeth and broken a few ribs—he says, “Never mind, it might get the driver into a lot of trouble. I shall not sue London Transport for it. I shall omit to exercise my rights against London Transport” . He would be chargeable for capital transfer tax because he is omitting to exercise a right. Let us suppose that outside the House I say some very rude things about the Chief Secretary, I slander him, or I write horrible libellous things about him. In his generous way, he says, “No, I shall not sue the right hon. Member for Crosby. I know that he did not mean it. I shall omit to exercise my right to claim damages from him.” The Inland Revenue officials will come down on him for tax on that omission to claim damages. Next, let us suppose that the omission is not deliberate, that a person has a claim for damages against somebody and not deliberately but by omission and negligence he lets the limitation period run out for taking action. What is the position then? It is not a deliberate omission to exercise a right, although it does have some deliberation about it. One could go on multiplying these occasions. What is the position of a child who suffers damage during birth through the negligence of a surgeon? Perhaps that child would have a claim for damages against the surgeon. If the mother gave up the right to claim damages against the surgeon, the child would have a tax claim round its neck for the rest of its life. The Chief Secretary must look at this clause again. We have suggested in Amendments No. 646, 788 and 443 some [column 552]ways in which to restrict this vague statement “a right” . For example, in Amendment No. 788, we suggest that after the word “right” we should insert the words: which I think is the occasion which the Chief Secretary had in mind in requiring this subsection. Alternatively, under Amendment No. 443, we say This is probably the way to solve the problem of this subsection. After all, what we are looking for is a gratuitous benefit transferred by the transfer or to the beneficiary. Let us pinpoint that in this clause and say that if somebody does omit to exercise a right, and if “the sole or main reason” for it is “to confer a gratuitous benefit on another person” , it will be a transfer of value chargeable to tax. I should have expected the Chief Secretary to jump at some elucidation of the clause in that way. 8.45 p.m. Finally, we come back to our old friend the burden of proof. It is more important in this case than in the other two cases, which have amendments on the subject. It will be extremely difficult for anybody to prove a negative about whether the omission was deliberate. The last line of subsection (7) reads: shown, I presume, by the person who would be responsible for the tax if it is not shown— It is asking an awful lot of anybody to try to prove a negative of that kind. That is why I have put down Amendments Nos. 439 and 440 to change “unless” to “if” and to leave out “not” . Then the subsection would read— This is taking too far the rules which the Chief Secretary propounded in our earlier debates that it was a common practice in tax law to put it in the negative form and require the taxpayer, or the potential taxpayer, to prove a negative. The Chief Secretary should turn it to the positive. Mr. Joel Barnett I may be able to help the Committee. The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) gave us some examples whereby, once again, by being hit by a bus, falling over a cliff, being knocked over a cliff, or meeting my end in some way which, I am sure, no hon. Member wishes upon me, I might have a claim against somebody for causing my sad end, and he said that if I decided to waive that right to claim my generosity could result in my having to pay capital transfer tax on my waiver. That is the burden of the right hon. Gentleman's argument, except that he gave us another example which has been quoted in various context of a man exercising a right not to vote against a motion on a board of directors or a company. But what the right hon. Gentleman has omitted to notice is that he seeks to ensure that my generosity is not subject to capital transfer tax, and I am happy to tell him that under subsection (4) that is already met. Mr. Graham Page Not again! Mr. Barnett It happens to be true. I am bound to say it again if it happens to be true. Subsection (4) excludes liability if there was no intention to confer a gratuitous benefit and the transaction was at arm's length between unconnected persons. If I had a claim against the unconnected person who accidentally caused my sad end and I refused to exercise that claim, I am happy to tell the Committee that there would be no liability to capital transfer tax on my refusing to exercise that right. I can see from the look on the face of the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Lamont) that that does not altogether satisfy him. I shall have to wait until we hear some other examples. I can see that the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees), who I am not at all surprised is restless in his seat, are eager to give me some more examples of generosity that might perhaps be caught. I ask them to look at the way in which subsection (4) seeks to protect the generosity, of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke, apart from which there is always the right of appeal if by some mishap the inspector of taxes is not as bright as the right hon. Gentleman or the commissioners. [column 554] Despite the readiness off the mark of hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench below the Gangway, I hope that they will realise that subsection (4) gives the necessary protection and that the right hon. Gentleman will feel that his point has been fully met. Mr. Ridley The Chief Secretary is again indulging in wasting time. If he intends to spell out the constituencies of hon. Members on this side who wish to speak every time he sits down that will take at least five minutes on every amendment, and it does not achieve any purpose. That sort of threat does not stop us from continuing the debate. Tonight is the night which perhaps, apart from anything else, will be remembered, because we discovered the birthday of the hon. Lady the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman). I am sure that the whole Committee would like to wish her a happy birthday when the anniversary of this tax comes round again. It could become known as “the Hayman tax” . I was interested to hear the Chief Secretary say that he did not want to hurt anybody on the hon. Lady's birthday. This is relevant to the amendment, as I have shown, Mr. Crawshaw, but it is terrifying that the Chief Secretary should in an unguarded moment after dinner—after he has eaten his sausage roll or whatever he has—admit that the tax does hurt people. That is the first time that he has done so. So we have a major milestone in our consideration of the Bill. We have at last got the Government to admit that this is a hurting tax with the motive of hurting. That is something that they have not said before. I am grateful to the Chief Secretary for at last coming clean on the motive for this tax. If, for example, the Chief Secretary with the particular regard he has for the hon. Lady the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield, were by mistake to knock her down in the scramble to get out of the Committee room for dinner at a quarter past seven and perhaps break her leg she, out of her regard for him, might or might not sue him for damages. It could be held, as I understand it, that she was making him a gratuitous transfer by not proceeding. It would depend on motive, but she would have to prove why she had not sued him. This seems to me to put the hon. Lady in an extremely difficult [column 555]position. She is in a considerable position of embarrassment already from what the Chief Secretary has said. Mr. Graham Page The hon. Lady would have to prove why she did not sue the right hon. Gentleman and he, too, would have to prove why she did not sue him, according to this clause, because the transferer or the transferee may be liable. We do not know which. Mr. Ridley I am as always grateful to my right hon. Friend for adding that degree of legal expertise to my knowledge of these matters, but I think it is likely to be caught by this clause as something which we should consider. I should like to give another example, as the Chief Secretary said that I was going to and I always try to come up to the Chief Secretary's expectations, and that is that the Secretary of State for the Environment has said to the councillors in some place—does any hon. Member remember the name of the place?—called “Clay Cross” that they may be excused for a debt which they owed to the Revenue for not having collected rents in accordance to the law at some stage. I imagine that the right hon. Gentleman will be reaching for his cheque book to pay capital transfer tax on his failure to claim a right here in the case of the Clay Cross councillors. I am aware that I am stretching this a little far, but it is relevant. If one is to perform an act of generosity or let people off some obligation and one's motive is political—if that is the right way to describe what the Chief Secretary has just said—it is to confer a gratuitous benefit, as was the motive of the Secretary of State for the Environment. It was to confer a gratuitous benefit on the councillors of Clay Cross because they could not afford to pay the surcharges levelled upon them. So he has conferred a gratuitous benefit upon them. I admit that this was done in his ministerial capacity, but the point illustrates the danger of the clause which the Chief Secretary is recommending to us. The third example is that of gambling debts. This ought to be explored, because I am advised that this is one of the best ways round this tax. One either has to go to a married [sic] guidance counsellor or a tax avoidance counsellor to get round this tax. We are all aware of that, but the industry is developing fast. In fact, it is the only [column 556]growth industry that there is under this Government. I am not going to talk about marriage yet, but later in the proceedings on the Bill. If I fail to claim a gambling debt from somebody to whom I want to make a gratuitous capital transfer, is that a gratuitous capital transfer for which I have omitted to exercise my right? I ask it as a question because I want to be straight about what the position will be if I win a large sum of money at baccarat, which I do not know how to play but, as is usually the way with gambling, there is always beginner's luck, and fail to collect from the croupier those heaps of beautiful marble chips which in right were mine, would I be accused of having given the croupier a gratuitous transfer and be liable to pay tax on what I had not collected from him, particularly if it was discovered that I had some connected person's relationship with this croupier? Nobody could accuse me of that! But the Chief Secretary gets the point I am trying to make. Those are the questions I have to ask the Chief Secretary on this subject, and I hope that he will give satisfactory answers. 9.00 p.m. Mr. Rees Like my hon. Friends, I have not been very reassured about this subsection. My hon. Friends have pointed out the obvious defects in draftmanship, but I shall reinforce the point with one or two practical examples. But before I do so I must say that I have considered, as deeply as I could in the time available, the reassurance which the Chief Secretary has endeavoured to offer us. I am not at all reassured, because I do not quite know what the courts would require in the way of proof to demonstrate that a person did not intend to confer any gratuitous benefit on some other person. So, for the benefit of the Committee and, I hope, of the Chief Secretary, I should like to give three or four examples so that we may have the Chief Secretary's views and be reassured that this subsection has been sufficiently narrowly drawn. Let us suppose—this may be well within the experience of hon. Gentlemen—that a widow has been left by her husband a substantial shareholding in an unquoted family company where the family are shareholders. Let us assume [column 557]that, subject to the squeeze on company profits, to which so many companies have been subject over the past year, a squeeze accentuated by the ill-judged Budget we had to endure in March—such a company proposes a rights issue. Let us assume that the widow would like to take up her rights issue so that her share of the equity is not diluted. Upon reference, her bankers say “We cannot, alas, provide you with sufficient cash to do this.” She consults with her lawyers and accountants—perhaps even with the Chief Secretary in his moments of leisure away from ministerial responsibility—and is advised “If you do not take up the rights issue, it will mean a diminution in your share of the equity, but the other members of the company are members of your family so perhaps you do not mind overmuch.” So the unfortunate lady passes up the rights issue. That lady will have omitted to exercise a right and it may be that she will say “So be it, but it will benefit other members of my family.” Can she then take advantage of the let-out in subsection (4) and say that she has not conferred, or intended to confer, any gratuitous benefit on any other person? I suggest not. I do the best I can with the two subsections and I am very worried on behalf of that widow. I have no doubt that one could multiply the instances. Let me give another example so that we may canvass the Chief Secretary's views. Let us assume—this is a hypothetical case—that a Minister of the Crown, is the subject of a scurrilous attack in a newspaper which accuses him of operating a Swiss bank account, calculated hypocrisy and accepting bribes from a Communist State. On the assumption that all those allegations are untrue, the Minister would have an enormous claim in damages against the newspaper. He has a right of action. However, supposing the Minister is advised by those skilled in such matters that if he were to go into the witness box, as assuredly he would have to do to substantiate his claim, and be submitted to the rasking cross-examination of competent counsel, he would be made the laughing stock of the country. Let us assume that the Minister does not choose to exercise his right of action against the newspaper. Can he say that he did not [column 558]intend to confer any gratuitous benefit when, quite clearly, he has conferred a benefit upon the newspaper. He has not exercised his right of action against it. Mr. Denzil Davies The hon. and learned Gentleman is postulating a case where a politician has a right to sue the newspaper. I suggest to him that the giving up of that right, or the failure to exercise that right, does not diminish in the least the value of the politician's estate, because that right cannot be transferred; it cannot be sold; it is personal to the politician and is worth nothing until the money comes in. Mr. Rees This is a very interesting point. I have no doubt the hon. Gentleman will be able to develop this. He has, perhaps, given an interesting line of thought for the Chief Secretary. Let me offer my humble view on the point. Supposing the Minister in question has been advised by his lawyers that he has a virtually cast-iron right of action—we all know that there are hazards of litigation—in other words, that he could recover a very large sum of damages. His estate has, as it were, at that particular point of time, an asset in that it has a right of action against the newspaper which might be satisfied by a very large sum in damages. I suggest—but of course we must hear from the Chief Secretary—that such a Minister's estate has been diminished. I would suggest that, if the paper is in the hands of a personal proprietor, that proprietor's estate has been increased, because there is no longer the corresponding debt. If the Minister does not choose to exercise his right, this massive claim which would go to diminish the newspaper proprietor's estate has evaporated. I should be interested to hear the Chief Secretary's view on that. Let me give another example, which I hope is not too fanciful. Let us assume a lady very much in the public eye who wishes to provide for her old age. Let us assume that, because she is fortunate in these matters and understands the vagaries of the property market, she takes an option to acquire a slag heap which might be suitable for reclamation as development land. Of course, this is an entirely hypothetical instance, but it is only by multiplying these instances that we can get a view of the scope of the subsection from the Chief Secretary. Let [column 559]us assume such a lady. Of course, she cannot exist in practice. I take the rather far-fetched example because only in this way can one exemplify the finer points of drafting and construction. Let us assume such a lady taking such an option, on very good advice, to provide for her old age, to acquire this slag heap at then current market prices. Mr. Ridley Knock-down prices. Mr. Rees No. My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) perhaps makes this too absurd. We all know now the value of slag heaps, and even this lady, preoccupied though she might be, as I assume, with the great affairs of State, has such an option. Let us assume that the market soars and the advantages of slag heaps and all that may be done with them become more apparent to the general run of us. Let us assume, however, that she is so preoccupied with affairs of State that she finds no time to exercise her option. Mr. Brian Sedgemore On a point of order, Mr. Crawshaw. I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman knows about the laws of libel the same as everyone else and, in addition, knows about the laws of privilege of the House of Commons. If in fact the hon. and learned Gentleman were to take his courage in his own hands, which is something that he rarely does—we have heard this sort of innuendo on the Floor of the House only recently in respect of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—the two people to whom he is alluding could readily be identified. If they were identified outside the House of Commons and the hon. and learned Gentleman were to make that statement outside the House, this would be the most vicious libel. Is it not the function and, indeed, the prerogative of the Chair to save the reputation of individuals inside the House when that which is said would, if it were said outside, be a terrible libel and they would have a chance to answer back? Should we not at the very least invite the hon. and learned Gentleman—who takes his profession very lightly, so it would seem, and his allegiance to the Bar Council and his oath to that noble and learned profession to which he belongs—to stand outside the doors of this House, or perhaps outside on the parapet there and to make this statement and hope that as he [column 560]makes it he does not suffer from vertigo and fall into that dirty river outside. Sir John Hall Before you rule on that point of order, Mr. Crawshaw, would it be advisable to ask the hon. Member to state the libel of which he is complaining? The Chairman Perhaps it might save time if I speak to the point of order. Until my attention was drawn to it, I had not associated it with anybody in particular. As it has now drawn my attention to a certain person to whom hon. Gentlemen might be referring, I think that that lady is a Member of the other House, if I am right in the suggestion that is being made, and it is in that respect that I fear that perhaps we should not pursue that particular matter. I ought perhaps to remind the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) that I have not heard anything at all which with my frail knowledge of the legal profession seeks to come anywhere near slander or breaching the privilege of the House of Commons as far as I understand it. Mr. Ridley Further to that point of order, Mr. Crawshaw. Before the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) seeks to defenestrate my hon. and learned Friend, may I ask in what way it is libellous to suggest that somebody has bought a slag heap? The Chairman Order. This is nothing to do with the Finance Bill. The hon. Gentleman is dealing with something that is nothing to do with the matters in hand. The hon. Gentleman's point of order has been answered from the Chair. I hope that it will be left there and that we shall proceed with the Finance Bill. I would remind the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) that perhaps he has gone far enough with his illustration. He might have more pertinent illustrations for the Finance Bill. Mr. Ridley Further to that point of order. It is perfectly in order in citing this interesting hypothetical situation, which would give rise to a possible charge to tax, if the person my hon. and learned Friend is talking about failed to exercise her right to cash in on a profitable piece of slagheap speculation. I should like to ask how it could conceivably be that my hon. and learned Friend is veering close to any wind by suggesting that it is wrong to speculate [column 561]in slagheaps. As far as I know, there is no offence and nothing libellous about the practice by which it is perfectly possible to make money in a reputable and thoroughly honourable fashion. The Chairman The hon. Gentleman cannot have heard what I said. He has said what I said a few moments ago. There was nothing slanderous in the least that I had heard, and I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) will draw his illustration to a close and give us more illuminating examples. Mr. Rees I am extremely grateful for your ruling, Mr. Crawshaw, and, indeed, for your protection from the gross innuendos of the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore), who we know has a fevered imagination from his long association with newspapers like Private Eye, which give him a slightly slanted and unusual view of life. I had hoped that by taking a rather unusual set of facts so far to remove it from reality that, though I could exemplify the legal point which is important, I would not offend the delicate sensibilities of the hon. Members opposite. Since the hon. Member for Luton, West has shown himself to be a person of greater sensitivity than I had realised from our debates over the past year, let me immediately change the facts and say some gentlemen involved in public life and let us say, not a slagheap, but a gravel pit. I hope that this will satisfy the hon. Gentleman and that he will acquit me of any malicious intent, which was far from my mind. It has been suggested from the other side, particularly by the hon. Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port (Mr. Bates), that we are guilty of filibustering. When I have endeavoured with such parliamentary skill as I can command to produce an example which would enable the Chief Secretary to give us a reasoned discourse on the scope of subsection (7), to have an ill-timed interjection from the hon. Member for Luton, West is more calculated to waste time than any number of well-founded, wellthoughout points from this side of the Committee. Mr. Alf Bates Go home early. Mr. Rees I shall take my own time. The hon. Gentleman for Bebington and Ellesmere Port, who has not been noted [column 562]for his contributions, would find it tiresome indeed to sit behind Government Whips and restrain his ardour, but I am bound to say that the only intervention of his that I have heard in this Committee stage bore so little relationship to our debates that I wondered whether he was conscious of the kind of Bill we were debating at all. Mr. Ridley It was— “Why cannot I take that £5,000 too?” Mr. Rees The real answer is that the industry has neither the wit, nor the enterprise, nor the capacity for taking risks that justify that kind of reward. As long as he is prepared to be a parasite on the public purse then he shall get the reward he deserves. Now perhaps I can resume my theme, because I had hoped to outline for the Chief Secretary three examples, to which I shall expect a reasonable reply. I should like to return to my example of the gentleman in public life fortunate enough to obtain an option to acquire a gravel pit. 9.15 p.m. Let us assume that, oppressed by the cares of public life, that gentleman misses his opportunity and finds that the pressure from his bankers and their reluctance to assist is such that he cannot raise the money to take up his option. What then? He has omitted to exercise a right. The Chief Secretary may say that he does not intend by this omission to confer any gratuitous benefit on any person. Is that a complete answer? When he fails to exercise his option, he must be conscious that the person who granted the option may be that much better off because he may have then realised the possibilities of this particular asset and may wish to develop it for himself. Has he not then conferred a gratuitous benefit on the person who granted him the option? It is to be hoped that in an uncontroversial and helpful way I have outlined three practical examples which demonstrate the extraordinary width of this subsection. My hon. Friends have suggested several ways in which it could be reduced to more realistic confines. I hope that the Chief Secretary will apply himself seriously to this problem and endeavour to give us the reassurance to which we are entitled. Mr. Norman Lamont I wonder if I could just briefly touch on one example of [column 563]the person omitting to take up, or waiving, a right which could have serious consequences for many small businesses. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) cited the example of someone failing to take up a rights issue. I see the argument he deployed but in such a situation the company itself is trying to raise money and the fact that someone forgoes the rights issue will not necessarily be to the advantage of the company. The example I should like to give is one where a person omits a right with considerable advantages to the family business in question, and here I am referring to the simpler question of waiving a dividend. As the Chief Secretary will be aware, many small businesses, close companies or private businesses in which a family has a large stake are those suffering from liquidity problems at present and which have, in the past, been helped by the shareholders foregoing their dividends. That is the way that businesses have been built up and in which some businesses have managed to surmount the liquidity crisis at present. From a reading of the clause, it appears to me that if shareholders forgo a dividend it will come as a gift to the company, which seems to me to be a serious problem for family controlled businesses. If, as I suspect, the whole thrust of the tax will be to diversify shareholdings of private companies more and more it is a problem that could become more and more serious as time goes on. It could be argued that the waiving of the dividend was a way of avoiding tax, but surely in such cases the company would invariably fall within the close company provisions. In that situation the Revenue has adequate powers already to take appropriate action if it thinks that the waiving of dividends is being done purely for tax avoidance reasons. I hope that the Chief Secretary will say something about this matter, because it is most serious and, although my right hon. Friend's amendment is not confined specifically to this point, there are arguments for saying that something should be written into the Bill relating specifically to dividend waivers. I know that some hon. Members have actually taken this matter up with the Chief Secretary, and I have a reply that he wrote to one hon. Gentleman about this. The right hon. Gentleman's reply is not exactly crystal clear. He appears to confirm that a dividend waiver would in [column 564]most cases constitute a transfer for the purposes of capital transfer tax but that the exact tax position would depend on whether the person's estate was not diminished. That was how he put it, but it would appear more or less to be confirmation that in most situations of the type I have described where a family forgo a dividend in order to contribute to the development of the business or to surmount the current liquidity squeeze, they would be creating a liability to capital transfer tax. This is a very serious problem. When one compares the Chief Secretary's reply with the reply from the Financial Secretary yesterday when he was speaking of people peeling off strips of their businesses and giving away £2,000 each year in the early stages of business, it makes one a little worried that perhaps the Front Bench does not really understand the way in which small family businesses have to be built up by retentions of cash in the early years. Ministers seem to think that tax can be paid by peeling off bits of the business and that dividends can be paid out to the directors in the early stages. I ask the Chief Secretary to address himself seriously to the problem, because it is one which could have a very serious effect on many family-controlled businesses. Mr. MacGregor I wish to raise two examples in relation to this subsection where I think there is a justifiable reason for concern. I apologise if these points have been made before. I have not been able to follow all the exchanges in the Committee over the last few minutes. In order that the Chief Secretary can see that I am trying to be as fair as possible, may I say that I originally felt that the amendment proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) was justified because of a rights issue? On closer examination I am prepared to accept that it is not on that ground alone. I can see that there could be a case where a rights issue was deliberately not taken up, perhaps through lack of funds so that the value of one person's estate is diminished but the value of another person's estate is not increased. I accept that if the rights issue is assigned in normal times there is a transfer of value. I suspect that at the moment there is not, but in normal times there [column 565]would be. I do not, therefore, rest my case on the rights issue. There are two examples where it seems to me that perfectly harmless transactions would be hit by this clause. The first is in a case where a person has a right to dispute a will but does not take up that right, perhaps because he does not want to hurt the feelings of the person who has benefited by the will, as he thought wrongly, or perhaps because he does not even want to affect the assets of that person because, for family or other reasons, he feels that that person needs the assets. The value of that person's estate has been diminished, and the value of the substance of the person whose legacy he could have disputed is increased. I should like to ask the Chief Secretary whether in that case it is assumed that a transfer of value takes place, and therefore the act of kindness by the person who does not dispute the will causes him to pay some element of capital transfer tax. The second example comes fairly close to my own constituency in relation—I move into what may be a controversial area—to agricultural tied cottages. I am not going into the arguments about agricultural tied cottages, but I will apply it to this one case. There could be and, indeed, often have been instances where a farmer would be perfectly entitled to obtain possession of an agricultural tied cottage because the particular worker had ceased to work for him and he had another worker who needed a cottage, but he did not do so out of his sense of loyalty to the worker who had retired. As far as I can see, he has a right to that tied cottage. Therefore the value of his estate has been diminished. The value of the estate of another person—namely, the tenant of the tied cottage—has been increased and by his act of kindness, again he is finding that he is liable to capital transfer tax. These are two illustrations where, as I read the clause, somebody who is taking a perfectly reasonable approach to affairs will find, by acts of kindness, that he is affected by capital transfer tax. I should be grateful if the Chief Secretary would address himself to those two points and let me know whether my reading of the clause is wrong. If my reading is right, I am bound to say either that my right hon. Friend's amendment is [column 566]correct or, at the very least, that this subsection is defective. Mr. Cope I rise briefly to help the Chief Secretary by commenting on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Lamont) about dividends. As I understand it, one cannot waive the right to a dividend once it has been declared, and, of course, until it is declared, one does not have a right to it anyway because it does not exist, so no CTT, as I see it, could arise in a case of a waiver of dividends, because at the time that one would have the waiver there would be no right, and once one has the right one cannot waive it. If my reading of the situation is correct, no CTT would arise, but perhaps the Chief Secretary would like to comment on that. Mr. Joel Barnett I shall try to deal with every point raised, and I shall do my best to deal with them as seriously as have all hon. Members. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) gave the example of one of my hon. Friends having a claim against me because I knocked her down and she broke a leg, but she was generous enough not to claim. The hon. Gentleman suggested that she might be liable, because of that generosity, to capital transfer tax on the amount she might have forgone. I dealt with that point earlier when another example was given in which I had been brought to an untimely end—or near to an end—by an accident and I, equally, had refused to claim. I pointed out—I thought to the satisfaction of the Committee that under Clause 18 (4) there would be no question of any liability to capital transfer tax because there would have been no intention Mr. Ridley There could in certain circumstances be an intention. The point of my analogy was that there was an intention to confer a gratuitous benefit. Mr. Barnett That is an entirely different circumstance. With respect, all that the hon. Gentleman gave as an example was that my hon. Friend in a certain incident of which the hon. Gentleman gave us a graphic illustration decided to forgo a right to claim against me. In those circumstances, I say again, because of Clause 18(4) there would be no liability. I said exactly that. [column 567]I do not know why the hon. Gentleman is looking so puzzled. Sir John Hall I am a little puzzled. The clause, says that the transfer “was not made in a transaction intended, to confer any gratuitous benefit …” . First, the hon. Lady damaged in an accident and having a right to action—probably a successful right of action—intends to confer a gratuitous benefit. I agree that this might be covered by the next part of the same subsection which refers to connected persons, but the situation might be very different if the lady concerned were the right hon. Gentleman's niece, for example. 9.30 p.m. Mr. Barnett I should be delighted if the lady, my hon Friend, had been a niece, a sister or a cousin of mine, but she is not. We are talking about the incident that was graphically described. The question was put to me with serious concern that the person in question might be liable to capital transfer tax. I have been able to assure the Committee that it is not so. I do not know why that should worry the hon. Gentleman. I am telling him that that is not so under the clause. I understand that in certain instances the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of this subsection may be different from mine, but, with the advice of those who help me on these matters, I can only help the Committee as best I can by assuring it that in the circumstances described there would be no liability to capital transfer tax. I move on to the second example, the serious case of the Revenue failing to exercise its right against any number of councillors against whom it could claim because they had offended against a particular section of the law. That [sic] the Revenue would not be liable to the tax in any case. We are talking about individuals liable to tax, not about bodies such as the Inland Revenue. I am sure that the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and the Committee will be delighted to know that it would not be affected. The third and most interesting example given was the failure to collect a gambling debt from a croupier. I am happy to say, that quite apart from anything in the capital transfer tax, failure to collect a gambling debt would not apply—I hear the right hon. [column 568]Lady muttering—because there is no enforceable right. There would be no liability. Mr. Graham Page The clause nowhere says a “legal right” —only a “right” . Mr. Barnett It may be as the right hon. Gentleman says. But there is certainly no enforceable right. We are talking about an option and a right to give. There is no right to accept or receive. There can be no legal right as regards the croupier. Mr. Ridley If the croupier gives me a cheque for my winnings and it bounces, there is a right and I can pursue the issuer of that cheque in law until I collect it. If I refrain from pursuing that right in law, I make the croupier a gratuitous transfer. Mr. Barnett What I like about the hon. Gentleman is the way he rapidly moves from one point to another. He has now moved to an entirely different point. In certain circumstances—it would depend on the case—the hon. Gentleman, being the generous man that he is, was seeking to make a donation, a gift, a transfer that could be caught under the Act. There is nothing fresh or new about that. If the hon. Gentleman seeks to give his money away to croupiers, far be it from me to prevent him. The hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) told us in his affable manner that he has no wish to waste the time of the Committee, and certainly I have no wish to accuse him of misleading the Committee in any statement that he cares to make. I accept that, and I shall deal seriously with the points that he raised. The hon. and learned Gentleman said he has not been reassured so far. I know that he will accept from me, in the best possible spirit, that I have found it over the years extremely difficult to satisfy or reassure him. If I do not manage it this time, I hope he will forgive me. However, I shall try my best. The first case the hon. and learned Gentleman raised was the failure by a widow to take up a rights issue, let us say, because of the lack of ready funds. Again, in those circumstances there would be no intention to confer a gratuitous benefit on any person, and there would be no liability to capital transfer tax under Clause 18(4). I may, with luck, have reassured the hon. and learned Gentleman on that point. [column 569] The second point concerned a claim for damages against a newspaper. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman has a right of action against a newspaper which he gives up. He decides generously not to proceed against the newspaper—or perhaps not generously, because he feels that he does not want to go to court and pursue the case because the newspapers may have some facts he does not like brought out, or for some other reason—— Mr. Ridley Supposing the newspaper is run by his son. Mr. Barnett If I may finish the comment I was making, I think it will entirely meet the point raised by the hon. Gentleman as well as that raised by his hon. and learned Friend. When he gives up that right of action against the editor of some great paper, who happens to be his son, if it is not a transaction intended to confer a gratuitous benefit it will [sic] be liable to capital transfer tax. If, on the other hand, there is such an intention, he will be caught by the capital transfer tax. I take the starting point that the hon. and learned Gentleman fairly did, that he does not like the tax but we are debating it. If the transfer had been made gratuitously with the intention of conferring a benefit it would be liable to the capital transfer tax. But in the type of case he described to us I am happy to say that it would not be caught. Let me turn to the interesting instance of a man who had a right to a gravel pit and did not exercise the right to take it up. I could think of some interesting other examples, but I do not wish to burden the Committee with them because they are on precisely the same issue. I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not wish to make any innuendoes, as he told us, and I believe every word he tells me. I am that kind of naive person, and I know that he would not tell untruths to the Committee. Mr. Peter Rees That is putting it too far. Mr. Barnett I am sure that he will agree that he would not wish to tell untruths to the Committee. I see that he is nodding, so we shall assume that there was no innuendo intended. I am glad to have his agreement. We are talking now [column 570]about a fictitious person who had a right to a gravel pit which he failed to exercise. I am happy to tell the hon. and learned Gentleman, who he would not wish that person to be liable to capital transfer tax unnecessarily, that if there was no intention to confer a gratuitous benefit he would not be liable to capital transfer tax, and, indeed, the example he gave, as with a number of others, is on all fours with many of the examples put forward this evening. The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Lamont) gave us the example of a person who waives a dividend. As he fairly said, in the case of close companies it happens frequently. It certainly happened with the companies that I advised from time to time in the past—those marvellous days in the past. It was certainly true that it was reasonable to advise such a company from time to time, in certain circumstances, not to declare dividends, properly and quite honourably, and therefore save certain tax liabilities. Mr. Norman Lamont I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman did not wish to confine himself to declaring dividends. Mr. Barnett I take the point. What frequently happens in a family company is that it would not get to the point of declaring the dividend. It simply would not declare a dividend at all. More often than not, it would not get to the point of declaring one and waiving it. I see the hon. Gentleman nodding assent. But if a dividend had been declared in a close company and the company waived it to save tax, I assure the Committee that because it did it for that reason and was not intending to give any gratuitous transfer, there would therefore be no liability to capital transfer tax. As I said in my letter, for which the hon. Member has the advantage of me—I send one or two letters out from time to time and I cannot recollect the one to which he referred—if the estate is diminished in giving the gratuitous transfer, there would be liability to capital transfer tax, because that is what it would be—a transfer caught under capital transfer tax. That is an entirely separate matter, as I am sure the hon. Member will understand. He talked of the waiving of a dividend, or not [column 571]declaring a dividend for the purpose of saving tax. I am pleased to see that the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) in his customary reasonable manner, noted the arguments that I deployed a little earlier. The first case he put to me was that of a man or woman who did not want to take up a right under a will. Again his or her estate would be diminished but there would be, I assume, no intent to convey a gratuitous transfer. In those circumstances, I am sure there would be no liability to tax. The second example was the agricultural tied cottage where, out of the kindness of his heart the hon. Gentleman sought to give up that right. In certain circumstances, one can see that his estate would be diminished and that he could be giving a gratuitous transfer. But every case will depend on the circumstances. Mr. MacGregor I was raising the case of the possible right to dispute a will in the first case. The Chief Secretary has just said that there would be no intention to confer a gratuitous benefit. But my point is that there would. The person was not taking up his right to dispute the will because he wanted to confer the benefit on the person who had benefited under the will, for the reasons I gave. Mr. Barnett The answer is clear. Many gifts are given out of pure kindness of heart. In the instance the hon. Gentleman has given, it would be a straight transfer with the intention of having his estate diminished and giving a gratuitous benefit. In the instance he now describes it would be on all fours with any other gift or transfer. Mr. MacGregor It is a most unfortunate consequence of this parliament of the Bill that acts of kindness are adversely affected in that way, and probably are thereby prevented. The response the Chief Secretary has given on the first point shows that this is a serious defect in this subparagraph of the Bill. Next, the agricultural tied cottage, which is relevant to later parts of the Bill. The Chief Secretary said that the Inland Revenue would look at each case individually to judge whether it was a gratuitous benefit. From the answer he [column 572]has just given on the right to dispute a will, it appears that the Inland Revenue has no possibility of taking a beneficial view. In the case of an agricultural tied cottage, if the farmer needs that cottage for somebody else but allows the original tenant to stay on for as long a period as possible after his retirement, that must be the conferring of a gratuitous benefit. But if I am wrong in that and if the Chief Secretary is saying that the Inland Revenue has discretion to take a view, is he saying that under Clause 36 a deliberate decision to let someone live in a rent-free cottage for fair and generous reasons is one on which the Inland Revenue has a discretion to decide whether it is a transfer of value or not? Mr. Barnett As I said at the beginning, in every case the matter will have to be decided separately, because it is not easy to decide whether there has been a transfer of value. If there has been a transfer of value, and all the other conditions apply, he will be caught. On the question of the will, perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman here. But let me hasten to assure him that a transfer is often made for kind and generous reasons. It is not always so, but it is often the reason under the estate duty, and that is why estate duty in many instances simply was not paid. That is one reason why we are to have a capital transfer tax. 9.45 p.m. Where there is a dispute under a will, there are two years to give up a legacy under that will. I assume the hon. Gentleman takes the point, and I know the right hon. Lady does because of her knowledge of the law. As there are two years in which to disclaim a legacy, there would be no question of the Revenue claiming tax on an omission to exercise the right to dispute the will in that sense. The example given by the hon. Gentleman was a totally different one and I think he shifted his ground. Mr. MacGregor The Chief Secretary misunderstood me. Mr. Barnett Perhaps I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. I am sorry. I thought that he was telling me that [column 573]the person in question was seeking to give a gratuitous benefit. It was not a question of a dispute, but that he was seeking to give that benefit. That is slightly different, but if there is any misunderstanding between us I apologise to him. However, I hope that all hon. Gentlemen will agree that I have done my very best to help them on the excellent examples they have given to us. Under subsection (4) most of the examples, if not all of them, would be saved from the rigours of the tax. Sir John Hall There is just one point I should like to take up with the Chief Secretary. During the course of our exchanges one interesting factor that has emerged goes far wider than perhaps the Chief Secretary realises. In his explanation as to the effect on tied cottages and possible liability to capital gains tax, he said that the Inland Revenue would have to decide the various cases on their merit. That would seem to indicate to me that there could be occasions, perhaps many occasions, when a liability to capital transfer tax would arise. This is a very serious statement to make, because it leaves farmers all over the country in considerable doubt as to what action they might take. We have a great deal of discussion from time to time about the tied cottage system, and there is no doubt that many farmers allow retired workers to stay on in their cottages, for all sorts of very good reasons. We ought to encourage that. If there is going to be the fear that farmers who do that might become liable to a capital transfer tax this will be most discouraging and have an effect that this Government would not wish to create. Therefore, I think that the Chief Secretary ought to be a little clearer in answer to the point so cogently made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) on this issue of the tied cottage, because we do not want the message to go out from this Committee that there is a possible risk of a farmer incurring a capital transfer tax liability for doing something which everybody else is encouraging him to do. Mr. Peter Rees I am grateful to the Chief Secretary for endeavouring to [column 574]answer the point that we put to him. Even though I sketched out—with, I hope, a light touch—certain hypothetical examples, none the less the underlying legal point was a very serious one. It seemed to me that in almost every case the Chief Secretary was forced back to the position where he said that the words in subsection (4) took that particular transaction outside the scope of capital transfer tax. I would not wish to interrupt the deliberations which the Chief Secretary is having with the hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs Hayman) because the point which I wish to make is quite a serious one. I would never wish to come between the Chief Secretary and the hon. Lady. If he wishes to confer with her then, Mr. Crawshaw, with your permission, I shall wait and try and catch your eye in a moment or two. If he wishes to listen to me, then perhaps I may proceed. The point I am making is a serious one and I want a serious answer. I am prepared to stay here just as long—[Interruption.] If hon. Members opposite do not appreciate the points made from this side, it is simply because, as has become very apparent, with one or two honourable exceptions they have not applied themselves one whit to the Bill. I believe that that reflects upon the occupants of the Government benches. They are putting through a Bill which can do incalculable damage to the economic and social structure of this country, and to go like sheep into the lobby behind their Ministers without knowing at all in detail what the Bill attempts to enact reflects no credit on them whatsoever. If they wish to make the point that I am arrogant, let them get up and make it in a standing position and I will give way to them. I wish to make a serious point and I hope that I shall get a serious answer, uninterrupted by uninformed comments from a seated position by hon. Members opposite. In almost every case the Chief Secretary—does the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) wish me to give way to him? Mr. Sedgemore I was just wondering, Mr. Crawshaw, whether the Committee really has to put up with the defence mechanisms of the inferior. Mr. Rees If I may resume, the Chief Secretary in every case was forced back on to subsection (4) and he was compelled to say in almost every case that the omission to exercise that particular right would not confer any gratuitous benefit on the person against whom the right subsisted. The point I wish to put to him is this. Would he please define what he understands the words “gratuitous benefit” to mean? Do they mean that some positive, quantifiable benefit in money or money's worth has to be conferred on a person? Or is it intended to cover, for instance, the mere conferral of what I will call a negative benefit? If one does not inflict upon the person the trouble and expense of litigation, leaving aside the possibility or probability that damages may result, in that situation, if one does not exercise a right, does one intend to confer a gratuitous benefit upon the person against whom the right of action subsists? This is a very serious point, although it may have eluded the attention of hon. Members sitting on the Government benches. I should like a comprehensive and intelligible definition from the Chief Secretary of that very important phrase. May I suggest to him, in a constructive and helpful spirit, that, if there is any doubt on the point we should return to this on Report when he should attempt either to redefine the phrase “gratuitous benefit” , or alternatively to redefine the term “right” . He will have noticed, for instance, that an amendment in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends seeks to limit the term “right” in subsection (7) to, for instance, rights over property. That is just one suggestion. It is perhaps a probing amendment. But I should like the Chief Secretary first to attempt to define “gratuitous benefit” , so that we may understand just how much of a safeguard subsection (4) provides. If he is in any doubt about the subject, will he consider a redefinition of that on Report? As an alternative proposition, would he consider defining the word “right” for the purposes of subsection (7)? Mr. Graham Page It is possibly the fault of this side of the Committee that we have confused two separate subjects in discussing the amendment. The amendment and subsection (7) deal with a disposition, and only with a disposition. [column 576]We have been led, perhaps through our own fault or perhaps through the Chief Secretary's endeavours to explain it, into considering the gratuitous benefit. What the subsection says is that any omission to exercise any right—neither the omission nor the right is defined—shall be treated as a disposition It does not say that it shall be treated as a gratuitous disposition or as a disposition that attracts tax. But once it has said that statutorily there shall be this fiction that an omission to exercise a right is a disposition, the citizen is thrown back on to subsection (4) to prove positively that disposition is not a transfer of capital value which attracts the tax. But once it has said that statutorily there shall be this fiction, that an omission to exercise a right is a disposition, the citizen is thrown back on to subsection (4) to prove positively that that disposition is not a transfer of capital value that attracts the tax. There are those two steps. I do not think that we are discussing the second step except that it is something into which the potential taxpayer is driven by this statutory definition of disposition. The clause is bad in this respect in defining what is an omission, or what is a right. We have given many examples that could come under the term “right” . But we ought not to be asked to create the statutory disposition in this way, which will put great liability on the parties concerned to prove negatives in order to escape tax. Although I agree entirely that there may be instances when subsection (7) would be right and proper—an omission to exercise a right would be rightly described as a disposition—the description is so bad in this clause that the subsection ought not to stand part of the clause. I hope that my colleagues will join with me in voting against this subsection. Mr. MacGregor The agricultural tied cottage brings out one of the anxieties about this subsection. On later clauses I proposed to raise the subject of the agricultural tied cottage, because that is relevant to the giving of a benefit in property at less than the commercial rental value. But it comes out very strikingly here. It brings out the anxiety that there is a difference between the non-exercise of a right and the giving away of positive assets. [column 577] If one says that all non-exercises of rights are the same as giving away positive assets, one seriously affects the way of life of many people, for this provision introduces a new element into acts of kindness. People have to start to put a financial calculation into specific acts of kindness. If the Chief Secretary is worried about the non-exercise of rights in relation to, say, rights issues, he should accept Amendment No. 788. It would deal with the point that he has in mind, but it would not produce all the other detrimental effects, which many of us are beginning to recognise to be in this subsection. Mr. Joel Barnett I am beginning to think that the major difference between the hon Gentleman and myself is that I can see that if this clause and some of the subsections that we have been debating were not in the Bill, there would be substantial loopholes—as I think the hon. Gentleman recognised—whereby the capital transfer tax could be avoided. The hon. Gentleman tells me that I have constantly been forced back on Clause 18(4). I do not know why that should concern him. I am trying to show the Committee that that is to the benefit of the person who is genuinely not seeking to gain a transfer of value for benefit. At last I see the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) nodding. I am delighted. Therefore, the reason why I constantly go back to Clause 18(4) is that that subsection helps taxpayers who might otherwise have been caught under the capital transfer tax when there was no intention to make a gratuitous transfer. Mr. Peter Rees I know that the Chief Secretary has been under great strain for 24 hours. However, he seems to have missed my point. I do not complain that he constantly goes back to subsection (4). But he has not convinced me as to the precise meaning of “intending to confer” any gratuitous benefit. It is that point on which I want him to focus. 10.0 p.m. Sitting suspended for Divisions in the House. [column 578] 10.26 p.m. On resuming— Mr. Joel Barnett May I perhaps try again to deal with two matters that were raised. The first is the tied cottage, which I know genuinely concerns hon. Members, and I shall try my best to help them. The other matter was raised by the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) and concerned the definition of gratuitous benefits for value. If a farmer allowed a tenant to live in a tied cottage rent free, by the very nature of things that would be out of income. Because it is part of his rental income, it would be out of income. I think that was the burden of the argument. If a generous man allowed the tenant of a tied cottage to live there rent free, would he be caught under the capital transfer tax? The answer is that because it is rent free, it would be out of the income of the owner of the tied cottage and therefore, exempt from capital transfer tax. I hope that that answers the point. Mrs. Thatcher It seems to me that that argument applies if one lends someone money interest free. It would, by the same argument, be out of income. Mr. Barnett We have a provision dealing with precisely that matter, as the right hon. Lady knows, and we will be looking at it. But we could be talking about a much bigger amount. One could give £1 million as a loan tax free, and there could certainly be some gratuitous transfer. I see the right hon. Lady nodding. But here we are talking about a tied cottage where the rent, anyway, would be modest and exempting it from rent, giving it generously rent free, I am assured—I hope this pleases hon. Gentlemen—would make that out of income. The right hon. Lady is nodding. I hope that she can persuade her hon. Friends that that is the case. Sir John Hall If the tenant had been paying a modest rent and continued paying that rent, although allowed to continue after the farmer had the right to repossess the cottage, would the same situation arise? Mr. Barnett Certainly. It would be [column 579]out of income. In any case, he is getting an income as he was before. There is no gratuitous benefit. There is no transfer. I hope I have satisfied everyone on that point. 10.30 p.m. Mr. Jack Dunnett I follow my right hon. Friend's reasoning so far, but let us suppose that the farmer, who would not otherwise have utilised this tied cottage for another tenant, decides to capitalise and sell it—I understand that cottages in some parts of the country have a high value. Would the same argument apply? Mr. Barnett I doubt whether the value would be high with the tenant in the cottage. Mr. Dunnett That is not the point. Mr. Barnett Whoever owns it, I presume that there would be a contract from the original first owner whereby there was no rent payable, otherwise we are not talking about anything. We are discussing a case where a farmer allows a tenant to live in a tied cottage completely free of rent. Mr. Dunnett After his employment is terminated? Mr. Barnett Yes. That is the point. My hon. Friend says that it would be out of income and therefore exempt under another part of the Bill. The owner of that cottage then sells it to another gentleman. Mr. Dunnett My hon. Friend has not understood my contention. We get to the point where the owner of the cottage has the right to have possession because the service tenant has ceased the employment. Out of the goodness of his heart, the employer permits his former servant to remain and thereby losses the rental income he might have received if he had taken possession and re-let. But let us suppose that he decides not to re-let the cottage, having exercised his strict rights and not been kindly, and it is advertised by one of the larger West End agents who sell it for “X” thousand pounds. Would that make any difference to the view that my right hon. Friend is now propounding? Mr. Barnett My hon. Friend is [column 580]seeking to take two entirely separate transactions. The first transaction is quite clear, and I see that he accepts the argument. Even though the farmer has the right to sell, he decides not to do so but to let the tenant live rent free. He is not giving a gratuitous transfer of the value of the cottage to the tenant. He has given to him only the benefit of living there rent free. He has not given the tenant the benefit of the cottage. He is not giving a gratuitous transfer of the value of the cottage to the tenant, because the tenant does not have the right to sell it. His only right is to live in the cottage rent free. There is, therefore, no liability for capital transfer tax, because that would be out of income. Now we come to the second point. The owner of the cottage then proceeds to sell it for market value. I assume that is what my hon. Friend is saying. Mr. Wiggin Suppose he dies? Mr. Barnett We arrive at the same situation. Somebody else then owns the cottage and the only benefit is that the tenant is living there rent free. There is no gratuitous transfer other than the rent. That would be out of income and exempt from tax. That seems quite clear to me. Mr. Dunnett I regret to say that it is not clear to me. I am sorry to pursue this matter, but, having started, I must finish. I thought we were taking the case where the owner of a cottage had the right to possession but deliberately did not exercise that right because he had a certain feeling for his former employee and gave him a gratuitous benefit by allowing him to remain in the cottage rent free. The alternative for the tenant would be either to buy or rent accommodation elsewhere. The farmer is therefore giving a gratuitous benefit. However, he chooses not to do that and his alternative gives him a benefit. The alternative is that he either rents it to someone or sells it. Mr. Barnett May we take it in turn. Mr. Dunnett It is all one transaction. Mr. Barnett Yes, but let us take it in turn it may be easier. The only benefit given to the tenant of that tied cottage—he does not have the benefit of the [column 581]cottage or the right to sell it—is the right to live there rent free. He has no other right. My hon. Friend has made the point that this farmer will sell the cottage to somebody else. Clearly, the tenant of the cottage is not receiving any benefit. Mr. Denzil Davies Could it not be said, following these arguments, that the value of the tenant's estate has not been increased. To come within subsection (7) the value of the landlord's estate is to be diminished and the value of the tenant's estate is to be increased. I should have thought that the value of the tenant's estate was not being increased. He is merely being allowed to live there rent free. Mr. Dunnett Surely it is increased to the extent of the rent that he would otherwise have paid. Mr. Barnett My hon. Friend is absolutely right. His estate has increased to the value of the rent that he would otherwise have paid. That is the transfer. It is the transfer out of income and therefore is exempt. I do not know why hon. Gentlemen are so upset because I told them it would be exempt. If that does not satisfy them, I shall try to find a way of making it taxable. I do not know what more I can say. Mr. Wiggin The point is surely that the cottage has two values. If it has vacant possession it is worth, say, £10,000 and if it is rented to a service tenant it is worth £1,000. If the owner dies, is the successor to the freehold, who is nothing to do with the tenant, to be sued for the difference? That surely is what we are talking about. It is nothing to do with the tenant. Mr. Barnett The successor to the owner of the cottage will not have made a gratuitous transfer to anyone, except if he still continues he will have given the rental income of the cottage to the present tenant. It is not a question of getting it with vacant possession. There is a contract, we assume, or an agreement with the first owner that the tenant shall stay there without rent. That is his right. Under that right the only benefit he gets is to live there rent free. Under the terms of the Bill, there is no liability to tax. If the owner sells the cottage, the next owner sells it, the owner after that [column 582]sells it and it is sold 75 times in the same year, there will still be no liability to capital transfer tax on the rental income that has been forgone for the tenant. I hope I have satisfied my hon. Friend. Mr. Dunnett My right hon. Friend has completely satisfied me. I shall now be able to see it in black and white. He has cleared up the point for me. Mr. Barnett I turn to the point made so lucidly by the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal, who has waited patiently for me to come to it. He gave us a number of examples of cases, but the one about which he was particularly concerned was a claim for damages. He was especially concerned about a—— Mr. Wm. Ross I am not altogether happy about the cottager. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, it is proposed that capital transfer tax shall be charged on agricultural land at 20 times the annual rental value. Will this apply to the cottage which has no rental value whatsoever? Mr. Barnett The rental value of agricultural land will be assessed for value of the land. We shall be coming to that later. The value of the land is usually low for rental purposes, but it is an entirely separate point. I am sure I shall please the hon. Gentleman by making it clear to him that if the farmer seeks to give generously the tied cottage free of tax for life, or whatever, to the former employee of that farmer, there will be no question of capital transfer tax. The whole question of the relief we are proposing for land for particular types of working farmers is something we shall be coming to, and I shall be happy to deal with that point when we do. The hon. and learned Gentleman and I are finding it very difficult to get together on this matter. He is concerned about the definition of gratuitous benefit for value. I understand his concern. I have tried to explain it on the many amendments we have discussed on the clause for some time now, but I have not been able to satisfy him. It is also possible that I have not been able to satisfy the right hon. Lady and other hon. Members. May I therefore say, to circumvent the situation, that I shall be happy to look at the matter of [column 583]the definition with a view to seeing if I can help him and others on Report. Perhaps with that assurance the hon. Gentleman will feel that he can withdraw the amendment. Mr. David Howell I know the Chief Secretary is anxious to make progress, although that may not be immediately apparent from the rather prolonged explanation he has just given. I know it was a difficult point, and the Chief Secretary's difficulty is that he is trying to deal with a clause which is riddled with nonsense. At every point, it emerges that normal life is pot-holed with potential gratuitous benefits. We have just touched on one we accept uneasily the reassurance of the Chief Secretary on the question of tied cottages. I think we shall want to return to this subject as we may find that rather larger potential gratuitous benefits arise from arrangements of this kind which are borne—as are many other arrangements that can be imagined—not out of the desire to avoid taxes, [column 584]but simply out of that rare thing which sometimes the hon. Gentlemen opposite seem so determined to legislate out of existence, human kindness. The Chief Secretary wants to make progress, and so do we. He is wading around in a quagmire in this clause. He has said that there is a vast range of cases in which the Inland Revenue would arrive, by rules totally unspecified and on criteria which are vague in the extreme, at an assessment on whether a gratuitous disposition or gratuitous benefit had been intended. This is not legislation, but vague obscurity, and for that general reason, added to all the other specific points that my right hon. and hon. Friends have made, I strongly advise this side of the Committee to press the amendment to a Division. Question put, That the amendment be made:— The Committee divided: Ayes 14, Noes 15. Division No. 12.] Cope, Mr. John Hall, Sir John Howell, Mr. David Lamont, Mr. Norman MacGregor, Mr. John Newton, Mr. Tony Page, Mr. R. Graham Pardoe, Mr. John Parkinson, Mr. Cecil Rees, Mr. Peter Ridley, Mr. Nicholas Ross, Mr. Wim. Thatcher Mrs. Margaret Wiggin, Mr. Jerry Barnett, Mr. Joel Bates, Mr. Alf Boothroyd, Miss Betty Callaghan, Mr. Jim Davies, Mr. Denzil Dunnett, Mr. Jack Gilbert, Dr. John Graham, Mr. Ted Hamling, Mr. William Harper, Mr. Joseph Hayman, Mrs. Helene Hughes, Mr. Mark Sedgemore, Mr. Brian Tomlinson, Mr. John Ward, Mr. Michael Question accordingly negatived. Copyright © Margaret Thatcher Foundation 2024. All Rights Reserved.

right

speech etc clause standing committee thursday january mr richard crawshaw chair clause transfer chargeable transfer pm mr john pardoe beg amendment page leave line insert chairman follow amendment page line leave insert page line leave page line leave second page line leave person end line page line benefit insert money money worth page line leave end line page line leave connect mr pardoe thank committee await return clear chief secretary mood night thing possibly persuade allow committee rise thought miss move amendment grateful time thing excellently start proceeding amendment afternoon column warn committee chief secretary keep longstanding tradition liberal party turn pumpkin midnight intend proceed midnight tonight amendment amendment extremely modest reasonable probably deal quickly reasonable await chief secretary reason refuse bated breath real question ask amendment prove transaction intend confer gratuitous benefit person bill state page line amendment state bill draft refer gratuitous benefactor term bill draft intend amendment inland revenue point consider longstanding tradition innocent prove guilty survive matter taxation point want chief secretary address reply necessary particular case throw overboard longstanding tradition individual innocent prove guilty place burden proof individual good reason burden proof inland revenue virtually tax matter chief secretary dissent view think right say virtually case deal inland revenue put one expenditure course parliamentary duty taxable deduction inland revenue remain true virtually aspect tax law second point like chief secretary column gratuitous benefactor intend gratuitous benefit shall proof show exactly produce intend particular gift direct gift gift kind way gratuitous benefit suffice proof bill stay necessary bill suggest amendment mr graham page support hon member cornwall north mr pardoe amendment see amendment discuss amendment seek thing amendment nos achieve objective hon gentlemans amendment support hon gentleman say proof necessary clause draft donor donor require prove negative wonderful double negative line subsection start proposition disposition transfer value catch tax clause donor prove thing donor decide disposition define clause having decide disposition meaning clause catch tax discharge burden proof innovation type tax law normally merely require return property income capital gain decently believe honest doubtful inland revenue prove tell pack lie start assume citizen dishonest make return gratuitous insult amendment right hon friend colleague wish define clearly meaning column benefit word benefit come line subsection clause phrase benefit monetary benefit sort benefit need indication bill mean word amendment order elucidation provision seek add word think necessary spend time purpose obvious word reasonable hope accept amendment delete paragraph b subsection try understand purpose subsection turn memorandum give treasury describe subsection way purpose carry line subsection paragraph b superfluous paragraph b require donor prove matter escape tax disposition paragraph prove disposition necessary require prove transaction arm length surely tax fall disposition gratuitous benefit condition apply secondly mean word end paragraph amendment seek delete word add way subsection read paragraph column vision people arm length connect conjure sort picture mind bestow gratuitous benefit chief secretary tell absolutely necessary negative donor prove escape tax paragraph b deal amendment amendment include well leave confine paragraph extent admit chief secretary probe amendment think worth put probe amendment suggest constructive solution amendment intend believe amendment hon member cornwall north probe amendment deal basic clause constructive suggestion clause easy administer know hold principle opposition improve government bill let stew juice committee reasonable put forward constructive amendment try well clause chief secretary treasury mr joel barnett deal point raise hon member cornwall north mr pardoe oblige tell fellow liberal like turn pumpkin midnight shortly thing explain seek turn rest pumpkin fail vote decide true democratic fashion ignore vote oblige hon gentleman effort pm hon gentleman say taxation generally taxpayer innocent prove guilty tell case virtually tax system know column hon gentleman read regret tell correct general rule income tax matter burden proof lie taxpayer dispute matter fact question motive intention matter fact taxpayer knowledge apply example account submit inspector taxis submit estimate assessment burden proof taxpayer estimate assessment incorrect account submit correct figure hope hon gentleman say strictly shall try explain understand hon gentleman perfectly reasonable desire onus proof revenue present case capital transfer tax party transfer nature thing possession fact impossible inspector taxis possession fact doubt possible income tax matter inspector taxis raise assessment leave burden proof taxpayer precisely situation know hon gentleman seek change burden proof taxpayer hon gentleman look somewhat oddly lest worried position taxpayer let assure taxpayer fully protect system protect right appeal provide paragraph schedule sure hon gentleman notice hon gentleman ask taxpayer prove answer perfectly reasonable subsection clause amendment relate limit wide initial charge provision subsection exclude certain transaction transaction intend second broadly arm length term reasonable taxpayer column pay capital transfer tax test meet come variety amendment right hon member crosby mr page paper mr nicholas ridley chief secretary layman example disposition transfer value mind subsection mr barnett know hon gentleman patient fellow shall deal question reply similar point right hon member crosby let begin assure right hon gentleman assume taxpayer dishonest hope say thing committee certainly wish come point raise right hon gentleman hope forgive precisely order appreciate way tell probe amendment like constructive add construction probe amendment effect amendment name right hon member finchley mrs thatcher hon friend clause read destroy relationship paragraph b subsection advise achieve particular purpose reason deal separately transaction connected person unconnected person person involve transaction connect reasonable state relevant condition form assurance ordinary business transaction stranger fall foul capital transfer tax sure right hon lady wish second reason transaction connect person clearly close scrutiny order column ensure deliberate disguise benefit perfectly reasonable capital transfer tax ensure readily avoid effect amendment leave connected person possible way satisfy relevant condition show transaction fact arm length second expect transaction arm length unconnected person distinction possibility verbal real person involve connect revenue unlikely accept alternative satisfied second satisfied hope make matter reasonably clear shall happy mr graham page find definition connect person bill get guess mr barnett start right hon gentleman mr page think help chief secretary mr barnett appreciate right hon gentleman help turn amendment subsection clause cut wide initial ambition charge exclude certain transaction intend confer gratuitous benefit person second broadly arm length term amendment remove second leg test transfer let taxpayer transaction intend confer gratuitous benefit right hon gentleman seek remove test argue demonstrate transfer intention confer gratuitous benefit trouble taxpayer burden prove arm length answer pure test intention principle appear sufficient sufficient protect revenue intention test let case gift effectively revenue column difficulty contest claim intention confer gratuitous benefit submit committee approval seek restrict initial charge give perfectly good reason taxpayer difficult prove unconnected b arm length transaction difficult transaction gratuitous benefit come amendment amendment exclude second leg test criterion transfer expect arm length transaction unconnected person mitigate stern test transfer strictly transaction arm length unconnected person right hon gentleman tell probe amendment understand effect contrary right hon gentleman mind mind leave taxpayer disadvantage subsection exclude charge tax certain transaction connect person provide expect arm length unconnected person purpose provision let genuine transaction connected person ensure charge arise asset transfer connected person circumstance ordinarily contemplate arm length sale control holding share private company sufficient deprive vendor control price reflect loss control thing mind come amendment right hon ladys take know right hon lady prefer leave stage mrs margaret thatcher wish stop joel barnettchief secretary brief clause live say column later shall example think gift ask view come clause know organisation bombard representation mean gift gift disposition kind language treat help mr barnett sorry right hon lady find difficult follow fact gift transfer arm length transfer unconnected person certain circumstance connected person sorry speak kind terminology important distinct possibility catch capital transfer tax mrs thatcher let talk human term child university university grant people wholly inadequate time means test maintain let example young person reach use one maximum gift money birthday car one exclude gift go charge transaction gift realise money maintain grant year know cost year stay university maintenance grant year father son mother daughter mother son frequently happen maintenance circumstance chief secretary connected person gift example kind example understand mr barnett right hon lady able follow example raise issue come later debate instance parent seek son car meet test meet outofincome test example shall come later hon member accept rest nod happy column pm define arm length transaction let accept father son connect person mrs thatcher yes mr barnett glad right hon lady accept secondly accept right hon lady talk arm length transaction situation shall debate later talk maintenance payment treat transfer consider total give father son mrs thatcher case chief secretary say maintenance payment chargeable gift subsection absolutely scandalous mr barnett right hon lady say correct sense look applause true treat transfer capital transfer tax taxpayer question give excess capital sum year sense right catch purpose capital transfer tax right hon lady say like understand way capital transfer tax draft later seek increase figure separate provision seek difficult doubt gift son say armslength transaction right hon ladys argument arise discuss general question father mother allow son daughter maintenance cost word subject capital transfer tax mrs thatcher issue fundamental completely exempt confess somewhat surprised ordinary maintenance payment young person work away wage insufficient university sort transfer come charge column mean give parent maintain son daughter kind payment come charge parent pay charity like got rid exemption kind maintenance payment come charge matter strike government bring ordinary maintenance payment parent child charge amazing mr barnett great respect right hon lady understand hon member committee live different kind world tell capital year plus parent like income help maintain son daughter university perfectly reasonable figure know right hon lady suggest allow unlimited figure massive hole legislation hand suggest figure large come say moment ago separate discuss certainly accept suggestion allow unlimited figure sir john hall want information point similar issue arise maintenance parent son call maintain aged parent nursing home pay capital excess year parent nursing home regard chargeable provision clause mr barnett answer yes stand moment try question size gift income sorry repeat debate committee decide figure high decide amendment sorry right hon lady point deal point quickly reach bill mrs thatcher thing regard transaction normal family helping parent maintain aged invalid parent subject chief secretary capital charge cruise spend dog charge maintain one young child start life maintain aged parent go capital transfer tax mr barnett point bill stand maintain aged parent young daughter limit income separate discuss later argue sure right hon lady argue amendment discuss people concern connect person sorry language bill debate connect person dispute arm length transaction use language bill debate well shall debate later question exempt shall happy look mr david howell fast chief secretary follow suggestion hon friend member cirencester tewkesbury mr ridley right hon friend everyday real life example mean far elucidate connected person mean father son mother daughter mean relative understand talk mr barnett sure hon gentleman read page bill know exactly sure hon gentleman forget clause page define connect person mr nigel lawson chief secretary say situation refer right hon friend member finchley mrs thatcher sum show opposition live world totally different hon friend year vast column money sum year allowance week person give christmas present birthday present child thing tot left suggest vast sum large allowance maintenance child maintenance aged parent point right hon friend chief secretary indication test income logic government treat generously person case gift de minimis rule christmas birthday present record tot end year come mr joel barnett want trespass generosity mr crawshaw know shall reach point outofincome test time hon gentleman patience matter know wish widely order answer question shall happy come bill hasten assure hon gentleman capital plus possible income definition come later substantial figure vast majority people say want say vast majority people unreasonable committee course accept discuss later point help committee size shall debate mrs thatcher want stop chief secretary leave ministry education annual cost go oxford cambridge college year income test person receive minimum grant virtue allow child oxford cambridge college having obtain place having fail income test grant actually charge allow facility column get free totally cost state mr barnett right hon lady right bill stand case take income capital catch seek deny think repeat frequently say come debate define question outofincome right hon lady right bill stand amend wait reach appropriate clause hope right hon lady understand stage pm mr graham page ask chief secretary question let suppose sell piece land disposition dispute value land sell value submit inland revenue valuation land order subsection prove disposition value suppose produce evidence effect prove intend confer gratuitous benefit earth prove know habit purchaser happen sell house convenient pub heavy drinker get great benefit take house exaggerate course want know mean benefit word money money worth want know benefit prove purchaser gratuitous benefit prove transfer arm length taxable transfer connect person occasion conveyance land sort enter one return purchaser aunt uncle son form connected person go ask affidavit effect purchaser way relate transaction column length subsection put burden citizen prove say presume mean say accept citizen say purchaser aunt uncle relative take show taxable transfer earth draftsman clause taxable transfer gift gift taxable transfer simple positive instead double negative treble negative clause extremely painful try understand clause turn round ifs but qualification think right beginning chief secretary assure get wrong understand say like see perfectly simple clause chief secretary consult parliamentary draftsman know eager parliamentary draftsman slight error extent little verbose wish parliamentary draftsman find simple phrase express chief secretary want mr joel barnett appreciate painful right hon gentleman assure prefer simple clause problem hate right hon gentleman easy understand wait get particular point later amendment clause right hon gentleman refer euphemistically call bad bargain amendment come shortly nod fact example way round clearly benefit right hon gentleman transfer piece land know worth million connected person family consider conceivably gratuitous transfer course look closely circumstance right hon gentleman ask taxpayer include tax return taxpayer satisfied column transfer piece land perfectly properly arm length value secure reasonable price land normal circumstance know question give anybody benefit include tax return capital transfer liable capital transfer tax perfectly understandable hope right hon gentleman take point question bad bargain shall come matter later amendment clause doubt shall opportunity discuss mr graham page right hon gentleman sit schedule need return single disposition ask make return say sell piece land year citizen add proof necessitate word show subsection mr ridley apologise miss chief secretary speech like ask hypothetical question catch subsection sell house hurry money need quickly pay debt virtually take offer come subsequently adjacent similar house sell high price owner wait good offer disposal confer gratuitous benefit clearly advantageous wait receive high price sense person give gift purchaser house happen one aunt buy house presumably severe test pass allow away circumstance example topical sale british petroleum holding burmah oil company own bank england let suppose burmah oil company private individual circumstance easy envisage day bennery national enterprise government drive hard bargain seek large block share cent market value presumably director burmah oil gratuitous transfer disposal government know come column corporate private matter burmah oil private company share sell cheaply government bank england presumably burmah obtain fight bargain hard view share hon friend disgraceful transaction case director surcharge capital transfer tax liability realise potential firm say likely connect person involve transaction transaction catch mr joel barnett regret tell hon gentleman know read amendment closely come matter refer bad bargain clearly transfer arm length right catch doubt hon gentlemans aunt difficulty matter difficulty transfer house aunt know house worth sorry underestimate price mr ridley worth like mr barnett price transfer aunt think unreasonable confer gratuitous benefit aunt aware say unaware tax return clearly tell untruth suggest moment thing give example general term doubt sort difficulty hon gentleman refer shall discuss question bad bargain amendment hope possible satisfy hon gentleman point mr john cope want delay committee matter think hear chief secretary hon friend member cirencester tewkesbury mr ridley element gratuitous column face arm length right read bill like say satisfy test clause say addition arm length test gratuitous benefit lack gratuitous benefit pass say hon friend large number asset value define thing house lot value example house auction seller say estate agent want sell house discuss value eventually seller say reserve price buyer come say prepared pay come say near golf course play golf prepared pay second buyer get house need bid little buyer value house sense pay buyer get worth gratuitous benefit prepared pay sense value sense way pay seller ask basis advice test gratuitous benefit extremely difficult complex provision pass transaction arm length mr lawson probe little like know puzzle chief secretary explain hope mind explain benefit concern second criterion satisfied subsection say column intend bring possibility arm length transaction connect person perfectly reasonable treat equally arm length transaction unconnected person case surely paragraph transaction arm length contain word surely transaction arm length good matter person connect absurdity distinction arm length transaction person connect person connect boringly long way round b connect transfer arm length basis c connect turn c transfer genuine arm length basis b deal take place arm length basis way course direct transfer connect person transaction arm length matter connect like clarification paragraph b turn point raise right hon friend member finchley mrs thatcher help one child pay way university parent reasonably want hope candidate extinction socialist utopia firm employee pay university qualified come firm suppose father say son pay university come family business genuine arm length type transaction large company ici adopt practice chief secretary assure small family business treat favourably ici shell unilever situation kind pm mr joel barnett hon member gloucestershire south mr cope unintentionally mislead think deal test answer hon member column tewkesbury mr ridley deal test deal test intend confer benefit test perfectly clear connect person question intend confer benefit know aunt necessary onus taxpayer bring original point start hour ago hon member cornwall north mr pardoe inspector possibly know intention taxpayer confer gratuitous benefit think crystal clear discussion hour inspector taxis know gratuitous benefit intend hope deal point hon member gloucestershire south doubt tell hon member blaby mr lawson raise point subsection envisage situation arm length test need let example situation man cent share private company control interest transfer cent share cent modest value minority interest transfer connected person cent remain family important know particular aspect transfer carry hon gentleman mr norman lamont person cent holding intention pass control cousin sell share cousin arm length transaction market price effect bill intention attribute mr barnett necessarily arm length transaction market value catch provision perfectly reasonable hon gentleman show impossible simple term complex area column right hon member crosby mr page suggest amendment leave large loophole make possible transfer benefit able liable capital transfer tax clause simple hon gentleman like finally let come point repeat hon member blaby pay student university shall come later question allowable liable capital transfer tax usually taxpayer pay grant reasonable income enormous mrs thatcher gross mr barnett gross possible spare income come later gratuitous transfer depend entirely figure eventually decide bill limit capital crucial gratuitous transfer case student impossible discuss know figure moment discuss context discuss clause mr lawson ask chief secretary discuss know come eventually take point say arm length transaction right include arm length transaction connect person answer question mr barnett answer minute ago test hon member gloucestershire south mr cope mention subsection provision cut wide initial ambit charge exclude transaction intend confer gratuitous benefit person broadly arm length term word broadly think deal point hon member gloucestershire south arm length transaction house sell slightly high column certain circumstance arm length transaction broad term test composite consider fact taxpayer view intention confer benefit know mr lawson entirely point test second test try chief secretary precise know keep read bill clear say pass test intention confer gratuitous benefit gratuitous benefit fine second test arm length transaction connect person right fact connect person exclude arm length provision sense make transaction arm length person connect second case meet arm length transaction connected person type case discuss pay university worry test income test thing perfectly arm length type payment company pay young man university perfect arm length basis private business man family business exactly mr barnett disagree hon gentleman comparison committee company seek pay student university different position parent give certain money help student son daughter university pay grant place grant totally different thing case parent help young person survive university pay expense little bit extra separate company relationship company man woman column university parent son daughter let proceed point presumption transaction everyday world matter judgment case way see instance transpire party appear bad bargain kind refer hon member gloucestershire south mr cope sell house figure low sell case exclude charge wording subsection fact demonstrate intent confer gratuitous benefit second test transaction arm length appear hon gentleman puzzled sorry wrong happen subsection shall happy look advise way subsection interpret hope satisfaction hon gentleman entirely meet point mr cope think meet point chief secretary review kindly say think sufficient rely case unconnected person test transaction arm length house auction clear example transaction arm length unlike revenue try pursue gratuitous benefit respect house auction have gratuitous benefit test arm length test unconnected person effect follow man house near golf course house value person house garden person additional gratuitous benefit near golf course example expect inland revenue pursue tempt pursue long test fulfil mr joel barnett hon gentleman right pursue thing taxpayer know convey gratuitous transfer arm length transaction mr cope arm length sufficient mr barnett test meet subsection explain meet intention intention meet meet wording subsection shall sure mr norman lamont sorry pursue point gratuitous benefit include retain control company family understand control interest give away assess respect slice equity sell person sell close relative give market price assessment position mr barnett hon gentleman unusually listen deal precisely point man cent share close company sell cent son totally different matter cent control remain family let return hon member cornwall north mr pardoe hope agree follow ramification discussion hourandaquarter mildly somewhat difficult inland revenue prove transfer example give fact new tax law hope hon gentleman feel able withdraw amendment mr pardoe clear way debate go afternoon battlefield great number court action place year capital transfer tax willingness show answer question chief secretary shed light host legal problem crop accept right hon member crosby mr page say find clause extremely difficult understand try understand turn inland revenues original press notice think press office column form notice say difficult go point realise put burden proof individual utterly wrong chief secretary right say deliberation afternoon lead conclude inland revenue prove thing equally lead conclude individual go able prove thing right hon gentleman right say wrong generality assertion tax matter legal matter burden proof accuser individual true charge creep incidental tax matter ought concerned general imposition kind see deliberation afternoon virtually impossible individual prove pm gift prove variety thing avoid tax right hon member crosby point prove negative notoriously difficult law life prove negative secondly prove intention heaven help prove intention kind area thirdly prove arm length legal term obviously court fairly able deal decision kind bind individual work clause satisfaction wellequippe bad prove arm length accord subsection complicated paragraph lastly prove element gift right hon lady member finchley mrs thatcher series column example chief secretary answer sure hon lady say host example example mention demonstrate appalling difficulty face individual suppose general obligation parent maintain child age pay cost children education know hideous crime hon gentleman lot hon member government pay children education let humbug ashamed true obligation extent maintain private education cost private education obligation assume come capital chief secretary come pay income secondly game parent child let suppose play round golf son weekend stake year win time son well golfer win time year son win intend lose game son chargeable gift argue well golfer fact well golfer lose mean intend lose mr john tomlinson hon gentleman agree play golf time year suggest probably devote time read finance bill mr pardoe tell hon gentleman national service day swing golf club golf prerogative labour party hampstead golf club know come complicated instance hon friend member isle ely mr freud director playboy club let suppose playboy club hope raise question inside lose money hand fist son relative wheel fix suppose column intention lose wheel fix clear intention lose chief secretary answer let suppose bet somebody relative bet obviously come right open bet bet instance prime minister honour certain promise manifesto know exactly outcome confidently expect lose money son sort bet intend chargeable gift hope chief secretary recognise complexity proof arise course debate afternoon necessity think individual prove case inland revenue prove argument come favour amendment support opposition chief secretary recognise hope right hon friend chancellor recognise complication debate today arise entirely decision donor tax donee tax difficulty receive gift income case subject income tax gift case subject capital transfer tax accession tax easy prove receive gift mr barnett hon gentleman help know great knowledge donee base tax example liable tax donee base tax mr pardoe example give concern pay education easy gift accession tax specific provision exempt education know move amendment host thing know golf example accession tax specific definition receive gift great deal easy prove person receive gift prove intention point debate accession column happy time simple point make chancellor exchequer tell reason conversion donee tax donor tax administrative complication say kind tax raise enormous hideous legal complication way compensate small administrative convenience hope right hon gentleman prepared accept amendment reconsider matter come forward provision report mr joel barnett hon gentleman good case amendment far oclock afternoon explain clear term difficult inspector taxis know intention convey gratuitous benefit man lose son golf match regularly week time year know gratuitous benefit inland revenue know person know apply example give point say doneebase tax necessarily rule definition talk definition doneebase tax transferor transferee judge certainly good able judge intention confer gratuitous benefit hon gentleman reasonable man hope recognise powerful case amendment let consider fourth example bet relative lot money lose seat liberal party lose general election fairly easy bet fact possible transferor know give gratuitous benefit try avoid capital transfer tax hon gentleman give example assure clause able find elaborate way avoid capital transfer tax hon column hardly try come right hon lady great knowledge matter doubt able come lot way avoidance possible clause stop avoidance form hon gentleman give mr pardoe right hon gentleman get argument entirely upside certain question settle event think person get wrong mischance give intend gift inland revenue say prove intend host illustration prove subject whack tax considerable time event financial circumstance different know advance area uncertainty section tax claim inland revenue individual pm compete right hon lady member finchley mrs thatcher put forward example hideousness tax long time swap example doubt difficult think great deal work knowledge tax system right hon gentleman gift definition donee tax simple gift chargeable income tax simple definition right hon gentleman like think chief secretary get bet entirely wrong impossible psychological expert right hon gentleman estimate seat liberal party lose gain election absolutely relation equity number vote shall win mr graham page think reduce half hour talk word believe express chief secretary try column tell committee time transfer asset capital transfer tax payable intend confer gratuitous benefit transaction kind expect arm length unconnected person record believe exactly clause require objection point say want know prove particularly prove abstract matter intention second benefit think need word amendment hope clearly chief secretary think mr norman lamont question price value block share transfer people particularly people family fraught difficulty sort valuation place chief secretary assume difference market price share market price cent case premium market price pay control vary enormously situation situation situation premium people wish control company company people want involve wish run away problem market value actual realistic value transfer share manager member family second problem able distinguish business familycontrolle sale share arm length transaction let common situation secondgeneration family business second generation mean intend pass second generation family simply new generation management come company intention control business retain family common situation original founder business ask lot young column son executive founder business own cent equity decide executive company include son chance stake business sell block share seven manager seven son son basis manager dilute ownership company mathematically fact give son mean revenue view family control lessen business question transfer sell share market price difficult disentangle mrs thatcher come aspect interested transaction ordinary family life parent child invalid relative ordinary duty expenditure use neutral word place family point revenue memorandum send charter accountant submit chairman board inland revenue behalf council constituent member consultative committee accountancy body clause ask joel barnettchief secretary answer point inland revenue accountant think expenditure education training maintenance transaction confer gratuitous benefit circumstance refer subsection charge completely accountant know know chief secretary intend mind clause say question take sure inland revenue see article british tax review quarter write professor wheatcroft tax master column say page professor wheatcroft continue position change particularly regard person sixth form birthday bill obligation maintain case come mentally retarded handicapped child young person parent regularly pay capital home maintain child transaction intend confer gratuitous benefit child arm length transaction parent pay sum home provide maintenance know legal accountancy adviser know chief secretary say intend give benefit think clause mean fourth case particularly piquant come morning estate severely deficit inland revenue widow leave tradition family get debt grandmother retain tradition family debt literally pay debt inland revenue think actually go charge gift widow need pay pay cover debt inland revenue concern ordinary expenditure family extra charge capital tax think intention originally think favour gift tax go straight heart chargeable transfer mr joel barnett shall deal point hon member kingstonuponthame mr lamont column say circumstance transfer cent cent need necessarily gratuitous transfer transfer price equivalent minority value right hon gentleman give example quote say intention retain control transfer seven block manager son say considerable time ago depend circumstance case price receive transfer share meet test discuss length catch simple meet test catch hasten assure hon gentleman matter decide case certainly occasion need premium man transfer number share end control perfectly genuine transaction depend circumstance case turn observation right hon lady member finchley mrs thatcher sorry deal comment series amendment general point detailed issue right hon lady speak come later shall happy deal speak ordinary transaction family maintenance son daughter school university obligation maintain question come later amendment complex area directly relevant amendment hope right hon lady way seek avoid question shall happy come reach relevant stage assure shall deal properly adequately directly question amendment committee divide aye no column division cope mr john fairgrieve mr russell hall sir john howell mr david lamont mr norman lawson mr nigel macgregor mr john newton mr tony page mr r graham pardoe mr john parkinson mr cecll ree mr peter ross mr wm ridley mr nicholas thatcher mrs margaret wiggin mr jerry barnett mr joel bates mr alf boothroyd miss betty callaghan mr jim davies mr denzil dunnett mr jack gilbert dr john graham mr ted hamle mr william harper mr joseph hayman mrs helene hoyle mr douglas hughe mr mark sedgemore mr brian tomlinson mr john ward mr michael white mr frank r question accordingly negative pm mr wm ross beg amendment page line end insert think amendment near controversial doubt shall able pass away quickly chief secretary accept seek clear consider defect instance someone wife visit nextdoor neighbour slip floor break leg claim householder dwelling leg break insure good injured person legal claim circumstance appear bill draw sum pay likely acknowledgement liability ex gratia payment person hold intend transfer gratuitous benefit like assure labour member wish create loophole way bogus ex gratia payment surely intend catch transfer condition payment lieu damage award court amendment right way achieve object way meet point surely government amendment meet mr joel barnett pleased able tell hon gentleman question seek catch type case refer collusive intent word people collude order column transfer seek provide bill money pay bona fide settlement legal claim exclude subsection stand assure hon gentleman way meet intention amendment hope feel able withdraw mr graham page little clearly chief secretary let suppose example oral agreement create settlement need formal document create trust settlement beneficiary take action enforce oral arrangement informal arrangement come term amendment way settlement legal claim admission liability chief secretary say sort situation cover wide cover look create loophole chief secretary shake head develop case little tell loophole mr barnett reason legal claim clear sham party order ensure gift transfer catch meet test mr graham page example give sham legal action doubt informal trust create legal claim escape tax mr barnett long collusive intent transfer avoid tax sham collusive column catch meet test debate length hon member londonderry mr ross instance sham perfectly legitimate arrangement legal claim catch assure subsection mr lamont chief secretary specifically refer subsection rest argument schedule mr barnett clause mrs thatcher ask procedure expect collusive straightforward presumably subject return schedule procedure inspector raise assessment person prove genuine mr barnett yes sort circumstance kind perfectly legal claim sham kind inspector seek raise assessment right hon lady know situation income tax purpose taxpayer example submit return liable schedule d submit account inspector taxis raise estimate assessment taxpayer prove estimate assessment wrong submit necessary information sort circumstance hon member londonderry put committee imagine inspector taxis seek raise claim reason taxpayer tax return liability capital transfer tax mrs thatcher legal claim sum settlement legal claim far well court court understand chief secretary mean say sham collusive intent legal claim settlement legal claim thing difficult prove disprove mr barnett imagine kind situation claim column hon lady say good advice usually settle court certainly sham collusive claim liable tax hope clear mr graham page legal claim gratuitous benefit word trust settlement chief secretary assurance include confer gratuitous benefit legal claim enforce trust mr barnett case right hon gentleman give example meet test discuss length certainly catch example appear give intend confer benefit catch point hon gentleman make amendment think say intention confer gratuitous benefit term capital transfer tax mr denzil davy want life difficult want draw attention constituency situation difficulty constituent die underground work national coal board cause death heart attack widow tell legal claim national coal board death cause result industrial injury board payment case case think fall provision suggest payment truly ex gratia payment legal claim people having look legal claim case mention seek life difficult chief secretary ask answer possibility albeit fairly remote case kind mr barnett hon friend point example give certainly collusive action kind catch column think rate wrong let committee know understanding catch mr lamont precisely reason raise point ask chief secretary rest assurance simply clause notice schedule wording liability wording one mind precisely fear hon member llanelli mr davy express mr barnett refer clause mr w ross perfectly clear happen acknowledgement liability happen payment acknowledgement liability connect person mr barnett rest sham claim point hon gentleman make liability perfectly genuine claim sham avoid legal liability settle court right hon lady say sham claim settle perfectly genuinely catch perfectly genuine transaction mr w ross beg ask leave withdraw amendment amendment leave withdraw mr graham page beg amendment page line end insert chairman amendment page line end insert mr page amendment probe amendment amendment considerable substance subsection seek insert clause exempt certain type transaction transaction occur occasion dissolution annulment marriage separation married person satisfaction partial satisfaction claim maintenance hope parenthesis word maintenance exclude capital certainly intend cover transfer capital merely income column recognise bill schedule paragraph property settlement dissolution marriage provision respect suggest right case exempt settlement transfer property divorce occur frequent year ago example right exwife matrimonial home recognise far court invariably dissolution marriage legal separation settlement property gift transaction recognise free capital transfer tax know right draw simile recognise gift spouse free tax right proper marriage break recognise reasonable property settlement breakdown free capital transfer tax mr parkinson wish express support amendment move right hon friend member crosby mr page wish direct attention amendment raise matter unfamiliar chief secretary talk length early afternoon remember talk fatherinlaw year ago problem educate child say worry long earn pay interest overdraft solvent capital transfer tax anybody work principle school fee excess immediately accord chief secretary tell afternoon range disposition income go disposition important chief secretary satisfy apprehension present high rate tax hon member opposite great deal hon member luton west mr sedgemore reach handkerchief know sympathetic column sort problem difficult afford pay income education child absurd reach stage have sort return chief secretary make threaten encourage gesture find oneself waste lot time revenue time return spend one income plus expenditure go maintenance education benefit one child moment chief secretary hint early afternoon accept point set rest fear thousand parent tell anxious hear mr joel barnett hon member hertfordshire south mr parkinson say debate general situation series amendment say deal matter come let deal amendment move right hon member crosby mr page happy tell accept amendment necessary need situation advise adequately cover clause paragraph schedule provide situation similar mention amendment know right hon gentleman mind fear disposition circumstance describe way settlement taxable disposition intend confer gratuitous benefit person arm length exempt capital transfer tax clause provide disposition transfer value disposition sum pay partial satisfaction bona fide claim maintenance satisfy test clause sum pay liable tax hasten add talk maintenance child come hope right column gentleman content amendment shake head pity advise danger seek guard meet doubt come come amendment mr ridley refer amendment say chief secretary say apply child clear doubt mr barnett know hon gentleman say come maintenance education child amendment directly point pay maintain son daughter education general rule meet income capital annual exemption let hasten add entirely acknowledge circumstance pm hand clear obligation parent maintain child depend parent transfer child pay maintenance general liability parent meet normal cost maintenance education child accept normal parental responsibility normal expenditure kind liable capital transfer tax mischance case present drafting happy assure hon gentleman shall look expenditure catch wish catch normal parental liability maintain child hope reasonably clear event promise committee shall look catch way require shall certainly consider inclusion amendment necessary assurance hope hon gentleman feel able withdraw amendment mr macgregor wish clarify position chief secretary column particularly want direct attention university fee know hon member luton west mr sedgemore cast aspersion send child oxford cambridge assume problem arise university scottish university english provincial university assure child easily find oneself pay year university fee maintenance university united kingdom chief secretary concentrate maintenance slip promise look question context educational fee fee increase year high rate income tax high income level possible people meet fee income particularly child accept standard live low gross income unfair ask long believer abolition parental mean test university discuss implication mr william hamle hon gentleman advocate idea people enjoy certain thing life pay cost mr macgregor sure hon gentleman mind sure mr crawshaw want follow avenue obviously possible pay fee capital capital build early period year save income people sacrifice standard living recognise capital high income level face problem child go university important consideration view mean test parental contribution university unfair discrimination child parent amendment accept reference education specifically include capital transfer tax additional unfair discrimination child mr joel barnett clear let maintenance child parent parental liability include expenditure education transfer value child term capital transfer tax hasten add lest consider imputation oxford cambridge university doubt considerable value educate consider value understand term capital transfer tax hope answer hon gentleman point say early promise meet promise look mr norman lamont apologise hear chief secretary remark want support hon friend member blaby mr lawson meeting right hon gentleman say look subject raise hon member norfolk south mr macgregor include child age mr joel barnett subject want consider normal cost education parental liability want look define hope answer satisfy hon gentleman satisfy right hon lady mrs thatcher point right joel barnetthon gentleman wholly aware wholly aware having serve department arise fellow treasury minister day question time point parent duty student son daughter meet parental contribution enforceable obligation allow tax chief secretary nod head remember point enforceable parent contribution meanstested operation number student considerable difficulty chief secretary rest good deal argument word obligation obligation moral obligation mr hamle parental obligation mrs thatcher parental obligation legal obligation time parental obligation meet regard parental obligation fine tax statute tend legal obligation tightly draft number consequence legal obligation maintain child minimum schoolleaving age number problem arise hope chief secretary account second consequence concern situation one child fully grow handicap moral obligation maintain expensive people enormous length great sacrifice legal obligation parent aside capital set aside capital form income possibility believe need look carefully mr joel barnett right hon lady precisely sort area wish look promise committee look mr ridley chief secretary look look wide right hon friend definition parental obligation take seriously go sort area parental obligation feed one child provide roof head job leave university parental obligation support get wide area simply education hope chief secretary consider wide context narrow context school fee mr barnett answer yes mr graham page amendment seek exempt disposition occasion dissolution marriage earth chief secretary exempt subsection frequently element gratuitous benefit settlement sort clear subsection prove value exwife marry status element gift strictly legal claim column frequently course settlement gratuitous benefit give party think rely subsection dispose case chief secretary feel cover assume accept principle amendment hope look necessary cover case direct gift direct transfer suppose adviser dissolve marriage way thing liable capital transfer tax resort paragraph schedule settlement give exwife liable capital transfer tax exhusband gift mistress refer subsection clause little way ahead mr crawshaw effect important direct gift capital spouse dissolution marriage exempt way settlement exempt hope chief secretary assurance look point particularly view say impact clause wish divide committee issue chief secretary accept principle want bill mr ridley happen settlement child marriage dissolve subject separation later stage settlement divide child imagine tax chargeable second breakup settlement granting settlement benefit children maintenance question arise clause important know sure right hon friend right language chief secretary understand get mr joel barnett understand hon gentleman get point right hon gentleman make give right hon gentleman assurance advice give amendment cover subsection stand certainly assure look right hon gentleman make point conscious detailed knowledge matter wrong naturally shall look present advice amendment necessary think mr page right hon gentleman put way say look mr ridley answer question astonishing statement different right hon friend mr barnett know astonishing hon gentleman point cover amendment discuss amendment mr page come clause stand debate hon friend raise important point notice amendment certainly ought deal chief secretary willing consider precluded consideration fail produce bring report beg ask leave withdraw amendment amendment leave withdraw pm sit suspend mr graham page beg amendment page line leave subsection chairman follow amendment page line right insert asset page line leave right end line insert page line right insert page line end insert page line leave mr page say mr crawshaw discuss conveniently consider group amendment group include amendment nos column seek narrow clarify subsection wide vague old friend amendment nos question burden proof start major amendment seek delete subsection extraordinary subsection clause deal definition transfer value disposition transfer value tax fall final subsection great generosity say end clause deliberate clause effect accurate assumed fictitious transferor able omission deliberate transfer rank taxation horrible feeling chief secretary financial secretary brief departmental chief clause chief secretary suddenly say deal case omit exercise right turn financial secretary say run clause financial secretary vague think extraordinary subsection financial secretary hand draft chief secretary chief secretary say deliberate deliberate line add straight cuff subsection get clause extraordinary form omission exercise right arise sort instance suspect chief secretary mind require subsection clause fail exercise right share company obviously mind shake head know say mind mean lot mind mind commend case column reasonable subsection kind word omission exercise right inumerable right contract tort marriage law sort right think legal right sort right moral right spiritual right try amendment pin little example suppose chief secretary knock bus mr joel barnett mr page go house bus run today understand yesterday give example generosity knock badly lose tooth break rib say mind driver lot trouble shall sue london transport shall omit exercise right london transport chargeable capital transfer tax omit exercise right let suppose outside house rude thing chief secretary slander write horrible libellous thing generous way say shall sue right hon member crosby know mean shall omit exercise right claim damage inland revenue official come tax omission claim damage let suppose omission deliberate person claim damage somebody deliberately omission negligence let limitation period run take action position deliberate omission exercise right deliberation multiply occasion position child suffer damage birth negligence surgeon child claim damage surgeon mother give right claim damage surgeon child tax claim round neck rest life chief secretary look clause suggest amendment column restrict vague statement right example amendment suggest word right insert word think occasion chief secretary mind require subsection alternatively amendment probably way solve problem subsection look gratuitous benefit transfer transfer beneficiary let pinpoint clause somebody omit exercise right sole main reason confer gratuitous benefit person transfer value chargeable tax expect chief secretary jump elucidation clause way pm finally come old friend burden proof important case case amendment subject extremely difficult anybody prove negative omission deliberate line subsection read show presume person responsible tax show ask awful lot anybody try prove negative kind amendment nos change leave subsection read take far rule chief secretary propound early debate common practice tax law negative form require taxpayer potential taxpayer prove negative chief secretary turn positive mr joel barnett able help committee right hon member crosby mr page give example hit bus fall cliff knock cliff meet end way sure hon member wish claim somebody cause sad end say decide waive right claim generosity result have pay capital transfer tax waiver burden right hon gentleman argument give example quote context man exercise right vote motion board director company right hon gentleman omit notice seek ensure generosity subject capital transfer tax happy tell subsection meet mr graham page mr barnett happen true bind happen true subsection exclude liability intention confer gratuitous benefit transaction arm length unconnected person claim unconnected person accidentally cause sad end refuse exercise claim happy tell committee liability capital transfer tax refusing exercise right look face hon member kingstonuponthame mr lamont altogether satisfy shall wait hear example hon member cirencester tewkesbury mr ridley hon learn member dover deal mr ree surprised restless seat eager example generosity catch ask look way subsection seek protect generosity right hon gentleman speak apart right appeal mishap inspector taxis bright right hon gentleman commissioner column despite readiness mark hon gentleman bench gangway hope realise subsection give necessary protection right hon gentleman feel point fully meet mr ridley chief secretary indulge waste time intend spell constituency hon member wish speak time sit minute amendment achieve purpose sort threat stop continue debate tonight night apart remember discover birthday hon lady member welwyn hatfield mrs hayman sure committee like wish happy birthday anniversary tax come round know hayman tax interested hear chief secretary want hurt anybody hon ladys birthday relevant amendment show mr crawshaw terrify chief secretary unguarded moment dinner eat sausage roll admit tax hurt people time major milestone consideration bill get government admit hurt tax motive hurt say grateful chief secretary come clean motive tax example chief secretary particular regard hon lady member welwyn hatfield mistake knock scramble committee room dinner quarter past seven break leg regard sue damage hold understand make gratuitous transfer proceed depend motive prove sue hon lady extremely difficult column considerable position embarrassment chief secretary say mr graham page hon lady prove sue right hon gentleman prove sue accord clause transferer transferee liable know mr ridley grateful right hon friend add degree legal expertise knowledge matter think likely catch clause consider like example chief secretary say go try come chief secretary expectation secretary state environment say councillor place hon member remember place call clay cross excuse debt owe revenue having collect rent accordance law stage imagine right hon gentleman reach cheque book pay capital transfer tax failure claim right case clay cross councillor aware stretch little far relevant perform act generosity let people obligation one motive political right way describe chief secretary say confer gratuitous benefit motive secretary state environment confer gratuitous benefit councillor clay cross afford pay surcharge level confer gratuitous benefit admit ministerial capacity point illustrate danger clause chief secretary recommend example gambling debt ought explore advise good way round tax married sic guidance counsellor tax avoidance counsellor round tax aware industry develop fast fact column industry government go talk marriage later proceeding bill fail claim gambling debt somebody want gratuitous capital transfer gratuitous capital transfer omit exercise right ask question want straight position win large sum money baccarat know play usually way gambling beginner luck fail collect croupier heap beautiful marble chip right accuse having give croupier gratuitous transfer liable pay tax collect particularly discover connected person relationship croupier accuse chief secretary get point try question ask chief secretary subject hope satisfactory answer pm mr ree like hon friend reassure subsection hon friend point obvious defect draftmanship shall reinforce point practical example consider deeply time available reassurance chief secretary endeavour offer reassure know court require way proof demonstrate person intend confer gratuitous benefit person benefit committee hope chief secretary like example chief secretary view reassure subsection sufficiently narrowly draw let suppose experience hon gentleman widow leave husband substantial shareholding unquoted family company family shareholder let assume column subject squeeze company profit company subject past year squeeze accentuate illjudge budget endure march company propose right issue let assume widow like right issue share equity dilute reference banker alas provide sufficient cash consult lawyer accountant chief secretary moment leisure away ministerial responsibility advise right issue mean diminution share equity member company member family mind overmuch unfortunate lady pass right issue lady omit exercise right benefit member family advantage letout subsection confer intend confer gratuitous benefit person suggest good subsection worried behalf widow doubt multiply instance let example canvass chief secretary view let assume hypothetical case minister crown subject scurrilous attack newspaper accuse operate swiss bank account calculate hypocrisy accept bribe communist state assumption allegation untrue minister enormous claim damage newspaper right action suppose minister advise skilled matter witness box assuredly substantiate claim submit raske crossexamination competent counsel laugh stock country let assume minister choose exercise right action newspaper column confer gratuitous benefit clearly confer benefit newspaper exercise right action mr denzil davie hon learn gentleman postulate case politician right sue newspaper suggest giving right failure exercise right diminish value politician estate right transfer sell personal politician worth money come mr ree interesting point doubt hon gentleman able develop give interesting line thought chief secretary let offer humble view point suppose minister question advise lawyer virtually castiron right action know hazard litigation word recover large sum damage estate particular point time asset right action newspaper satisfy large sum damage suggest course hear chief secretary minister estate diminish suggest paper hand personal proprietor proprietor estate increase long correspond debt minister choose exercise right massive claim diminish newspaper proprietor estate evaporate interested hear chief secretary view let example hope fanciful let assume lady public eye wish provide old age let assume fortunate matter understand vagary property market take option acquire slag heap suitable reclamation development land course entirely hypothetical instance multiply instance view scope subsection chief secretary let column assume lady course exist practice farfetched example way exemplify fine point drafting construction let assume lady take option good advice provide old age acquire slag heap current market price mr ridley knockdown price mr ree hon friend member cirencester tewkesbury mr ridley make absurd know value slag heap lady preoccupy assume great affair state option let assume market soar advantage slag heap apparent general run let assume preoccupied affair state find time exercise option mr brian sedgemore point order mr crawshaw sure hon learn gentleman know law libel addition know law privilege house common fact hon learn gentleman courage hand rarely hear sort innuendo floor house recently respect chancellor exchequer people allude readily identify identify outside house common hon learn gentleman statement outside house vicious libel function prerogative chair save reputation individual inside house say say outside terrible libel chance answer invite hon learn gentleman take profession lightly allegiance bar council oath noble learn profession belong stand outside door house outside parapet statement hope column suffer vertigo fall dirty river outside sir john hall rule point order mr crawshaw advisable ask hon member state libel complain chairman save time speak point order attention draw associate anybody particular draw attention certain person hon gentleman refer think lady member house right suggestion respect fear pursue particular matter ought remind hon member luton west mr sedgemore hear frail knowledge legal profession seek come near slander breach privilege house common far understand mr ridley point order mr crawshaw hon member luton west mr sedgemore seek defenestrate hon learn friend ask way libellous suggest somebody buy slag heap chairman order finance bill hon gentleman deal matter hand hon gentleman point order answer chair hope leave shall proceed finance bill remind hon learn member dover deal mr ree go far illustration pertinent illustration finance bill mr ridley point order perfectly order cite interesting hypothetical situation rise possible charge tax person hon learn friend talk fail exercise right cash profitable piece slagheap speculation like ask conceivably hon learn friend veer close wind suggest wrong speculate column slagheap far know offence libellous practice perfectly possible money reputable thoroughly honourable fashion chairman hon gentleman hear say say say moment ago slanderous hear hope hon learn member dover deal mr ree draw illustration close illuminating example mr rees extremely grateful rule mr crawshaw protection gross innuendo hon member luton west mr sedgemore know fevere imagination long association newspaper like private eye slightly slanted unusual view life hope take unusual set fact far remove reality exemplify legal point important offend delicate sensibility hon member opposite hon member luton west show person great sensitivity realise debate past year let immediately change fact gentleman involve public life let slagheap gravel pit hope satisfy hon gentleman acquit malicious intent far mind suggest particularly hon member bebington ellesmere port mr bate guilty filibuster endeavour parliamentary skill command produce example enable chief secretary reasoned discourse scope subsection illtimed interjection hon member luton west calculated waste time number wellfounde wellthoughout point committee mr alf bate home early mr ree shall time hon gentleman bebington ellesmere port note column contribution find tiresome sit government whip restrain ardour bind intervention hear committee stage bore little relationship debate wonder conscious kind bill debate mr ridley mr ree real answer industry wit enterprise capacity take risk justify kind reward long prepared parasite public purse shall reward deserve resume theme hope outline chief secretary example shall expect reasonable reply like return example gentleman public life fortunate obtain option acquire gravel pit pm let assume oppress care public life gentleman miss opportunity find pressure banker reluctance assist raise money option omit exercise right chief secretary intend omission confer gratuitous benefit person complete answer fail exercise option conscious person grant option well realise possibility particular asset wish develop confer gratuitous benefit person grant option hope uncontroversial helpful way outline practical example demonstrate extraordinary width subsection hon friend suggest way reduce realistic confine hope chief secretary apply seriously problem endeavour reassurance entitle mr norman lamont wonder briefly touch example column person omit waive right consequence small business hon learn friend member dover deal mr rees cite example fail right issue argument deploy situation company try raise money fact forgo right issue necessarily advantage company example like person omit right considerable advantage family business question refer simple question waive dividend chief secretary aware small business close company private business family large stake suffer liquidity problem present past help shareholder forego dividend way business build business manage surmount liquidity crisis present reading clause appear shareholder forgo dividend come gift company problem family control business suspect thrust tax diversify shareholding private company problem time go argue waiving dividend way avoid tax surely case company invariably fall close company provision situation revenue adequate power appropriate action think waiving dividend purely tax avoidance reason hope chief secretary matter right hon friend amendment confine specifically point argument say write bill relate specifically dividend waiver know hon member actually take matter chief secretary reply write hon gentleman right hon gentleman reply exactly crystal clear appear confirm dividend waiver column case constitute transfer purpose capital transfer tax exact tax position depend person estate diminish appear confirmation situation type describe family forgo dividend order contribute development business surmount current liquidity squeeze create liability capital transfer tax problem compare chief secretary reply reply financial secretary yesterday speak people peel strip business give away year early stage business make little worried bench understand way small family business build retention cash early year minister think tax pay peel bit business dividend pay director early stage ask chief secretary address seriously problem effect familycontrolle business mr macgregor wish raise example relation subsection think justifiable reason concern apologise point able follow exchange committee minute order chief secretary try fair possible originally feel amendment propose right hon friend member crosby mr page justify right issue close examination prepared accept ground case right issue deliberately take lack fund value person estate diminish value person estate increase accept right issue assign normal time transfer value suspect moment normal time column rest case right issue example perfectly harmless transaction hit clause case person right dispute right want hurt feeling person benefit think wrongly want affect asset person family reason feel person need asset value person estate diminish value substance person legacy dispute increase like ask chief secretary case assume transfer value take place act kindness person dispute cause pay element capital transfer tax second example come fairly close constituency relation controversial area agricultural tie cottage go argument agricultural tie cottage apply case instance farmer perfectly entitle obtain possession agricultural tie cottage particular worker cease work worker need cottage sense loyalty worker retire far right tie cottage value estate diminish value estate person tenant tie cottage increase act kindness find liable capital transfer tax illustration read clause somebody take perfectly reasonable approach affair find act kindness affect capital transfer tax grateful chief secretary address point let know reading clause wrong reading right bind right hon friend amendment column subsection defective mr cope rise briefly help chief secretary comment point raise hon friend member kingstonuponthame mr lamont dividend understand waive right dividend declare course declare right exist ctt arise case waiver dividend time waiver right right waive reading situation correct ctt arise chief secretary like comment mr joel barnett shall try deal point raise shall good deal seriously hon member hon member cirencester tewkesbury mr ridley give example hon friend have claim knock break leg generous claim hon gentleman suggest liable generosity capital transfer tax forgone deal point early example give bring untimely end near end accident equally refuse claim point think satisfaction committee clause question liability capital transfer tax intention mr ridley certain circumstance intention point analogy intention confer gratuitous benefit mr barnett entirely different circumstance respect hon gentleman give example hon friend certain incident hon gentleman give graphic illustration decide forgo right claim circumstance clause liability say exactly column know hon gentleman look puzzle sir john hall little puzzle clause say transfer transaction intend confer gratuitous benefit hon lady damage accident have right action probably successful right action intend confer gratuitous benefit agree cover subsection refer connected person situation different lady concern right hon gentleman niece example pm mr barnett delighted lady hon friend niece sister cousin talk incident graphically describe question concern person question liable capital transfer tax able assure committee know worry hon gentleman tell clause understand certain instance hon gentlemans interpretation subsection different advice help matter help committee well assure circumstance describe liability capital transfer tax second example case revenue fail exercise right number councillor claim offend particular section law sic revenue liable tax case talk individual liable tax body inland revenue sure hon member cirencester tewkesbury mr ridley committee delighted know affect interesting example give failure collect gambling debt croupier happy apart capital transfer tax failure collect gambling debt apply hear right hon column mutter enforceable right liability mr graham page clause say legal right right mr barnett right hon gentleman say certainly enforceable right talk option right right accept receive legal right regard croupier mr ridley croupier give cheque winning bounce right pursue issuer cheque law collect refrain pursue right law croupier gratuitous transfer mr barnett like hon gentleman way rapidly move point move entirely different point certain circumstance depend case hon gentleman generous man seek donation gift transfer catch act fresh new hon gentleman seek money away croupier far prevent hon learn member dover deal mr ree tell affable manner wish waste time committee certainly wish accuse mislead committee statement care accept shall deal seriously point raise hon learn gentleman say reassure far know accept good possible spirit find year extremely difficult satisfy reassure manage time hope forgive shall try good case hon learn gentleman raise failure widow right issue let lack ready fund circumstance intention confer gratuitous benefit person liability capital transfer tax clause luck reassure hon learn gentleman point column second point concern claim damage newspaper hon learn gentleman right action newspaper give decide generously proceed newspaper generously feel want court pursue case newspaper fact like bring reason mr ridley suppose newspaper run son mr barnett finish comment make think entirely meet point raise hon gentleman raise hon learn friend give right action editor great paper happen son transaction intend confer gratuitous benefit sic liable capital transfer tax hand intention catch capital transfer tax starting point hon learn gentleman fairly like tax debate transfer gratuitously intention confer benefit liable capital transfer tax type case describe happy catch let turn interesting instance man right gravel pit exercise right think interesting example wish burden committee precisely issue know hon learn gentleman wish innuendo tell believe word tell kind naive person know tell untruth committee mr peter ree put far mr barnett sure agree wish tell untruth committee nod shall assume innuendo intend glad agreement talk column fictitious person right gravel pit fail exercise happy tell hon learn gentleman wish person liable capital transfer tax unnecessarily intention confer gratuitous benefit liable capital transfer tax example give number four example forward evening hon member kingstonuponthame mr lamont give example person waive dividend fairly say case close company happen frequently certainly happen company advise time time past marvellous day past certainly true reasonable advise company time time certain circumstance declare dividend properly honourably save certain tax liability mr norman lamont sure right hon gentleman wish confine declare dividend mr barnett point frequently happen family company point declare dividend simply declare dividend point declare waive hon gentleman nodding assent dividend declare close company company waive save tax assure committee reason intend gratuitous transfer liability capital transfer tax say letter hon member advantage send letter time time recollect refer estate diminish give gratuitous transfer liability capital transfer tax transfer catch capital transfer tax entirely separate matter sure hon member understand talk waiving dividend column dividend purpose save tax pleased hon member norfolk south mr macgregor customary reasonable manner note argument deploy little early case man woman want right estate diminish assume intent convey gratuitous transfer circumstance sure liability tax second example agricultural tie cottage kindness heart hon gentleman seek right certain circumstance estate diminish give gratuitous transfer case depend circumstance mr macgregor raise case possible right dispute case chief secretary say intention confer gratuitous benefit point person take right dispute want confer benefit person benefit reason give mr barnett answer clear gift give pure kindness heart instance hon gentleman give straight transfer intention have estate diminish give gratuitous benefit instance describe four gift transfer mr macgregor unfortunate consequence parliament bill act kindness adversely affect way probably prevent response chief secretary give point show defect subparagraph bill agricultural tie cottage relevant later part bill chief secretary say inland revenue look case individually judge gratuitous benefit answer column give right dispute appear inland revenue possibility take beneficial view case agricultural tie cottage farmer need cottage somebody allow original tenant stay long period possible retirement conferring gratuitous benefit wrong chief secretary say inland revenue discretion view say clause deliberate decision let live rentfree cottage fair generous reason inland revenue discretion decide transfer value mr barnett say beginning case matter decide separately easy decide transfer value transfer value condition apply catch question help hon gentleman let hasten assure transfer kind generous reason reason estate duty estate duty instance simply pay reason capital transfer tax pm dispute year legacy assume hon gentleman take point know right hon lady knowledge law year disclaim legacy question revenue claim tax omission exercise right dispute sense example give hon gentleman totally different think shift ground mr macgregor chief secretary misunderstood mr barnett misunderstood hon gentleman sorry think tell column person question seek gratuitous benefit question dispute seek benefit slightly different misunderstanding apologise hope hon gentleman agree good help excellent example give subsection example save rigour tax sir john hall point like chief secretary course exchange interesting factor emerge go far wide chief secretary realise explanation effect tie cottage possible liability capital gain tax say inland revenue decide case merit indicate occasion occasion liability capital transfer tax arise statement leave farmer country considerable doubt action great deal discussion time time tie cottage system doubt farmer allow retired worker stay cottage sort good reason ought encourage go fear farmer liable capital transfer tax discouraging effect government wish create think chief secretary ought little clear answer point cogently hon friend member norfolk south mr macgregor issue tie cottage want message committee possible risk farmer incur capital transfer tax liability everybody encourage mr peter rees grateful chief secretary endeavour column point sketch hope light touch certain hypothetical example underlie legal point case chief secretary force position say word subsection take particular transaction outside scope capital transfer tax wish interrupt deliberation chief secretary have hon member welwyn hatfield mrs hayman point wish wish come chief secretary hon lady wish confer mr crawshaw permission shall wait try catch eye moment wish listen proceed point make want answer prepared stay long interruption hon member opposite appreciate point simply apparent honourable exception apply whit bill believe reflect occupant government bench put bill incalculable damage economic social structure country like sheep lobby minister know detail bill attempt enact reflect credit whatsoever wish point arrogant let stand position way wish point hope shall answer uninterrupte uninformed comment seated position hon member opposite case chief secretary hon member luton west mr sedgemore wish way mr sedgemore wonder mr crawshaw committee defence mechanism inferior mr ree resume chief secretary case force subsection compel case omission exercise particular right confer gratuitous benefit person right subsist point wish define understand word gratuitous benefit mean mean positive quantifiable benefit money money worth confer person intend cover instance mere conferral negative benefit inflict person trouble expense litigation leave aside possibility probability damage result situation exercise right intend confer gratuitous benefit person right action subsist point elude attention hon member sit government bench like comprehensive intelligible definition chief secretary important phrase suggest constructive helpful spirit doubt point return report attempt redefine phrase gratuitous benefit alternatively redefine term right notice instance amendment name right hon hon friend seek limit term right subsection instance right property suggestion probe amendment like chief secretary attempt define gratuitous benefit understand safeguard subsection provide doubt subject consider redefinition report alternative proposition consider define word right purpose subsection mr graham page possibly fault committee confuse separate subject discuss amendment amendment subsection deal disposition disposition column lead fault chief secretary endeavour explain consider gratuitous benefit subsection say omission exercise right omission right define shall treat disposition shall treat gratuitous disposition disposition attract tax say statutorily shall fiction omission exercise right disposition citizen throw subsection prove positively disposition transfer capital value attract tax say statutorily shall fiction omission exercise right disposition citizen throw subsection prove positively disposition transfer capital value attract tax step think discuss second step potential taxpayer drive statutory definition disposition clause bad respect define omission right give example come term right ought ask create statutory disposition way great liability party concern prove negative order escape tax agree entirely instance subsection right proper omission exercise right rightly describe disposition description bad clause subsection ought stand clause hope colleague join vote subsection mr macgregor agricultural tie cottage bring anxiety subsection later clause propose raise subject agricultural tie cottage relevant giving benefit property commercial rental value come strikingly bring anxiety difference nonexercise right giving away positive asset column say nonexercise right give away positive asset seriously affect way life people provision introduce new element act kindness people start financial calculation specific act kindness chief secretary worried nonexercise right relation right issue accept amendment deal point mind produce detrimental effect begin recognise subsection mr joel barnett begin think major difference hon gentleman clause subsection debate bill substantial loophole think hon gentleman recognise capital transfer tax avoid hon gentleman tell constantly force clause know concern try committee benefit person genuinely seek gain transfer value benefit hon learn member dover deal mr rees nod delighted reason constantly clause subsection help taxpayer catch capital transfer tax intention gratuitous transfer mr peter rees know chief secretary great strain hour miss point complain constantly go subsection convince precise meaning intend confer gratuitous benefit point want focus pm sitting suspend division house column pm resume mr joel barnett try deal matter raise tie cottage know genuinely concern hon member shall try good help matter raise hon learn member dover deal mr ree concern definition gratuitous benefit value farmer allow tenant live tie cottage rent free nature thing income rental income income think burden argument generous man allow tenant tie cottage live rent free catch capital transfer tax answer rent free income owner tie cottage exempt capital transfer tax hope answer point mrs thatcher argument apply lend money interest free argument income mr barnett provision deal precisely matter right hon lady know look talk big million loan tax free certainly gratuitous transfer right hon lady nod talk tie cottage rent modest exempt rent give generously rent free assure hope please hon gentleman income right hon lady nod hope persuade hon friend case sir john hall tenant pay modest rent continue pay rent allow continue farmer right repossess cottage situation arise mr barnett certainly column income case get income gratuitous benefit transfer hope satisfy point pm mr jack dunnett follow right hon friend reason far let suppose farmer utilise tie cottage tenant decide capitalise sell understand cottage part country high value argument apply mr barnett doubt value high tenant cottage mr dunnett point mr barnett own presume contract original owner rent payable talk discuss case farmer allow tenant live tie cottage completely free rent mr dunnett employment terminate mr barnett yes point hon friend say income exempt bill owner cottage sell gentleman mr dunnett hon friend understand contention point owner cottage right possession service tenant cease employment goodness heart employer permit servant remain losse rental income receive take possession relet let suppose decide relet cottage having exercise strict right kindly advertise large west end agent sell x thousand pound difference view right hon friend propound mr barnett hon friend column entirely separate transaction transaction clear accept argument farmer right sell decide let tenant live rent free give gratuitous transfer value cottage tenant give benefit live rent free give tenant benefit cottage give gratuitous transfer value cottage tenant tenant right sell right live cottage rent free liability capital transfer tax income come second point owner cottage proceed sell market value assume hon friend say mr wiggin suppose die mr barnett arrive situation somebody own cottage benefit tenant live rent free gratuitous transfer rent income exempt tax clear mr dunnett regret clear sorry pursue matter having start finish think take case owner cottage right possession deliberately exercise right certain feeling employee give gratuitous benefit allow remain cottage rent free alternative tenant buy rent accommodation farmer give gratuitous benefit choose alternative give benefit alternative rent sell mr barnett turn mr dunnett transaction mr barnett yes let turn easy benefit give tenant tie cottage benefit column right sell right live rent free right hon friend point farmer sell cottage somebody clearly tenant cottage receive benefit mr denzil davy say follow argument value tenant estate increase come subsection value landlords estate diminish value tenant estate increase think value tenant estate increase merely allow live rent free mr dunnett surely increase extent rent pay mr barnett hon friend absolutely right estate increase value rent pay transfer transfer income exempt know hon gentleman upset tell exempt satisfy shall try find way make taxable know mr wiggin point surely cottage value vacant possession worth rent service tenant worth owner die successor freehold tenant sue difference surely talk tenant mr barnett successor owner cottage gratuitous transfer continue give rental income cottage present tenant question get vacant possession contract assume agreement owner tenant shall stay rent right right benefit get live rent free term bill liability tax owner sell cottage owner sell owner column sell time year liability capital transfer tax rental income forgone tenant hope satisfy hon friend mr dunnett right hon friend completely satisfy shall able black white clear point mr barnett turn point lucidly hon learn member dover deal wait patiently come give number example case particularly concerned claim damage especially concerned mr wm ross altogether happy cottager right hon gentleman aware propose capital transfer tax shall charge agricultural land time annual rental value apply cottage rental value whatsoever mr barnett rental value agricultural land assess value land shall come later value land usually low rental purpose entirely separate point sure shall hon gentleman make clear farmer seek generously tie cottage free tax life employee farmer question capital transfer tax question relief propose land particular type work farmer shall come shall happy deal point hon learn gentleman find difficult matter concerned definition gratuitous benefit value understand concern try explain amendment discuss clause time able satisfy possible able satisfy right hon lady hon member circumvent situation shall happy look matter column definition view see help report assurance hon gentleman feel withdraw amendment mr david howell know chief secretary anxious progress immediately apparent prolong explanation give know difficult point chief secretary difficulty try deal clause riddle nonsense point emerge normal life pothole potential gratuitous benefit touch accept uneasily reassurance chief secretary question tie cottage think shall want return subject find large potential gratuitous benefit arise arrangement kind bear arrangement imagine desire avoid taxis column simply rare thing hon gentleman opposite determined legislate existence human kindness chief secretary want progress wade quagmire clause say vast range case inland revenue arrive rule totally unspecified criterion vague extreme assessment gratuitous disposition gratuitous benefit intend legislation vague obscurity general reason add specific point right hon hon friend strongly advise committee press amendment division question amendment committee divide ayes no division cope mr john hall sir john howell mr david lamont mr norman macgregor mr john newton mr tony page mr r graham pardoe mr john parkinson mr cecil ree mr peter ridley mr nicholas ross mr wim thatcher mrs margaret wiggin mr jerry barnett mr joel bates mr alf boothroyd miss betty callaghan mr jim davies mr denzil dunnett mr jack gilbert dr john graham mr ted hamle mr william harper mr joseph hayman mrs helene hughe mr mark sedgemore mr brian tomlinson mr john ward mr michael question accordingly negative copyright margaret thatcher foundation right reserve

This bill deems that individuals who provide flight instruction or testing (including phased testing of experimental aircraft) are not operating an aircraft carrying persons or property for hire. Under current law, individuals must generally obtain a regulatory exemption or other authority to deviate from regulatory requirements to provide compensated flight training or testing.

right

bill deem individual provide flight instruction testing include phase testing experimental aircraft operate aircraft carry person property hire current law individual generally obtain regulatory exemption authority deviate regulatory requirement provide compensated flight training testing

Speeches, etc. During his lifetime, Winston ChurchillSir Winston, with his dazzling gifts of oratory and his scintillating vocabulary, often put into words what the nation felt. Of the Battle of Britain he said: “Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.” Now, in paying our final homage to him, we can truly say that never was so much owed to one man by so many. His inspiration, his faith, his courage and his determination galvanised us all to make those superhuman efforts which were to save this country and the forces of freedom throughout the world. No-one else could have done it. Each of us has our own particular memories of him. I remember his refusal during his wartime broadcasts to adopt new-fangled pronunciations of places and names—he had his own particular way of saying Nazi or Montevideo; and I remember the impish sense of humour which was constantly breaking through; the V-sign, the cigar, the walking stick, the bulldog look. But above all I recall his dauntless faith in victory—not once did we question whether we should win, only how long it would take. Sir Winston was a man who knew both success and failure, and experience of both prepared him for his hour of destiny. This came when he was no longer a young man. He entered Parliament in the year 1900. He became Prime Minister forty years later. And when his greatest achievement, that of victory, had been secured, the nation dismissed him from office. This must have been a bitter blow, but great man as he was he accepted it as another turn of fortune's wheel. In the last five years of his Parliamentary life, one could not fail to be impressed by his never failing courtesy and by his veneration of great institutions. If he left the House during a debate, he always turned and bowed to the Speaker; the fact that he needed two people to support him and it was a great effort made no difference; this was the custom of the House and he its “Father” must set an example. Had he wished, and because of his failing health, he could have had his vote recorded without going through the division lobbies personally, but many times he insisted on going through himself in a wheel-chair to give his own vote. This was particularly noticeable towards the end of the last Parliament. We read in history of the lives of great men; this one we knew and saw in action. SURELY HE WAS THE GREATEST OF THEM ALL. The words in his own book “the Second World War” best summarise his life:— In War—Resolution In Defeat—Defiance In Victory—Magnanimity In Peace—Goodwill Our hearts go out to Lady Churchill, who has been his partner throughout these great years, sharing all his joys and sorrows. Copyright © Margaret Thatcher Foundation 2024. All Rights Reserved.

right

speech etc lifetime winston churchillsir winston dazzle gift oratory scintillate vocabulary word nation feel battle britain say field human conflict owe pay final homage truly owe man inspiration faith courage determination galvanise superhuman effort save country force freedom world particular memory remember refusal wartime broadcast adopt newfangled pronunciation place name particular way say nazi montevideo remember impish sense humour constantly break vsign cigar walk stick bulldog look recall dauntless faith victory question win long sir winston man know success failure experience prepare hour destiny come long young man enter parliament year prime minister year later great achievement victory secure nation dismiss office bitter blow great man accept turn fortune wheel year parliamentary life fail impress fail courtesy veneration great institution leave house debate turn bow speaker fact need people support great effort difference custom house father set example wish fail health vote record go division lobby personally time insist go wheelchair vote particularly noticeable end parliament read history life great man know see action surely great word book second world war well summarise life war resolution defeat defiance victory magnanimity peace goodwill heart lady churchill partner great year share joy sorrow copyright margaret thatcher foundation right reserve

Mar 15, 2020 Donald Trump, Mike Pence, and the Coronavirus Task Force gave an update on efforts to slow & end the COVID-19 pandemic. Read the full transcript here. Donald Trump: (00:06)Beautiful day outside. And then I think we have some great things to talk about. I’ll start by discussing the Federal Reserve. As you know, it just happened minutes ago, but to me it makes me very happy. And I want to congratulate the Federal Reserve. For starters, they’ve lowered the fed rate from what it was, which was one to 1.25. And it’s been lowered down to zero to 0.25 or 0.25. So it’s zero to .25 that’s a big difference. It’s a quite a bit, about a point. Donald Trump: (00:47)And in addition, very importantly, the Federal Reserve going to be purchasing $500 billion of treasuries and $200 billion of mortgage backed securities. And that number can increase, but they’re going to start with that and that’s really good news. It’s really great for our country. It’s something that we’re very happy, I have to say this. I’m very happy and they did it in one step. They didn’t do it in four steps over a long period of time. They did it on one step. Donald Trump: (01:18)And I think that people in the market should be very thrilled. And that brings us, we’re the strongest country in the world by far financially and every other way. And that brings us in line with what other countries are. They actually have negative rates, but look, we got it down to potentially zero. So that’s a big step and I’m very happy they did it. Donald Trump: (01:43)And you will not hear anything bad about me unless it’s about a month or two from now. So I congratulate the Federal Reserve. I think it’s terrific. Just came out just as we spoke, I wasn’t going to mention Federal Reserve or anything else, but this came out as we were walking up. Donald Trump: (01:58)I want to thank the people at Google and Google communications because as you know, they substantiated what I said on Friday. The head of Google, who’s a great gentleman, called us and he apologized. I don’t know where the press got their fake news, but they got it someplace. But as you know, this is from Google. They put out a release and you guys can figure it out yourselves. And how that got out, and I’m sure you’ll apologize. But it would be great if we could really give the news correctly. It would be so, so wonderful. Donald Trump: (02:32)I just had a phone call with very impressive people, the biggest in the world, in the world of stores and groceries and all. And I’ll give you the names Dave Clark, Whole Foods. Mark Clouse, CEO of Campbell Soup Company. Brian Cornell, CEO of Target, Randy Edeker, Chairman and CEO, President of Hy-Vee, Jeff Haremning, CEO of General Mills, great company. Kevin Birkin President, CEO of Sysco. Craig Jelinek, CEO of Costco. Todd Jones, CEO of Publix Supermarkets, Donnie King Tyson Foods. David MacLennan, Chairman and CEO of Cargill. Rodney McMillan, CEO, Chairman of Kroger, big company. Doug McMillan, CEO of Walmart. He’s been fantastic. Doug was here, as you know, on Friday and he watched the market go up 2000 points on Friday. It went up 2000 almost 2000 points. Todd Vasos, CEO of Dollar General Corporation, and Vivek San Quran, President and CEO of Albertson’s. Donald Trump: (04:03)So these are all phenomenal companies. He’s a great companies. We had a long conversation with them and they’re going to work 24 hours around the clock, keeping their store stocked. I would like to say that people shouldn’t go out and buy. We’re going to all be great. We’re going to be so good. We’re going to do, what’s happened with the fed is phenomenal news. What’s happening with all of these incredible companies is phenomenal news. But you don’t have to buy so much. Take it easy. Just relax. People are going in and they’re buying more. I remember, I guess during the conversation, Doug of Walmart said that they buying more than they buy a Christmas. Relax, we’re doing great. It all will pass. Donald Trump: (04:47)The folks that we spoke to, they’ve done a fantastic job. They’re going to meet the needs of the public. They’re going round the clock if they have to and they’re committed to the communities where they’re serving and which they serve so beautifully and have for a long time. And they’re buying a lot of additional things to sell. But again, they actually have asked me to say, “Could you buy a little bit less please?” I thought I’d never hear that from a retailer. All of them are working hand in hand with the Federal Government as well as the state and local leaders to ensure food and essentials are constantly available. And they’ll do it. There’s no shortages. We have no shortages other than people are buying anywhere from three to five times what they would normally buy. Donald Trump: (05:31)It’s going to be there for a long time. We’re doing numbers and there’s a pent up demand that’s incredible. When this passes, when this goes through, you’re going to see numbers. I think, I predict, I guess I’m allowed to predict just like Wall Street people are allowed to predict and they’re pretty much in agreement. You’re going to see there’s a pent up demand like a lot of people including me haven’t seen before. But this has to get through. Donald Trump: (05:57)They know they’re getting through the crisis and will require an all of America approach and that’s very important. They’re committed to remaining open during this crisis. Totally open. They have to stay open. Those doors have to stay open. They supply our country. Our supply chains in America, the most powerful in the world, and they’re all working very hard. They’re working around the clock and the stores are stocking up at a level that’s beyond Christmas time. And it’s great. It was very reassuring speaking to these people. They have a totally in hand. Donald Trump: (06:28)There’s no need for anybody in the country to hoard essential food supplies. They said to me, “Could you please tell them just go and buy. Enjoy it, have a nice dinner, relax because there’s plenty.” You don’t have to buy the quantities because it’s hard to refill the stores on a basis as rapid as they’re refilling them. Donald Trump: (06:50)And we are using the full power of the Federal Government to defeat the coronavirus. And we will do whatever it takes and we’re doing, I think really, really well. A lot of good things are going to happen. I want to thank all of the people standing behind me. These are phenomenal people and we have some of them right over here. But the people behind me have been working around the clock and they’re doing an incredible job. Donald Trump: (07:18)We see what’s happening. We see what’s going on in other countries. We’re learning from watching other countries, frankly. This is a very contagious virus. It’s incredible, but it’s something that we have a tremendous control of. I think very important the young people, people of good health and groups of people just are not strongly affected. Elderly people that are not well or not well in certain respects are a really a very dangerous group. We have to watch them, we have to protect them very much. We have to really watch over them and protect them because they are very vulnerable. And with that if it’s okay I’m just going to go and make some calls. I’m talking about Federal Reserve. I think it’s a tremendous thing that took place just now. I didn’t know I would be surprised on a Sunday. I don’t know if that’s ever happened on a Sunday before, but I would think there are a lot of people on Wall Street that are very happy. And I can tell you that I’m very happy. I didn’t expect this and I like being surprised. So our Vice President who is doing an incredible job is going to take over and I will see you probably tomorrow. Donald Trump: (08:26)Thank you you very much. Vice President Pence: (08:40)Well thank you Mr. President and good afternoon. With more than 2,900 cases of coronavirus in 49 states across the country I want to assure the American people that this administration, all of our partners, the state level and local health officials have no higher priority than the health and safety of the American public. And at the president’s direction we will continue not only a whole of government approach but as we’ll discuss today we’ll continue to build on a whole of America approach to confront the coronavirus across the country. Vice President Pence: (09:17)The health experts continue to confirm to us that based on the latest information, for the American people as a whole, the risk of serious illness remains low. But because the risk is heavily weighted to the most vulnerable, to people with immunodeficiencies and to people who are elderly with serious underlying chronic health conditions. Our administration and I know state administrations will continue to focus on the most vulnerable. And we will continue to urge every American to be vigilant in practicing good hygiene. Taking the advice of the CDC and local health experts to keep those most vulnerable, safe. Vice President Pence: (10:04)I know I speak on behalf of the president and our entire team when I say how grateful we are for governors all across the country and the seamless partnership that we have forged with them and with state health officials, with our federal team. I spoke today to Governor Pritzker of Illinois and we are in continuous communication with governors, a phone call away. They know that they, they can contact us and address even the smallest need. Because as a former governor, I know firsthand that when it comes to health challenges in America, our states are on the ground in the lead, our local health organizations and we’ve built a great partnership. Vice President Pence: (10:47)We also want to express great appreciation to the American people. Not surprisingly, it is inspiring to see the way tens of millions of Americans are responding with compassion, with common sense. And we want to express particular gratitude to communities of faith that participated in today’s National Day of Prayer. Vice President Pence: (11:06)We’ve seen places of worship, implementing policies to keep those most vulnerable, safe. And also we’re seeing communities of faith already stepping forward to support and to encourage those most vulnerable. I heard tell of a church back in Indiana that’s actually no longer having services until April 10th. But in the meantime there’ll be offering daycare to the children of healthcare workers in central Indiana. And churches all across the country are taking the opportunity to reach out and put feed on their faith and it’s, it’s truly inspiring. Vice President Pence: (11:44)As president mentioned today, he spoke today to leaders in the grocery store industry and where people buy our food. And we heard and were reminded that America has the most efficient and effective supply chain in the world. And it’s working just fine. As the president said, he received a commitment from those a grocery store executives that stores will stay open throughout the days that lie ahead. Vice President Pence: (12:14)We were told that hours may be reduced to allow for cleaning and to resupply, but American families can be confident. Your local grocery store is going to be open, it’s going to be well supplied and they specifically asked us to encourage Americans just buy your weekly needs and grocery. Because the grocery stores will remain open. Vice President Pence: (12:36)Also very movingly those same executives all reiterated their commitment to continue to support local food banks in the way that our grocers continue to do around America. Tomorrow president and I will be briefing all the nation’s governors of states and territories and the District of Columbia. We will be speaking about the progress that we’re making and we’ll be speaking to them specifically about our widening partnership on expanding testing to the American people. Vice President Pence: (13:07)So allow me to speak to that issue and then I’m going to recognize Admiral Brett Giroir who will describe for us the the excellent work that public health services doing. Dr. Burks will describe the importance of the new national public private partnership for diagnostic testing that is going to open the door to the thousands of more tests in real time for the American people in the days ahead. Vice President Pence: (13:37)First, some fundamentals. As the American people know, testing is now available in all 50 States. Either state labs are either conducting the tests themselves or the CDC is processing tests. They’re using the traditional manner of a manual test that allows for 40 to 60 tests a day. It is among the reasons why the president several weeks ago tasked for this group at the White House to reach out to commercial labs around the country and forge that public/private partnership that would bring the high speed, or more accurately the high throughput testing, for coronavirus available in real time. And based on the unprecedented speed of the FDA, which last week approved high throughput coronavirus testings for Roche and Thermo Fisher. We will now have access in the days ahead to more than 2000 labs across the country that have the equipment today to process coronavirus tests much more rapidly in a much higher volume for the American people. Vice President Pence: (14:46)In terms of delivering those services more than 10 States in addition to a CDC labs, public health labs and labs that states can now authorize in their states. More than 10 States have implemented their own drive through testing sites. And we want to commend New York, Colorado, Delaware, Washington State, Texas, and others that have implemented these onsite places where people can obtain tests. Most are using the current CDC testing, the manual testing. But we are working closely with our governors, as you will hear momentarily, to make sure that the new testing regimen is available for their remote sites as well. Vice President Pence: (15:33)As I mentioned as of Monday, we will have more than 2000 labs coming online with the high speed testing. And we are connecting states to those testing methods. We’re also working with a number of retail partners to add to the work that states are doing around the country. Working to set up parking lot testing centers outside of stores and Admiral Brett Giroir will detail the progress that we’ve made over the last 72 hours. Vice President Pence: (16:04)Following the president’s declaration of emergency the Admiral and our public health service of have forged a partnership now with FEMA made possible by that declaration. And they’ve reached out to all 50 States to create a process that will enable all Americans who need to be tested to go to a community based testing site outside of usual healthcare facilities. The focus of these tests as Dr Burks will describe momentarily will be on the those most in need. A priority will be placed on healthcare workers and first responders who are out there coming alongside people that are being impacted by the coronavirus. We want to make sure they have access to the testing as a priority. And then Americans 65 or over with a cough or a fever or other symptoms will be prioritized over other tests that are extended. Vice President Pence: (17:01)As I mentioned, Admiral Giroir will describe the progress that we’ve made in just a few moments. But we’re going to continue to work very diligently, hour by hour, day by day in the days ahead to expand testing around the country. And access to this extraordinary and unprecedented national public/ private partnership for diagnostic testing. Vice President Pence: (17:24)With regard to testing, as we expand testing, we’re so pleased that Congress joined with our administration to make sure that cost is never going to be a barrier to anyone getting a coronavirus test. As you recall, several weeks ago the president directed a change in our Medicare and Medicaid programs to ensure the coronavirus testing was included. Health insurers were brought in, they all agreed to waive copays. But because of the good bipartisan work done in the House of Representatives now all coronavirus testing is free and it’s free for every American, including uninsured Americans. And we continue to urge passage of the legislation that will be considered by the Senate this week. Vice President Pence: (18:08)Let me say one final word about the testing issue. And that is that as the president often says, “We’re all in this together.” And it’s absolutely important that as we expand testing resources across the country, beginning by prioritizing the areas that CDC and our state leadership tell us are most important. It’s important that the tests are available for people that are most in need and for our healthcare workers and first responders that are helping them and supporting them. As Dr. Burks will describe, the testing that is available should only be done if for any reason you think you may have the coronavirus. We encourage people to consult their doctor and if you’re symptom free, we then encourage you to work with us to make sure the testing is available for people that are experiencing symptoms. Vice President Pence: (19:10)It’s extremely important that we have the continuing cooperation of every American as we expand testing and make it available during this challenging time in the life of our nation. With that, I’m going to ask Admiral Brett Giroir of the Public Health Service and leader of this great commission corps behind me to come up and describe the extraordinary work that they have done over the last 72 hours. And will be doing each and every day in conjunction with our states to expand testing to community based testing across the country for the American people using this new public/private partnership diagnostic testing. Admiral. Admiral Brett Giroir: (19:53)Thank you Mr. Vice President, and thank you for your personal interest and support of our team over the last 72 hours as we worked on this critically important. Admiral Giroir: (20:03)… Over the last 72 hours, as we worked on this critically important project. So as the Vice President said over the past 72 hours, we have developed and are beginning to implement now a process and a program of testing that will enable Americans who are in need of coronavirus testing to be tested effectively and efficiently according to a few principles. Admiral Giroir: (20:28)Number one, we want to assure that those most vulnerable and those impacted are able to be prioritized. Number two, we don’t want to do testing that in any way threatens the acute care system. In other words, we don’t want people going to hospitals and acute care clinics where number one, they could infect other people or subject themselves to infections. And number three, we want to balance the needs across the entire healthcare system among diagnosis, but also treatment. In other words, we want the balance, the stress on the strategic national stockpile, and all our commodities so that everyone gets all the materials they need. Admiral Giroir: (21:09)So what do we do? Because as the Vice President said, last week’s historically fast approval of high throughput testing, we are now in a new phase of testing. And you’ve heard Dr. Fauci talk about the new phase. So we’re going from somewhat manual, relatively slow phases, to a testing regimen that we can test many tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of individuals per week and maybe even more. We will have 1.9 million of these high throughput tests available this week with numerous labs up to 2000, starting to turn the lights on beginning this week and rolling out over the week. Admiral Giroir: (21:47)That is really a game changer for us because the back of the shop testing capability is there. The front of the shop is what we’ve been really working on. In order to get a test there, you’ve got to be able to swab individuals, get them into the system without completely paralyzing the entire healthcare system as we have. So with the emergency declaration, this was very, very important to us because it really enabled the historically effective processes of working and empowering states. Federally-supported state-led efforts through the normal FEMA mechanisms. Admiral Giroir: (22:24)So for the last 72 hours, representatives of FEMA from across the government and our Commission Corps have been working on joining the unique and unprecedented public health mission with the historically successful mission of personal distribution centers, places for distribution, the pod system of FEMA. Our public health service, we’ve already deployed over a thousand officers in support of the coronavirus missions that includes to the Diamond, to the borders, to the quarantine stations, to the acute care settings where we’re caring for nursing home residents in Seattle. So we have a very experienced group and we brought these together. Admiral Giroir: (23:14)So what we’ve really designed and how we’re working with the states, we have contacted all 50 states through the FEMA system, every single region, every single state, to understand where they are. As the Vice President said, some states are rolling out some of their own community-based testing. They need to be augmented. We believe we’ve created a model based on the public health and the FEMA system that is optimized that can be used for drive through, or potentially walk through. Each of these pod based units we believe can screen 2,000 to 4,000 individuals a day for testing, with all the appropriate personal protective gear, all the appropriate backend and linkage to the public health system including testing. We know that we have the logistics to do that. We know we have the materials to do that. And again, this is federally-supported state-led efforts. Many states need the full meal deal. They want dozens of public health service officers to work in protective gear to actually test. They need supplies like protective gear, they need swabs, they need logistical supports. Other states only need a fraction of that. They may have all the personnel, but they really need the knowhow, the template, and some of the gear that we provide. We are going to start implementing this system this week in a number of states, primarily those that are the hardest hit right now or are on the rise and the CDC has advised us that that’s when they need the testing. Admiral Giroir: (24:48)I want to emphasize again that we’re focusing on two very important groups. And you’ll hear this said three or four different ways. And the groups that really can be the most impacted or impactful in our outbreak. Number one, is healthcare workers and first responders. This is very important for two reasons. Number one, we have to take care of the healthcare workers in responders because when America needs them, they need to be available, healthy, to provide the care that we all deserve. But it’s also important that if they feel they have a risk of having contacted coronavirus, that we test them so they cannot spread that, for example in longterm care facilities where the elderly are. Admiral Giroir: (25:29)And the second group would be the elderly. And we are classifying that according to risk as those 65 years of age or older, who have a respiratory symptom and a fever of 99.6. That’s a lower number than you’ve seen before, because those who are older do not spike high fevers like children do, 104, 105, so you set the bar just a little bit lower. We do that because we know that they are high risk of bad consequences. And if they test positive, they can engage with their practitioner or tell a health provider, or get in the system to make sure they have a just an outstanding outcome. Admiral Giroir: (26:06)So that is really where we are. We’ve made really unprecedented progress. You will see these sites rolling out progressively over the week. This is not make believe, this is not fantasy. We’ve developed a model, we’ve talked to the states, we’re focusing in on specific locations now. We will start shipping gear stuff tomorrow. We will start deploying officers tomorrow and Tuesday, and we’ll begin seeing these sites in addition to the ones that are springing up now implemented during this week. We will have the capability of testing tens of thousands of additional people through these sites every week in addition to all the capability that’s now going to be distributed in the 2000 laboratories in the major central core laboratories. Admiral Giroir: (26:54)And I know you have a number of questions that hopefully in the question and answer session we’ll be able to answer for you. But I think this is just a great linkage. I’m a pediatric ICU doctor. I take care of sick people. I know what happens when you get respiratory illness. The surgeon general is an anesthesiologist who takes care of people who have respiratory difficulties and manages that. So we know how this works. We’ve been there. The most important thing we’ve worked on right now is making testing accessible because of the advances of the FDA and private industry to make these high throughput tests. Now we can work on the front end with the emergency declaration. Admiral Giroir: (27:30)We have all the tools and all of government has really come together with industry, not just government and states. It’s really been private industry, the manufacturers to bring the swabs, the personal protective gear, the laboratory testing, the shipping, the fronts with Walgreens and Walmarts working as potential sites. This has been something in my mind has been unprecedented the entire society approach working so intensely over the past, certainly over the past weeks but incredibly on this project over the past 72 hours. Vice President Pence: (28:03)Thank you, Admiral. And let me say we are moving out now that we have the public private partnership with the major commercial labs, and now you have our public health team as well as FEMA moving out, connecting to the states to deploy these point of distribution community centers. We’ll also be working closely with members of the media and individual jurisdictions, as well as we’re working with Google and other tech companies to make sure that there’s online resources where people will be able to readily access a questionnaire that will walk them through the symptoms, and whether or not a test might be indicated. And also in the days ahead, we look forward to that same website being able to direct people to the nearest community center or drive through center that’s available. Vice President Pence: (28:54)But me let me introduce Dr. Deborah Birx to speak about that patient experience, and about the importance of the right people seeking the testing in the days ahead. Doctor. Dr. Deborah Birx: (29:07)Thank you Mr. Vice President. Let me just start by recognizing the men and women of the military who are serving us every day, they are my brothers and sisters. I was privileged to serve alongside them for quite a long time. But critically, I just want to recognize at this moment the public health Commission Corps behind me. The Vice President, although he didn’t speak to this, actually went to see them yesterday at the place where they were working so that we wouldn’t disturb them because of their level of dedication and work through the last really 48 hours nonstop. So thank you. Thank you for your work and thank you for the work that you brought together and thank you Admiral for explaining it so quickly. Dr. Deborah Birx: (29:49)Let me just go back to the way laboratory work is done in the United States. I think all of you know when you go to your doctor and you need a lab test, it is either done in your doctor’s office, or it’s done in the lab that they send you to. When we started this emergency response to this virus, we started with what we knew, and that was the flu platform that we use for surveillance. It wasn’t set up in your doctors office, it wasn’t set up in our hospital laboratories. It was set up in state and local labs and at the CDC. Over the last two weeks, we’ve been working with the groups that have served you for decades. Dr. Deborah Birx: (30:29)The commercial laboratories that you don’t see, but your specimen goes to, to ensure they had the full capacity to meet the needs of the American people. Because it wasn’t going to be 50 to 100 to 1000 tests. It was going to be tens of thousands of tests that would be needed to be done. And so the last two weeks has been spent on really getting what you are used to the full force of the clinical laboratories and service. At the same time, what you heard described here is how do we serve the needs of the people in the community where they reside, where we know when we’re talking about people with vulnerable conditions, immunosuppression, medical conditions, or the elderly, that we don’t want them having to sit for long times in doctor’s office, in hospitals’ waiting rooms. Dr. Deborah Birx: (31:15)And you see what state and local governors have done to move past what we would normally do, a referral to your doctor’s office, into your hospital, but really providing community-led services to provide this testing. What the federal government is doing is augmenting that, augmenting the innovation that existed in South Korea, brought here to the shores of the United States and broaden our own novel way, but utilizing our healthcare delivery system, which is different than South Korea, and adapting our work to our system. Dr. Deborah Birx: (31:50)So to the hospitals and to the laboratories, we know that there will be pent up demand for this. Make sure every hospital, every laboratory, I’m speaking to the people who work in labs like I did myself. Make sure you have enough pipette tips, pipetters, and all of the equipment that you need to run this laboratory. You know what you need. Make sure you have that, and have that available for these tests. Because we know with this increased sampling, this increase ability to have community access, additional samples will be going to these laboratories. They can manage the high throughput, but they need all of the supplies that they would normally need to run these tests. Dr. Deborah Birx: (32:31)Think of it, if you’re doing HIV viral load, same thing. Just what you need, you know what you need, make sure you have that. That will be run, and the most important thing, I know for each and every one of you, is how am I going to get my results? And so we’re making sure also that the end of reporting is also there, that the reporting is available to you, to your doctor, and also to the state and local governments and the federal government, not with your personal identifiers but to really understand where there are positives, where there are negatives, so we can assure that healthcare providers have what they need to meet the demands of the American people and their health needs when they’re there. Dr. Deborah Birx: (33:13)Now, let me just say one bit about reporting. So you will notice as these tests roll out over this next week, we will have a spike in our curve. For those of you who watched China and China reporting, remember when they changed their definition and all of a sudden there was a blip in their curve? We are going to see that. We are going to see a spike as more and more people have access. And I want to finish by again reminding people how important it is. I know everybody’s going to want to go to these drive throughs, but if we could prioritize like we have asked you to prioritize the care of every person with a preexisting condition and immunosuppression, and the elderly with existing conditions. Dr. Deborah Birx: (33:54)We’ve asked you to prioritize them and we ask you to prioritize them in the lines. So that our first responders, and our healthcare providers, and everybody who has difficulty to get to doctor’s offices can utilize this system while we bring all the other traditional systems that you are used to, and have availability for you online over the next few days and weeks. So thank you. Thank you for constantly reminding us how important it’s a response of all of America for Americans. All of America, for Americans. It’s a privilege to be part of this solution and be part of this team. And again, I want to close by recognizing the Commission Corps. I’m not sure they had anything but pizza to eat for the last two days… Donuts. All right. Don’t follow their guidance. Vice President Pence: (34:48)Dr. Fauci. Dr. Fauci: (34:51)Thank you, Mr. Vice President. I’ll be very brief. I just want to say listening to the description of Admiral Giroir, I’m very pleased to see how things have evolved. I think we could describe this as entering into a new phase in the testing space available here in the United States. You’ve heard me on many of these briefings talk about the multifaceted armamentarium that we have to address the crisis of what the world is seeing, and the challenge that we’re seeing right here in the United States. I mean, obviously, the travel restrictions have been in my mind a very, very positive way that we have prevented more of the input from outside in that would seat us and make our job more difficult. Dr. Fauci: (35:36)And then we have, as I’ve mentioned, the containment and the mitigation from within. You’re going to be hearing more about advanced guidelines about that more precise instructions of how we can implement this mitigation within the community. But now that we have a situation that is going to be rolled out, and remember, I want to emphasize what was just said. We’re not going to go from here to there overnight. It’s going to be a gradual ratcheting up that I believe is going to happen quickly, so that then we can start talking about things and put behind us the multiple, multiple understandable questions about testing and move on to see how we can make this multifaceted approach really work for us. Dr. Fauci: (36:16)Because as I’ve said many times, and I’ll repeat it, the worst is ahead for us. It is how we respond to that challenge that’s going to determine what the ultimate end point is going to be. We have a very, very critical point now. If you look at the curves that I’ve described multiple, multiple times, this window that we’re in is going to be very important for us to stay ahead of this curve. Thank you. Vice President Pence: (36:44)Questions? Yes. Speaker 1: (36:48)Mr. Vice President, we’ve seen a number of communities across the country that are starting to either close restaurants, some are even doing curfews. Do you envision this happening kind of nationwide where you’ll see some rules come to affect saying, “We don’t want people out at places they’re not… Essentially a Walmart or a grocery store of some kind or a testing center?” And then also I would be curious to see, we’ve also heard so many travelers today that were coming back from these airports, people that were flying back. They were so concerned, I’m sure the Secretary will address it, but these folks that are wondering now, did they catch it because they were stuck waiting in line for hours and hours of customs? Your thoughts on that, sir? Vice President Pence: (37:22)Well, we will have updated guidelines tomorrow morning for you that are being vetted now with CDC and all of our top healthcare experts. But what I would just recommend to the American people is to review those federal guidelines, and know that we’ll also respect and defer to decisions that are made by governors, by state health departments about what’s best for that community. What my healthcare team, some of the best people in the world, tell me very regularly, is that it’s very important that you follow the data. And you make decisions based on the circumstances that are taking place in that community. But we’ll have more broad based recommendations for the American public tomorrow. And let me say, I’m going to ask the Secretary to come up and speak about the screening issue. The president made a decision to suspend all travel from Europe. That is underway now, and as of midnight Monday night, we will be suspending all travel from the UK and Ireland as well. But Americans may come home. But out of an abundance of caution, we are engaging in healthcare screenings at 13 different airports around the country and working diligently in that regard to put the safety of the American public first. And we’re asking returning Americans to self quarantine for 14 days if they’ve been in those countries in Europe. And as of Monday, the UK and Ireland that are being impacted by the Coronavirus. But the Secretary and I spoke this morning, I spoke with Governor Pritzker and Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois this morning about some challenges at O’Hare airport, and I’m going to let the Secretary speak to how we are addressing those going forward. Mr. Secretary. Secretary Chad Wolf: (39:21)Well, yesterday we began processing again the travel restrictions from passengers from the Shingon area, which totaled more than 40,000 passengers yesterday. So to give you an idea, in one day, we processed over half of the total number of individuals we have processed medical screening since February 2nd. So that is an enormous challenge that we have placed on our officers and contract medical staff at airports, and they are stepping up. But to be clear, the lines again that we saw overnight at a limited number of airports, including Chicago, are unacceptable. Acting Commissioner, CVP Commissioner Morgan also believes they’re unacceptable and has personally engaged leadership at all 13 funneling airports. We did make the necessary adjustments at 12 of the funneling airports. Secretary Chad Wolf: (40:03)We did make the necessary adjustments at 12 of the funneling airports. However, again, at Chicago those adjustments were not made quick enough, but we have course corrected. We’ve adjusted our processes, we continue to surge personnel, and we are certainly glad to see certain airports and certain airlines step up, partner with us and help address this unprecedented situation. Secretary Chad Wolf: (40:21)As I walked in here today, so far today at all of our funneling airports to include Chicago, we have an average wait time of 30 minutes. So we addressed the problem, we identified the problem, addressed it and we have fixed it and we look forward to, again, accommodating passengers this evening as well. I understand the frustration that some passengers who are returning to the US might have with some of these procedures, but I would just say, and rest assure, that we are continuing our strict protocols of looking at individuals as they come into the country, make sure that they are medically screened, make sure that we are capturing the information for the public health officials, the state and local officials, and we’ll continue to do that. And we’ve done that specifically at the President’s request. Thank you. Reporter: (41:07)Mr. Secretary, has there been any talk, sir, of any sort of shutdown of domestic air travel at all? Secretary Chad Wolf: (41:12)Well, we continue to look at all options and all options remain on the table to address, and we’ll certainly adjust as the medical professionals at CDC address the medical situation. Vice President Pence: (41:21)Very good. Good job. Reporter: (41:26)Mr. Vice President, Dr. Fauci this morning said that the federal government should do whatever it takes to increase Americans’ social distancing and encourage that practice. He didn’t rule out the possibility of a national lockdown. If Americans don’t take those steps on their own, is that something that the federal government is prepared to do? And secondly, I’d also like to know, the President, we just heard him say Americans should relax. Why aren’t we hearing more from him about what Americans can do as they are seeing this huge impact on their daily lives, whether it’s at airports or at restaurants or other places around the country? Vice President Pence: (42:05)Well, everything that the White House Coronavirus Task Force does is at the direction of the President of the United States. All the efforts of all federal agencies and cooperation with state governments and local health officials is reflective of the decisive leadership the President has brought this early on. It’s important to remember that the President on January 31st suspended all travel from China. Vice President Pence: (42:35)I said to Dr. Fauci who I’ll call up to address your other question in a moment. I said to Dr. Fauci today, as we look at Europe now being the epicenter of the coronavirus, I asked him if we had not suspended all travel from China, what our circumstance would be, and he essentially said we’d be where Europe is today. Vice President Pence: (42:58)And the President also the actions with regard to Europe and recently expanded those. So the American people can be confident that President Trump is going to continue to act without hesitation on the advice of our healthcare professionals to put the health and safety of the American people first. But with regard to the statement that you made, I’m going to let Dr. Fauci address that as well. Dr. Fauci: (43:22)Yeah, I meant everything I said this morning on the shows, that really to protect the American people we’ll consider anything and everything on the table. You’re going to see some advanced and updated guidelines tomorrow. They’re going to address some but not all of the questions and concerns. But on a day by day basis we look at this and literally we will do everything that we can to make sure we safeguard the health and the wellbeing of the American people, and that means everything and anything we’ll consider. Reporter: (43:51)Could we continue for Dr. Fauci, could you give us some examples? You say anything, everything. Like what? Dr. Fauci: (44:01)Like- Reporter: (44:02)Like what Europe is doing? No bars, no restaurants- Dr. Fauci: (44:05)That could be, absolutely. I mean that could be. Reporter: (44:08)But if new guidance is coming tomorrow, can you give us a more concrete idea right now? Dr. Fauci: (44:11)I don’t want- Reporter: (44:11)You must know what it is. Dr. Fauci: (44:12)No, what I don’t want to do, is I don’t want to jump ahead of the guidance. I promise you, let the guidance come out. We’ll be here every day. I’ll answer the question after the guidance. I promise you. Okay. Reporter: (44:21)Mr. Vice President, how will people know where to get their test? Reporter: (44:28)Mr. Vice President, what is your plan to build more hospital beds so tens of thousand Americans don’t die, and how many more ventilators are you looking at ordering so people don’t suffocate? Vice President Pence: (44:38)Let me let the secretary step up. I know that there’s a longterm planning that takes place at HHS for those circumstances, and when I traveled to HHS yesterday, we reviewed all the numbers about stockpiles, everything from masks to ventilators to gowns. Mr. Secretary, you might just speak about capacity issues. And let me say it’s a very good question on your part. Right now our focus as the White House Coronavirus Task Force is to have widespread testing across the country using this new partnership with our commercial labs that the president has forged, and work with states to make those tests available. We’re also going to continue to work every single day to promote best practices for mitigation and working closely with and supporting state governments for decisions that they’re making on mitigation to prevent the spread. But the whole issue of personal protective equipment and supplies and the capacity of our healthcare system is in the forefront of what we’re talking about every day and the Secretary can address it. Alex Azar: (45:47)Thank you very much. First, being here at the podium, I just want to especially talk about the people in blue behind me. These are the leaders of United States Public Health Service Commission Corps that I am incredibly privileged to lead. Over 3000 of them, America’s public health warriors. Whether it’s going into the Eastern Congo or Western Africa to fight Ebola, or if it’s staffing the nursing home in Kirkland, being on the World Health Organization team in China, or helping to facilitate community based testing, these are America’s public health heroes. They rarely, in fact I doubt that there’s ever been a time in American history where the leadership of the Public Health Service Commission Corps had the privilege of standing here on this stage behind the President and Vice President of the United States. I just wanted to commend that. Alex Azar: (46:36)In terms of our capacities in our healthcare system, any pandemic like this runs the risk of exceeding our healthcare system capacity, and we must acknowledge that. That is precisely why the President and Vice President’s strategy is as Dr. Fauci has repeatedly spoke, to a delay and flatten the curve. The point of this is instead of a spike of the curve to delay and flatten that curve with the hope that you can keep the utilization of resources to be within the healthcare systems capacities. In addition to that, the entire point of our pandemic planning over the last 15 years has been to grant and put extra flex into our healthcare system. That’s why we have hospital preparedness grants that we fund every year through our preparedness program. That’s why we have in our strategic national stockpile, ventilators, field hospital units like mash units, if you’ll remember those, that have capacity for hundreds of individuals. In terms of supplies, obviously this is an unprecedented challenge. Unprecedented. And so we will work to increase the supplies of personal protective equipment, of ventilators, of field medical unit hospitals that we can deploy. We have tremendous supplies, but we want to acquire more. And that’s thanks to the bipartisan work of Congress funding the emergency supplemental that gives us the money to scale up production here and abroad. And we’re doing that. Alex Azar: (48:21)We don’t disclose concrete numbers on particular items for national security purposes, but we have many ventilators, thousands and thousands of ventilators in our system. We have received so far only, I think, one request for just several ventilators. One of the things in terms of hospital capacity that’s going to be really important, this is a really good learning from China that we got from the World Health Organization team that went there. Is if we have communities where we have enough capacity where we can put people who are positive with COVID-19 and have them be exclusively reserved for individuals who are positive for COVID-19, this reduces our need to try to protect patients from other patients because they’re all positive already. Alex Azar: (49:07)We need to protect our healthcare workers and our service workers in those facilities. This gives us reduced burden on personal protective equipment, but it also can give us greater capacity as we put field medical shelters up, as we consolidate into single facilities, as we don’t need individual rooms, negative airflow, isolation, et cetera. A vastly more efficient utilization of our healthcare system. This is all part of the planning work that we’ve done and are promulgating throughout our healthcare system. So that’s our strategy. We’re going to keep building that capacity though. Vice President Pence: (49:37)Very good. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Reporter: (49:38)Mr. Vice President, [crosstalk 00:49:41] using the military? Vice President Pence: (49:42)Go ahead. Reporter: (49:44)Mr Vice President, you talked briefly about trying to make information more accessible online, so can you give us a time table for when you think a website will be available based on your conversations with Google? And secondly, and this might be to the broader team, can you also talk specifically about how many of these tests have been sent out to states and how many you still have to send out? Vice President Pence: (50:08)Well, let me say that we’re working with Google, but we’re working with many other tech companies and we’re truly grateful for the efforts of tech companies in disseminating best practices and guidance for citizens online all over the country today. Those resources are available in it. We literally heard not only from Google, but from Facebook and Amazon, and the public spiritedness that’s been reflected there is a credit to those great companies and a credit to all the dedicated Americans who worked there. Vice President Pence: (50:43)Our best estimate, and literally the team has been working around the clock since Friday, is that at some point early in the week that we will have a website that goes up, the purpose of which will be for people to go and first fill out a questionnaire so that they can identify whether they fall in the category that Dr. Burks described would indicate the need to have a test. And then once they go through that questionnaire, then our objective is as more and more of these sites come online, run by state governments working in cooperation with our team, our public health service team, and FEMA, and also working in cooperation with local businesses and retailers, that people will know how to not only find it, but also the objective would be for them to literally be given a time that they can go and report for the test. But let me let the Admiral speak to the timing on the testing and unpack that for you. Admiral Giroir: (51:45)So in our design, I just want to emphasize, we talk about testing and we talk about so many things, but we’re really talking people. And we’re trying to make this a very person centric experience to easily access the system, to give clear guidance about how to go, when to go, information that even if you’re not really indicated for testing, information you need to help protect yourself and your family. And then on the back end, very customized reporting. And we’re talking literally about having telephonic services to call individuals who’ve been tested, let them know yes, no, and what the next steps are. Admiral Giroir: (52:24)So we’ve tried to really envision this through a patient experience. Now let me talk about the testing. Progressively over this week there will be rollout to different laboratories of approximately 1.9 million tests. There are many centralized laboratories, the behind the curtain that you never see after you give your blood. And you saw some of the CEOs in the Rose Garden last week like Quest and LabCorp that are fully able ready to run. They have been testing already, but fully able ready to run within the first part of this week, the very high throughput testing. The 2000 laboratories that are around the country that have a different platform, one that’s amenable to so many labs, not the big hugest highest output, but very high throughput laboratories, are progressing. They have to adapt the test slightly to their machines and get used to this. They will start lighting up Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday. I can’t give you the precise timeline except it has been an absolute priority of the laboratory associations of Thermo Fisher, the company that made this test, you heard the President predict that it might be approved within 24 hours on Friday. I think it was five hours after that in the middle of the night that the FDA approved that. And that’s the one that’s going to be widely disseminated, high throughput that’s going to be available. Admiral Giroir: (53:50)So I know you want a specific time when these will light up progressively over the week. When that happens, there will be a centralized opportunity like in the Quest and the LabCorp. There will also be distributed opportunities like in all the major hospital systems and labs that are in your area. And then that number of 1.9 million goes up dramatically in the weeks coming forward. I’m not going to say that the lab testing issue is over because it’s not, it’s entering the next phase, but the much higher priority now is now that we have the testing available, how do we get people into the system to be tested in the appropriate prioritized way? And that’s what we’ve really been focused on. Information, website, points of distribution model that are tried and true, enabling the states, providing them with equipment, supplies, know how and Commission Corps officers as needed to help man these, or staff these, as we move forward. So you’ll see this rapidly developing over the week. Speaker 3: (54:50)All right guys, last question. Reporter: (54:51)Mr. Vice President, are you considering domestic travel restrictions, sir? Reporter: (54:55)Mr. Vice President, market futures are down despite the dramatic move from the fed that the President applauded, which suggests that there’s still concern that we haven’t done enough to respond to the economic impact of this deal… Or of the coronavirus. I’m wondering when specifically we’re going to hear from the White House about how you’re going help impacted industries from the airlines, the cruise ships? And secondly, I wanted to talk about the legislation that came out. The White House fought to exclude workers at larger corporations from paid sick leave. And so I’m wondering what you say to somebody who flips burgers at McDonald’s or works at one of these large chains that’s worried about staying home and potentially missing a paycheck? Vice President Pence: (55:41)Well first let me say we strongly support the House legislation, which while it gives some flexibility to small businesses, which will be reflected in the regulations going forward, no American workers should worry about missing a paycheck if they’re feeling ill. And we can’t say often enough to our fellow Americans, if you’re sick with a respiratory ailment, stay home. And as you’ve heard here today, over the course of this next week, we’re going to see testing become much more widely available beginning in the areas the CDC will focus us as the highest priority. But working with members of Congress, we’ve made sure that not only is testing free, but we have every confidence that the extension of paid and family leave to Americans will be extended in a way that will… Should give every American that confidence. Vice President Pence: (56:46)And let me say with regard to the economy as a whole, I think the Treasury Secretary and then working very diligently on the President’s behalf, we have the supplemental eight point $3 billion bill. The House has now acted on important legislation that we fully support, and we hope the Senate takes it up this week. But whether it be the airline industry, or the cruise line industry, or the hotel industry, as the Secretary said recently, we are in just the first few innings of this effort. And the President has directed us to bring the full weight of the federal government to bear to confront this crisis, first and foremost on behalf of the health and safety and the American public, but strengthening our economy, ensuring that those vital industries will be able to find their way through and grow strongly once this coronavirus has passed will be a priority. Vice President Pence: (57:43)And we’re already in discussions with members of Congress in both parties about that next phase of the support. But let me say as I close, we will be back in the morning tomorrow for a briefing, and also we’ll have a health briefing in the afternoon. But again, I know I speak on behalf of the President when I say how grateful we are for all the governors in the country, for all the local health officials, everyone that’s coming alongside Americans. We encourage every American to continue to use best practices and common sense. Even if you’re not in a high risk category, as the vast majority of Americans are, remember those people around you who may well be. Remember those seniors with underlying health conditions. Vice President Pence: (58:36)It’s the reason why you need to keep washing your hands. You need to keep practicing good hygiene, cleaning those counters and surfaces to make sure that we don’t convey the coronavirus to them. And finally, let me add to all the wonderful accolades of the public health service personnel behind me. These are all heroes. And I have to tell you, having been over at HHS yesterday, having seen the way these people dropped everything and are rolling into this effort to expand testing across the country, it’ll be these people in these blue uniforms that you see at an awful lot of these points of distribution, these community centers around the country. And for all they’re doing today, for all each one of them done throughout their career. I know they have the thanks of this President, his Vice President, and the American people. Thank you. Transcribe Your Own Content Try Rev and save time transcribing, captioning, and subtitling. Copyright Disclaimer Under Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Get a weekly digest of the week’s most important transcripts in your inbox. It’s the news, without the news.

right

mar donald trump mike pence coronavirus task force give update effort slow end pandemic read transcript donald trump day outside think great thing talk start discuss federal reserve know happen minute ago make happy want congratulate federal reserve starter lower fed rate lower zero zero big difference bit point donald trump addition importantly federal reserve go purchase billion treasury billion mortgage back security number increase go start good news great country happy happy step step long period time step donald trump think people market thrilled bring strong country world far financially way bring line country actually negative rate look get potentially zero big step happy donald trump hear bad month congratulate federal reserve think terrific come speak go mention federal reserve come walk donald trump want thank people google google communication know substantiate say friday head google great gentleman call apologize know press get fake news get someplace know google release guy figure get sure apologize great news correctly wonderful donald trump phone impressive people big world world store grocery name dave clark food mark clouse ceo campbell soup company brian cornell ceo target randy edeker chairman ceo president hyvee jeff haremne ceo general mill great company kevin birkin president ceo sysco craig jelinek ceo costco todd jones ceo publix supermarket donnie king tyson food david maclennan chairman ceo cargill rodney mcmillan ceo chairman kroger big company doug mcmillan ceo walmart fantastic doug know friday watch market point friday go point todd vasos ceo dollar general corporation vivek san quran president ceo albertson donald trump phenomenal company great company long conversation go work hour clock keep store stock like people buy go great go good go happen fed phenomenal news happen incredible company phenomenal news buy easy relax people go buy remember guess conversation doug walmart say buy buy christmas relax great pass donald trump folk speak fantastic job go meet need public go round clock committed community serve serve beautifully long time buy lot additional thing sell actually ask buy little bit think hear retailer work hand hand federal government state local leader ensure food essential constantly available shortage shortage people buy time normally buy donald trump go long time number pen demand incredible pass go go number think predict guess allow predict like wall street people allow predict pretty agreement go pen demand like lot people include see donald trump know get crisis require america approach important committed remain open crisis totally open stay open door stay open supply country supply chain america powerful world work hard work clock store stock level christmas time great reassuring speak people totally hand donald trump need anybody country hoard essential food supply say tell buy enjoy nice dinner relax plenty buy quantity hard refill store basis rapid refill donald trump power federal government defeat coronavirus take think lot good thing go happen want thank people stand phenomenal people right people work clock incredible job donald trump happen go country learn watch country frankly contagious virus incredible tremendous control think important young people people good health group people strongly affect elderly people certain respect dangerous group watch protect watch protect vulnerable okay go call talk federal reserve think tremendous thing take place know surprised sunday know happen sunday think lot people wall street happy tell happy expect like surprised vice president incredible job go probably tomorrow donald trump vice president pence thank mr president good afternoon case coronavirus state country want assure american people administration partner state level local health official high priority health safety american public president direction continue government approach discuss today continue build america approach confront coronavirus country vice president pence health expert continue confirm base late information american people risk illness remain low risk heavily weight vulnerable people immunodeficiency people elderly underlie chronic health condition administration know state administration continue focus vulnerable continue urge american vigilant practice good hygiene take advice cdc local health expert vulnerable safe vice president pence know speak behalf president entire team grateful governor country seamless partnership forge state health official federal team speak today governor pritzker illinois continuous communication governor phone away know contact address small need governor know firsthand come health challenge america state ground lead local health organization build great partnership vice president pence want express great appreciation american people surprisingly inspire way ten million americans respond compassion common sense want express particular gratitude community faith participate today national day prayer vice president pence see place worship implement policy vulnerable safe see community faith step forward support encourage vulnerable hear tell church indiana actually long have service april meantime offer daycare child healthcare worker central indiana church country take opportunity reach feed faith truly inspiring vice president pence president mention today speak today leader grocery store industry people buy food hear remind america efficient effective supply chain world work fine president say receive commitment grocery store executive store stay open day lie ahead vice president pence tell hour reduce allow cleaning resupply american family confident local grocery store go open go supply specifically ask encourage americans buy weekly need grocery grocery store remain open vice president pence movingly executive reiterate commitment continue support local food bank way grocer continue america tomorrow president brief nation governor state territory district columbia speak progress make speak specifically widen partnership expand testing american people vice president pence allow speak issue go recognize admiral brett giroir describe excellent work public health service dr burk describe importance new national public private partnership diagnostic testing go open door thousand test real time american people day ahead vice president pence fundamental american people know testing available state state lab conduct test cdc process test traditional manner manual test allow test day reason president week ago task group white house reach commercial lab country forge publicprivate partnership bring high speed accurately high throughput testing coronavirus available real time base unprecedented speed fda week approve high throughput coronavirus testing roche thermo fisher access day ahead lab country equipment today process coronavirus test rapidly high volume american people vice president pence term deliver service state addition cdc labs public health labs lab state authorize state state implement drive testing site want commend new york colorado delaware washington state texas implement onsite place people obtain test current cdc test manual testing work closely governor hear momentarily sure new testing regimen available remote site vice president pence mention monday lab come online high speed testing connect state testing method work number retail partner add work state country work set parking lot testing center outside store admiral brett giroir detail progress hour vice president pence president declaration emergency admiral public health service forge partnership fema possible declaration reach state create process enable americans need test community base testing site outside usual healthcare facility focus test dr burk describe momentarily need priority place healthcare worker responder come alongside people impact coronavirus want sure access testing priority americans cough fever symptom prioritize test extend vice president pence mention admiral giroir describe progress moment go continue work diligently hour hour day day day ahead expand test country access extraordinary unprecedented national public private partnership diagnostic testing vice president pence regard testing expand test pleased congress join administration sure cost go barrier get coronavirus test recall week ago president direct change medicare medicaid program ensure coronavirus testing include health insurer bring agree waive copay good bipartisan work house representative coronavirus testing free free american include uninsured americans continue urge passage legislation consider senate week vice president pence final word testing issue president say absolutely important expand testing resource country begin prioritize area cdc state leadership tell important important test available people need healthcare worker responder help support dr burk describe testing available reason think coronavirus encourage people consult doctor symptom free encourage work sure testing available people experience symptom vice president pence extremely important continue cooperation american expand testing available challenging time life nation go ask admiral brett giroir public health service leader great commission corp come describe extraordinary work hour day conjunction state expand testing community base testing country american people new publicprivate partnership diagnostic testing admiral admiral brett giroir mr vice president thank personal interest support team hour work critically important admiral giroir hour work critically important project vice president say past hour develop begin implement process program testing enable americans need coronavirus testing test effectively efficiently accord principle admiral giroir want assure vulnerable impact able prioritize number want test way threaten acute care system word want people go hospital acute care clinic number infect people subject infection number want balance need entire healthcare system diagnosis treatment word want balance stress strategic national stockpile commodity get material need admiral giroir vice president say week historically fast approval high throughput testing new phase testing hear dr fauci talk new phase go somewhat manual relatively slow phase testing regimen test ten thousand hundred thousand individual week maybe million high throughput test available week numerous lab start turn light begin week roll week admiral giroir game changer shop testing capability shop work order test get able swab individual system completely paralyze entire healthcare system emergency declaration important enable historically effective process work empower state federallysupporte statele effort normal fema mechanism admiral giroir hour representative fema government commission corp work join unique unprecedented public health mission historically successful mission personal distribution center place distribution pod system fema public health service deploy thousand officer support coronavirus mission include diamond border quarantine station acute care setting care nursing home resident seattle experienced group bring admiral giroir design work state contact state fema system single region single state understand vice president say state roll communitybased testing need augment believe create model base public health fema system optimize drive potentially walk pod base unit believe screen individual day test appropriate personal protective gear appropriate backend linkage public health system include testing know logistic know material federallysupporte statele effort state need meal deal want dozen public health service officer work protective gear actually test need supply like protective gear need swab need logistical support state need fraction personnel need knowhow template gear provide go start implement system week number state primarily hard hit right rise cdc advise need testing admiral giroir want emphasize focus important group hear say different way group impact impactful outbreak number healthcare worker responder important reason number care healthcare worker responder america need need available healthy provide care deserve important feel risk having contact coronavirus test spread example longterm care facility elderly admiral giroir second group elderly classify accord risk year age old respiratory symptom fever low number see old spike high fever like child set bar little bit low know high risk bad consequence test positive engage practitioner tell health provider system sure outstanding outcome admiral giroir unprecedented progress site roll progressively week believe fantasy develop model talk state focus specific location start ship gear stuff tomorrow start deploy officer tomorrow tuesday begin see site addition one spring implement week capability test ten thousand additional people site week addition capability go distribute laboratory major central core laboratorie admiral giroir know number question hopefully question answer session able answer think great linkage pediatric icu doctor care sick people know happen respiratory illness surgeon general anesthesiologist take care people respiratory difficulty manage know work important thing work right make test accessible advance fda private industry high throughput test work end emergency declaration admiral giroir tool government come industry government state private industry manufacturer bring swab personal protective gear laboratory test shipping front walgreen walmart work potential site mind unprecedented entire society approach work intensely past certainly past week incredibly project past hour vice president pence admiral let move public private partnership major commercial lab public health team fema move connect state deploy point distribution community center work closely member medium individual jurisdiction work google tech company sure online resource people able readily access questionnaire walk symptom test indicate day ahead look forward website able direct people near community center drive center available vice president pence let introduce dr deborah birx speak patient experience importance right people seek testing day ahead doctor dr deborah birx mr vice president let start recognize man woman military serve day brother sister privileged serve alongside long time critically want recognize moment public health commission corp vice president speak actually go yesterday place work disturb level dedication work hour nonstop thank thank work thank work bring thank admiral explain quickly dr deborah birx way laboratory work united states think know doctor need lab test doctor office lab send start emergency response virus start know flu platform use surveillance set doctor office set hospital laboratory set state local lab cdc week work group serve decade dr deborah birx commercial laboratory speciman go ensure capacity meet need american people go test go ten thousand test need week spend get force clinical laboratory service time hear describe serve need people community reside know talk people vulnerable condition immunosuppression medical condition elderly want have sit long time doctor office hospital wait room dr deborah birx state local governor past normally referral doctor office hospital provide communityled service provide testing federal government augment augment innovation exist south korea bring shore united states broaden novel way utilize healthcare delivery system different south korea adapt work system dr deborah birx hospital laboratory know pen demand sure hospital laboratory speak people work lab like sure pipette tip pipetter equipment need run laboratory know need sure available test know increase sample increase ability community access additional sample go laboratory manage high throughput need supply normally need run test dr deborah birx hiv viral load thing need know need sure run important thing know go result make sure end reporting reporting available doctor state local government federal government personal identifier understand positive negative assure healthcare provider need meet demand american people health need dr deborah birx let bit report notice test roll week spike curve watch china china reporting remember change definition sudden blip curve go go spike people access want finish remind people important know everybody go want drive through prioritize like ask prioritize care person preexist condition immunosuppression elderly exist condition dr deborah birx ask prioritize ask prioritize line responder healthcare provider everybody difficulty doctor office utilize system bring traditional system availability online day week thank thank constantly remind important response america americans america americans privilege solution team want close recognize commission corps sure pizza eat day donut right follow guidance vice president pence fauci dr fauci mr vice president brief want listen description admiral giroir pleased thing evolve think describe enter new phase testing space available united states hear briefing talk multifaceted armamentarium address crisis world see challenge see right united states mean obviously travel restriction mind positive way prevent input outside seat job difficult dr fauci mention containment mitigation go hear advanced guideline precise instruction implement mitigation community situation go roll remember want emphasize say go overnight go gradual ratcheting believe go happen quickly start talk thing multiple multiple understandable question testing multifaceted approach work dr fauci say time repeat bad ahead respond challenge go determine ultimate end point go critical point look curve describe multiple multiple time window go important stay ahead curve thank vice president pence yes speaker vice president see number community country start close restaurant curfew envision happen kind nationwide rule come affect say want people place essentially walmart grocery store kind testing center curious hear traveler today come airport people fly concerned sure secretary address folk wonder catch stick wait line hour hour custom thought sir vice president pence update guideline tomorrow morning vet cdc healthcare expert recommend american people review federal guideline know respect defer decision governor state health department good community healthcare team good people world tell regularly important follow datum decision base circumstance take place community broad base recommendation american public tomorrow let go ask secretary come speak screening issue president decision suspend travel europe underway midnight monday night suspend travel uk ireland americans come home abundance caution engage healthcare screening different airport country work diligently regard safety american public ask return americans self quarantine day country europe monday uk ireland impact coronavirus secretary speak morning speak governor pritzker senator richard durbin illinois morning challenge airport go let secretary speak address go forward mr secretary secretary chad wolf yesterday begin process travel restriction passenger shingon area total passenger yesterday idea day process half total number individual process medical screening february enormous challenge place officer contract medical staff airport step clear line see overnight limited number airport include chicago unacceptable acting commissioner cvp commissioner morgan believe unacceptable personally engage leadership funnel airport necessary adjustment funnel airport secretary chad wolf necessary adjustment funnel airport chicago adjustment quick course correct adjust process continue surge personnel certainly glad certain airport certain airline step partner help address unprecedented situation secretary chad wolf walk today far today funnel airport include chicago average wait time minute address problem identify problem address fix look forward accommodate passenger evening understand frustration passenger return procedure rest assure continue strict protocol look individual come country sure medically screen sure capture information public health official state local official continue specifically president request thank reporter secretary talk sir sort shutdown domestic air travel secretary chad wolf continue look option option remain table address certainly adjust medical professional cdc address medical situation vice president pence good good job reporter vice president dr fauci morning say federal government take increase americans social distancing encourage practice rule possibility national lockdown americans step federal government prepared secondly like know president hear americans relax hear americans see huge impact daily life airport restaurant place country vice president pence white house coronavirus task force direction president united states effort federal agency cooperation state government local health official reflective decisive leadership president bring early important remember president january suspend travel china vice president pence say dr fauci address question moment say dr fauci today look europe epicenter coronavirus ask suspend travel china circumstance essentially say europe today vice president pence president action regard europe recently expand american people confident president trump go continue act hesitation advice healthcare professional health safety american people regard statement go let dr fauci address dr fauci mean say morning show protect american people consider table go advanced update guideline tomorrow go address question concern day day basis look literally sure safeguard health wellbeing american people mean consider reporter continue dr fauci example like dr fauci reporter europe bar restaurant dr fauci absolutely mean reporter new guidance come tomorrow concrete idea right dr fauci want reporter know dr fauci want want jump ahead guidance promise let guidance come day answer question guidance promise okay reporter vice president people know test reporter vice president plan build hospital bed ten thousand americans die ventilator look order people suffocate vice president pence let secretary step know longterm planning take place hhs circumstance travel hhs yesterday review number stockpile mask ventilator gown mr secretary speak capacity issue let good question right focus white house coronavirus task force widespread testing country new partnership commercial lab president forge work state test available go continue work single day promote good practice mitigation work closely support state government decision make mitigation prevent spread issue personal protective equipment supply capacity healthcare system forefront talk day secretary address alex azar podium want especially talk people blue leader united states public health service commission corps incredibly privileged lead america public health warrior go eastern congo western africa fight ebola staff nursing home kirkland world health organization team china help facilitate community base testing america public health hero rarely fact doubt time american history leadership public health service commission corps privilege stand stage president vice president united states want commend alex azar term capacity healthcare system pandemic like run risk exceed healthcare system capacity acknowledge precisely president vice president strategy dr fauci repeatedly speak delay flatten curve point instead spike curve delay flatten curve hope utilization resource healthcare system capacity addition entire point pandemic planning year grant extra flex healthcare system hospital preparedness grant fund year preparedness program strategic national stockpile ventilator field hospital unit like mash unit remember capacity hundred individual term supply obviously unprecedented challenge unprecedented work increase supply personal protective equipment ventilator field medical unit hospital deploy tremendous supply want acquire thank bipartisan work congress fund emergency supplemental give money scale production abroad alex azar disclose concrete number particular item national security purpose ventilator thousand thousand ventilator system receive far think request ventilator thing term hospital capacity go important good learning china get world health organization team go community capacity people positive exclusively reserve individual positive reduce need try protect patient patient positive alex azar need protect healthcare worker service worker facility give reduce burden personal protective equipment great capacity field medical shelter consolidate single facility need individual room negative airflow isolation et cetera vastly efficient utilization healthcare system planning work promulgate healthcare system strategy go build capacity vice president pence good thank mr secretary reporter vice president crosstalk military vice president pence ahead reporter vice president talk briefly try information accessible online time table think website available base conversation google secondly broad team talk specifically test send state send vice president pence let work google work tech company truly grateful effort tech company disseminate good practice guidance citizen online country today resource available literally hear google facebook amazon public spiritedness reflect credit great company credit dedicated americans work vice president pence good estimate literally team work clock friday point early week website go purpose people fill questionnaire identify fall category dr burk describe indicate need test questionnaire objective site come online run state government work cooperation team public health service team fema work cooperation local business retailer people know find objective literally give time report test let let admiral speak timing testing unpack admiral giroir design want emphasize talk testing talk thing talk people try person centric experience easily access system clear guidance information indicate testing information need help protect family end customized reporting talk literally have telephonic service individual test let know yes step admiral giroir try envision patient experience let talk testing progressively week rollout different laboratory approximately million test centralized laboratory curtain blood see ceo rose garden week like quest labcorp fully able ready run test fully able ready run week high throughput test laboratory country different platform amenable lab big huge high output high throughput laboratory progress adapt test slightly machine start light monday tuesday wednesday thursday precise timeline absolute priority laboratory association thermo fisher company test hear president predict approve hour friday think hour middle night fda approve go widely disseminate high throughput go available admiral giroir know want specific time light progressively week happen centralized opportunity like quest labcorp distribute opportunity like major hospital system lab area number million go dramatically week come forward go lab testing issue enter phase high priority testing available people system test appropriate prioritize way focus information website point distribution model try true enable state provide equipment supply know commission corps officer need help man staff forward rapidly develop week speaker right guy question reporter vice president consider domestic travel restriction sir reporter vice president market future despite dramatic fed president applaud suggest concern respond economic impact deal coronavirus wonder specifically go hear white house go help impact industry airline cruise ship secondly want talk legislation come white house fight exclude worker large corporation pay sick leave wonder somebody flip burger mcdonald work large chain worried stay home potentially miss paycheck vice president pence let strongly support house legislation give flexibility small business reflect regulation go forward american worker worry miss paycheck feel ill fellow americans sick respiratory ailment stay home hear today course week go testing widely available beginning area cdc focus high priority work member congress sure test free confidence extension pay family leave americans extend way american confidence vice president pence let regard economy think treasury secretary work diligently president behalf supplemental point billion bill house act important legislation fully support hope senate take week airline industry cruise line industry hotel industry secretary say recently innings effort president direct bring weight federal government bear confront crisis foremost behalf health safety american public strengthen economy ensure vital industry able find way grow strongly coronavirus pass priority vice president pence discussion member congress party phase support let close morning tomorrow briefing health briefing afternoon know speak behalf president grateful governor country local health official come alongside americans encourage american continue use good practice common sense high risk category vast majority americans remember people remember senior underlying health condition vice president pence reason need wash hand need practice good hygiene clean counter surface sure convey coronavirus finally let add wonderful accolade public health service personnel hero tell having hhs yesterday having see way people drop roll effort expand testing country people blue uniform awful lot point distribution community center country today career know thank president vice president american people thank transcribe content try rev save time transcribe captioning subtitle copyright disclaimer title usc section allowance fair use purpose criticism comment news reporting teaching scholarship research fair use permit copyright statute infringe weekly digest week important transcript inbox news news

Speeches, etc. 1. Mr. Deakins asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many financial requests she has now received from local education authorities for permission to start schemes of improvement or replacement of maintained secondary schools for the years 1972–73 and 1973–74; and what percentage of requests she has authorised for each year. The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher) The information asked for in the first part of the Question cannot be provided without disproportionate expenditure of money and manpower. The only secondary school improvement or replacement projects which have been included in the programmes for 1972–74 are those [column 822]where the main objective is the improvement of conditions in primary schools. Mr. Deakins Did the right hon. Lady try to get extra resources for these primary or secondary schools, or did she welcome the opportunity that the cut-back gave to slow down the progress towards comprehensive secondary reorganisation? Mrs. Thatcher I took the view that the conditions in many primary schools required even more urgent improvement than the conditions in secondary schools. In the first two years of the present Government's improvement programme, about three times as much money has been allocated in total than for the previous two years, the greater part going to primary schools. Mr. Scott-Hopkins Will my right hon. Friend continue to emphasise the primary school replacement programme—there are at least 90 primary schools in Derbyshire which were built in the last century—before she starts building new secondary schools, whether comprehensive or any other type? Mrs. Thatcher I am well aware of the urgency of replacing a large number of primary schools and the programme has been welcomed. I should also like to do some secondary school improvement projects as well, but it is not possible except to the extent that I indicated in my answer. Mr. Marks Since the Secretary of State is cutting both primary and secondary school building programmes in 1973, could she not use some money here for the immediate improvement of secondary schools? Mrs. Thatcher I am not cutting any school building programme at all. They are record programmes. There was a building programme for the raising of the school-leaving age, which will come to an end because it will have been completed. Apart from that, the combined basis need and improvement programmes show an increase over the previous year. 2. Mr. Spearing asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps she proposes to take to implement Sections 4 and 5 of the Education Act, 1944. Mrs. Thatcher In regard to Section 4, none at present. Under Section 5 a report on education for the year 1971 will be submitted to Parliament in due course. Mr. Spearing In not thanking the right hon. Lady for that non-reply, may I ask her to realise that she is defying the Education Act, 1944, as well as the requirement of Parliament that reports of the central advisory councils should be made? Is she aware that if they existed they would have a statutory duty to advise her on various matters? Is she afraid of receiving advice on such matters as school milk and school building? Mrs. Thatcher Governments of both parties have taken the same view about this. Both have appointed independent committees to advise them on specific matters. Both have had extensive sources of advice. The hon. Gentleman and I took part in a quite lengthy and interesting Adjournment debate on this subject and I have nothing to add to what was said on that occasion. 3. Mr. Bruce-Gardyne asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what response she has had so far to her consultative document on the financing of students' unions; and if she will make a statement. Mrs. Thatcher Of the organisations consulted, some have already taken part in preliminary discussions, others have sent in written memoranda. Consultations are continuing. Mr. Bruce-Gardyne Whatever the outcome of these consultations, will my right hon. Friend take care to ensure that in future no student is obliged to belong to the National Union of Students or is obliged to contribute either his own or his family resources to the cost of a student union? Will she look carefully again at the bizarre proposal in the Green Paper that in future voluntary student contributions to political funds should be a charge on the taxpayer or ratepayer? Mrs. Thatcher I cannot at the moment guarantee what my hon. Friend seeks in the first part of his supplementary question. Some reference to this is made in the consultative document. For the [column 824]rest, we have already had consultations with vice-chancellors and local education authorities. I have today received a message saying that the students have now fixed a date for a meeting next week and I think it better that we should continue the discussions before announcing any premature decisions. Mr. Alan Williams Is the right hon. Lady aware that the fact that the students are unanimously incensed against the Government is entirely of her doing? Does she not understand that it was absolutely predictable that her half-baked ideas would be seen as firm proposals when only one of the various possible alternatives was discussed in detail in the document and when that was prefaced by the words “It would probably be the most acceptable” ? Acceptable to whom? Does the right hon. Lady appreciate that if she does not back down on the central proposition, about which the document is wrong, a future Labour Government will revoke it? Mrs. Thatcher I find that, coming from the hon. Gentleman, difficult to take. Would he suggest that I put back the regulations to where they were when the Labour Government left office? If so, the students would have nothing like the rights which they now have—[Interruption]—because we altered the regulations to give students the right to a compulsory fee. I am anxious for the discussions to continue and they will continue with vice-chancellors, local education authorities and students, who are not unanimously against the proposals judging from the letters I have received. Mr. John E. B. Hill Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is desirable that as a result of these discussions student unions should be accountable for such public money as they may receive and that the constitutions of student unions should have within them adequate minimum safeguards to ensure that they are operated in the interests of the majority of students and cannot be abused by militant minorities through defects in procedure? Is it not to be hoped—[Hon. Members: “Too long” .]—that the position of student unions will be strengthened not only in universities but in other institutions of learning? Mrs. Thatcher I agreed that the two main points raised by my hon. Friend [column 825]in his supplementary question are most important—that the money should be properly accounted for and that decisions should be taken by a body which is properly representative of the students' wishes. Mr. Whitehead Does not the right hon. Lady now realise that her good will in the forthcoming discussions would be taken more seriously if today we had one word of encouragement about the useful work that has been done by the N.U.S. and the vast majority of student unions, particularly as not one such word appears in the consultative document? Mrs. Thatcher I gladly acknowledge some of the excellent work that is done by both the N.U.S. and a number of student unions—indeed, by most of them. 4. Mr. Rost asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she is examining the objections raised by parents in the Melbourne, Aston-on-Trent, Barrow-on-Trent, and Weston-on-Trent areas of Derbyshire, against the proposed reorganisation of secondary education in the Sector “B” of Derby Borough; and whether she will give assurances that equality of educational opportunity will be provided to children in these areas with those offered to children in Derby Borough. The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William van Straubenzee) The period for objection to these statutory proposals expired only last Monday. Before making her decision my right hon. Friend will carefully consider all the objections which have been received. I cannot say more at this stage. Mr. Rost While thanking my hon. Friend for that slightly helpful reply, may I ask him for an assurance that parents in the Melbourne, Aston, Weston and Barrow-on-Trent areas will not be let down over the reorganisation of Sector “B” as were the parents in my constituency over the reorganisation of Sector “E” , when a botched-up scheme was bulldozed through against the best interests of teachers and parents? May we now please have an assurance that the 500 letters which I have received about this will be adequately considered? May we also have the Minister's confirmation of the fact that the county [column 826]education committee reluctantly had to lodge an official objection to the Derby Borough education proposals? Mr. van Straubenzee I can confirm that objections have been received from, among others, the parents described by my hon. Friend. I can also confirm that a formal objection has been made by the county authority. These and all others that are received will be most carefully considered and weighed. As I have said, the expiry of the period occurred only last Monday. I hope that my hon. Friend will feel, therefore, that my answer was rather more than slightly helpful. 5. Mr. O'Halloran asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she hopes to announce her decision on the proposed primary school for St. Gabriel 's Parish, N.19; and if she will make a statement. Mr. van Straubenzee The Inner London Education Authority's proposals for the next school building programme include one to build a new Roman Catholic primary school in Upper Holloway. My right hon. Friend hopes to announce the programme next spring. Mr. O'Halloran In view of that very disappointing reply, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that more than 100 children must travel outside Islington to school every day and that this number is growing? Does he intend to do something about this? Mr. van Straubenzee I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would have appreciated that the order in which this particular school is placed in the local authority's list is the concern of the local authority. I am sure he will take encouragement from the fact that for 1973–74 the authority proposed 24 primary improvement projects of which my right hon. Friend has been able to approve no less than 21 at a total cost of over £2.5 million, which is a good pointer for the future. 6. Mr. Pavitt asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will consult with the Home Department to ascertain the area in which the immigrants who are now known to be eligible to receive work permits have indicated [column 827]they will settle for the purpose of enabling her to estimate the number of children of school age for whom places will be required; and whether she will seek powers to give extra help to those local education authorities who are likely to have a large influx. Mrs. Thatcher I am in touch with my right hon. Friend about this matter. Authorities with substantial numbers of immigrant pupils are already eligible for special help under various provisions. Mr. Pavitt Is the right hon. Lady aware that there is not the slightest racialist overtone in this Question and that integration in my area is fantastically good, thanks to the help of the Community Relations Committee, the Willesden Chronicle and the Kingsbury News, which give excellent coverage to these matters? Is the Minister aware, however, that if we must have this large number of people needing school places, we would be grateful for the maximum amount of practical help to enable us to absorb the large number in my area? Mrs. Thatcher I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those comments and I assure him that we shall do our best to help. Mr. Edward Short To what extent, if any, is the concentration of immigrants now a criterion in allocating money in the urban programme? Mrs. Thatcher It is still one of the criteria. The criteria have not changed since the right hon. Gentleman was in office. 8. Dr. Marshall asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many times during the past five years the Medical Research Council has refused to undertake a specific research project requested by the Department of Health and Social Security or the former Ministry of Health. Mrs. Thatcher None, Sir. Dr. Marshall In that case, is there any need for changes of the kind recommended in the Rothschild Report? Mrs. Thatcher Possible changes have been put before the research councils for [column 828]the purpose of consultation have started and I think it would be unwise of me to say anything until they have been completed and the Government have decided what proposals to bring forward. Mr. Alan Williams Have any of the research councils refused to take on such projects? Mrs. Thatcher I cannot speak off-hand about some of the others, but I believe that the Agricultural Research Council has never refused to take on a project suggested to it. I have not specifically looked at the other two. 9. Mr. Jeffrey Archer asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will establish an inquiry into the problem of violence in schools. Mrs. Thatcher I share my hon. Friend's concern, but I am not sure that a centralised inquiry would make the best contribution towards solving this problem. Mr. Archer Does my right hon. Friend realise that that is not a satisfactory reply? Is she aware that many teachers and parents are genuinely worried, not just for now but about what is likely to happen in the future, as a result of the present trend? Cannot something more positive be done rather than simply expressing hope for the future? Mrs. Thatcher We are all genuinely worried about violence in schools. It is probably true that the situation in schools to some extent reflects the situation in society. I would not like to dash into an inquiry until I am certain that that would make a positive contribution towards the subject. Mr. Merlyn Rees Is there, in fact, very much violence in schools? Mrs. Thatcher There is some violence in schools. So long as there is, we will be concerned. It is difficult to strike the right balance. One is very concerned about any violence that exists but one must not over-emphasise it. 10. Mr. Lamond asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the average waiting period in Oldham [column 829]for admission to a special residential school; and how this compares with the average waiting time in the country as a whole. Mr. van Straubenzee I understand from the local education authority that the average waiting time for the six handicapped pupils placed this year was two months. The seven pupils at present unplaced have been waiting on average for nine months but four are attending day schools in the meantime. No national average figures are available. Mr. Lamond Does not the Minister agree that these figures are rather disappointing when one considers that to have a child of this kind at home is often very disruptive to the rest of the family? Would he not agree that attention to this matter is of much higher priority than giving £2 million to grant-aided schools? Could not that money have been applied to the solution of this problem? Mr. van Straubenzee I would not want to have any note of complacency in my answer. I have studied particularly all the cases awaiting admission, including the one with which I know the hon. Gentleman has been very much personally concerned, and rightly so, in which I think that there is the prospect of admission within the foreseeable future. But the hon. Gentleman will know that three new day schools—I talk of day schools—for maladjusted children opened in Lancashire this year, two more are under consideration at present and four more are programmed to start next year. That is an encouraging indication. Mr. Edward Short The Under-Secretary will remember that his right hon. Friend a few minutes ago said that she was following previous practice in using the Central Advisory Council only for ad hoc purposes. Does not he agree that there is now a case for re-establishing the council to consider the whole field of special education? Mr. van Straubenzee As the right hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend has available to her in this sphere specialist advice which she draws upon and is continuing to draw upon. 11. Mr. Marten asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will give local educational authorities [column 830]the discretion to allow pupils to spend the extra year, when the school leaving age has been raised to 16 years, in a full-time course at a technical college if both parents and headmaster agree. 17. Mr. Cormack asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will encourage the use of technical college facilities by 15-years-olds when the school-leaving age is raised to 16 years. Mrs. Thatcher Circular 8/71 explained that when the school-leaving age is raised to 16 further education colleges will no longer be empowered to provide full-time education for pupils in the 15–16 age group. In appropriate cases I welcome co-operation between schools and further education by such means as linked courses, to which the circular draws attention. Mr. Marten I realise that there are these linked courses but that is not the point. Does not my right hon. Friend agree that there is, perhaps, even a small proportion of children who would benefit far more by doing a full-time course at a technical college rather than staying on at secondary school? This would require a slight amendment of the law. Would my right hon. Friend look again at this matter particularly in the light of what is happening in Northern Ireland, where the law is being altered for this purpose? Mrs. Thatcher If a greater proportion of time were to be needed in further education colleges, it should be done in conjunction with the headmasters of the schools, otherwise it would be tantamount to not raising the school-leaving age to 16 if young people could stop going to school and go full-time to a particular course which attracted them in a college of further education even though that did not give full education. Mr. Cormack Would my right hon. Friend think again about this? Many people in the teaching profession are extremely alarmed and apprehensive about the consequences of raising the school-leaving age and this would meet their point. Mrs. Thatcher I do not think that the colleges of further education would regard themselves as able to cope necessarily with all the difficult problems from [column 831]the schools, because some young people do not wish to stay at school for the further year. We have just about the right balance by encouraging maximum co-operation between the colleges of further education and the schools and I should like to see how it works out in practice. Mr. Molloy Is the right hon. Lady aware that there is grave concern about this problem, which will get worse unless something is done about it? Some local authorities feel that they could resolve this problem if they had assistance from her Department with regard to their present plans—the London Borough of Ealing, for instance. Would the right hon. Lady be prepared to see the education authorities of the Borough of Ealing to examine their difficulties with regard to the scales for teachers and their programme? If they could be resolved, this could make a great contribution to the problem. Mrs. Thatcher I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity in his supplementary question. My recollection is that Ealing has not fully decided about the particular pattern of comprehensive education that it finally wishes to pursue. When it does, naturally it will come to the Department. 15. Mr. Lane asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what response she has had from local education authorities to her recent circular about preparations for raising the school-leaving age; whether she is satisfied with the response; and if she will make a statement. Mrs. Thatcher Fifty-five reports had been received by 3rd December when a reminder was sent to authorities which had not so far replied. I shall make a fuller statement as soon as practicable in 1972. Mr. Lane While I congratulate my right hon. Friend on going ahead with this desirable reform, which the last Government postponed, will she acknowledge that there is real anxiety among many of the teachers involved? Will Ministers do their utmost in speeches and in other ways to make sure that the preparations are pursued with the necessary urgency during the next 12 months? Mrs. Thatcher I know that there is still some anxiety, which is why we are trying to put over as much information as possible while there is still time to remedy any defects. I would gladly make more speeches about the desirability of raising the school-leaving age because it will now be going up without a doubt. Mr. Spearing Does the right hon. Lady appreciate that one of the great difficulties in providing suitable education for those who will be staying on is adequate space and that the current regulations on space in schools are inadequate? Will she ask her inspectors to look at the question and report to her on it? Mrs. Thatcher I cannot accept that the current regulations on space are inadequate. I have seen excellent schools built under the current regulations. The sum of £125 million was allocated for buildings for the programme to raise the school-leaving age. 12. Mr. Carter asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the latest figures of children eating school meals; and how this compares with the situation prior to the last increase in charges. Mrs. Thatcher In October 4,658,000 pupils in maintained schools in England and Wales took the school meal compared with 5,148,000 in autumn, 1970. About 805,000 free meals were taken this year compared with 627,000 last year. Mr. Carter Would not the Minister agree that those figures completely undermine her oft-repeated claim that the numbers will eventually return to the pre-increase charges level? Would she not further agree that, if this trend continues, after the next increase is announced and implemented we are likely to be left with the rump of a school meals service very close to extinction? Mrs. Thatcher Before any further increase we shall have another set of census figures and we shall know exactly what is happening. I remind the hon. Gentleman that school meal charges have been raised before and the take-up has fallen off before. Mr. Farr Would not my right hon. Friend agree that whenever charges of [column 833]this nature are raised there is always a temporary falling-off in numbers which is gradually made good in the following months? Mrs. Thatcher That frequently happens. In some of the secondary schools a different pattern of midday provision is emerging and, for the first time in the statistics, we had a look at the numbers who are taking different kinds of meals from the standard midday meal, and it is quite a number in secondary schools. Miss Lestor Is not the right hon. Lady aware of the fact that it is well over half a year since this increase took place and that the forecast return to the number formerly taking school meals has not happened? Further, would she comment on the tremendous concern being expressed by primary school teachers and medical officers of health about large numbers of children in primary schools going without a hot school meal, without school milk and without any sort of refreshment during the morning and even getting nothing until they get home at night? As many of these children are from deprived areas, they will start showing signs of malnutrition. Mrs. Thatcher If that should happen, the committee on medical aspects of school meals would be the first to report it and naturally we would be the first to wish to do something about it. The level of those taking full school meals in primary schools is greater than the level of those taking full school meals in secondary schools. 13. Mr. Dalyell asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what timescale she has in mind for suggestions sent to her, arising from her Green Paper on the Framework for Government research and development. Mrs. Thatcher The timing is set out in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Government's Green Paper. Mr. Dalyell What exactly is the rationale behind saying to the learned societies and the research councils, “You have got only until 14th January to give us your detailed opinion on the most controversial report of recent times” ? Mrs. Thatcher They have not got only until 14th January. The final date for consultations is 29th February. Mr. Palmer Will the right hon. Lady impress on her right hon. Friend the Leader of the House the need for an early debate after the Recess on this important subject, which is causing great consternation in scientific circles? Mrs. Thatcher I will draw my right hon. Friend's attention to what the hon. Gentleman has said, but consultations will be continuing for the two months after Christmas and it is for the House to consider at what period it is best to hold a debate. 14. Mr. David Clark asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what advice she has sent to local education authorities with reference to the pricing policy of milk sold in schools; and if she will make a statement. Mrs. Thatcher Circular 12/71 advised local education authorities that the charge should cover the cost of the milk and the expense of providing it. Mr. Clark Will the right hon. Lady confirm that if local education authorities are to abide strictly by circular 12/71 they have to charge twice the cost of the milk? In the light of that, will she follow the practices of some of her Cabinet colleagues and accept that she has made a wrong decision and reintroduce free milk for all primary school children? Mrs. Thatcher I cannot confirm the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. On the contrary, the variation in charges for school milk is considerable. Some authorities are providing it for little above the wholesale cost while for others it is costing a good deal more. So long as the authorities balance their account for milk over the area they do not have to charge specifically the cost at a specific school. Mr. Scott-Hopkins Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are still many primary schools where milk is not available for the parents who wish to buy it? Will she do everything she can to see that those schools' local education authorities [column 835]make the milk available to parents who wish to purchase it for their children? Mrs. Thatcher My hon. Friend has raised an extremely important matter. Only just over 30 education authorities are selling milk. I understand that where it is being sold the scheme is very successful. From what I have seen when going about the country myself, I understand that many parents are prepared to pay for the milk, but it must be on sale. Mr. Loughlin Will the right hon. Lady consult her right hon. Friend the Home Secretary with a view to increasing the provision in prisons to cater for the number of Labour councillors who are refusing to implement her school milk policy, so that we can ensure that if the children cannot receive free milk the councillors can go to gaol? Mrs. Thatcher The hon. Gentleman is quite capable of putting that abstruse point to Reginald Maudlingmy right hon. Friend himself. 16. Mr. David James asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will introduce legislation to ensure that children of any age who show exceptional musical or dancing promise can be educated at special approved establishments at Government expense, in view of the inability of local education authorities to evaluate such talent or to pay for the specialised residential education involved. Mrs. Thatcher No, Sir. Local education authorities already have powers to assist in such cases. Mr. James Will my right hon. Friend recognise that in addition to the factors I list in my Question there is a great reluctance on the part of local authorities to send children out of their areas and that this hits particularly hard a constituent of mine, Carmel Russill, who at the age of 15 is still not able to go to Cheetham School, Manchester, to receive the 'cello lessons which he richly deserves? Mrs. Thatcher Local authorities do not usually send pupils outside their area where they feel that they can provide full [column 836]and proper education within it. I have considered very carefully the case raised by my hon. Friend. Perhaps he will kindly tell the parent of the young person concerned that I have read her letter which he let me have earlier today. Mr. Faulds Does the right hon. Lady realise that this is one of the most responsible Questions asked from her side of the House this afternoon? Does not she regret that a great deal of artistically-gifted talent goes to waste among children with such gifts, particularly in the present situation of Tory control—temporary, but transient, thank God—of many education authorities? Mrs. Thatcher I am dealing now with one particular case of a very talented young person. The local education authority has the power which my hon. Friend seeks and I cannot administer any such scheme as he is asking me to administer from the central Government. 18. Mr. John E. B. Hill asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will request local education authorities to ensure that all new primary school buildings should have space for a nursery class. Mrs. Thatcher In appropriate cases local authorities will, I hope, bear in mind the possibility of the later addition of nursery classes when planning new primary schools. But for the present resources should be concentrated on the replacement and improvement of old primary schools and on the expansion of nursery education under the urban programme. Mr. Hill Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the provision of space in the planning of any new scheme is vital so that a nursery class can be added later? Will she encourage local education authorities to make the space available as far as they can for voluntary activities on behalf of children under five by leasing it to play groups or any other organisation that can provide something for those children? Mrs. Thatcher I agree with my hon. Friend that space should be provided at new primary schools for the later addition of nursery schools or classes when resources become available. Mr. Barry Jones Are not hundreds of thousands of youngsters in rural areas suffering a social blight almost as serious as that suffered by children in urban areas? Will the Minister take special measures to inject urgency into nursery school building in rural areas? Are not peripatetic teachers in the nursery service a means of getting round this difficult problem? Mrs. Thatcher The problems of education in some of the rural areas are quite as great as in some of the old city centres. For that reason I gave an extensive primary school programme for rural areas and when resources are available for nursery schools the needs of rural areas will also be considered. Dr. Stuttaford Does my right hon. Friend agree that the raising of the school-leaving age may be an advantage to only a few pupils but that the spending of additional funds at the nursery school level would be to the advantage of nearly every child? We shall never obtain equality of educational opportunity until we have adequate nursery schools. Mrs. Thatcher I should like to do a good deal more for nursery education, as would almost every hon. Member. But it would not be possible suddenly to switch resources which have been devoted to raising the school-leaving age and adding extensions to secondary schools to make extra provision for nursery schools. I will bear in mind that my hon. Friend is also very anxious to have more nursery provision. Mr. Freeson Does the Minister accept that her hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. John E. B. Hill) was suggesting that the provision of space for a nursery class should be a condition of planning consent for a scheme even where the building could not go ahead at this stage? Will she bear in mind that should this be done some local authorities might be prepared to spend money from vote heads other than education to achieve the provision of pre-school facilities ahead of the provision of nurseries when the Department can allow it? Mrs. Thatcher My hon. Friend was asking me to request local authorities to provide space and where possible to make it available. 19. Miss Fookes asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the number of teachers' centres in England and Wales. Mrs. Thatcher I understand from the Schools Council that there are about 500 teachers' centres. Miss Fookes In view of the importance of the centres for in-service training, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether she is satisfied with the number and, more particularly, with the distribution of these centres throughout the country? Mrs. Thatcher I am never satisfied. I have seen some of the work that is being done and it is excellent. I applaud the way in which local education authorities are going about this. Inevitably there are some much better than others, but I hope that there will be a steady improvement in number and quality. Mr. Latham Does the right hon. Lady agree that another aspect of preparedness for the raising of the school-leaving age, apart from accommodation and money, is the nature of the treatment of older children who stay on at school? Would she say what encouragement she is giving to teachers to play their part in this and to see that there is created for the older child a more adult atmosphere in school, away from the days of gym slips and pigtails, short trousers and school caps, so often associated with senior pupils in their last year? Mrs. Thatcher Teachers have played a prominent part in curriculum presentation for raising the school-leaving age, through the Schools Council. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will read some of the Schools Council literature on this subject. It is distributed to the teachers through the teachers' centres and I know that teachers are finding it most valuable. 20. Mrs. Knight asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement on the question of providing loans instead of grants to postgraduate students. Mr. van Straubenzee My right hon. Friend has no statement to make at present. Mrs. Knight Is my hon. Friend aware that many education authorities, occasionally for extremely good reasons, find it impossible to make grants to postgraduate students but that the same students might well be enabled to have a loan and therefore to continue with their studies? Mr. van Straubenzee The greater amount of support comes from central funds in one way or another, but, as I say, I am not in a position to make a statement about a switch to loans for postgraduates. Mr. Alan Williams Would the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that when the time comes to make a policy statement, it will not be done simply in answer to a Written or Oral Question but that he will give the House a formal statement in view of the important principles involved? Mr. van Straubenzee Yes. There will need to be consultation and we shall not do it in the way that the last Government announced the increases in fees for overseas students—by a Written Question on the last day that Parliament sat. Mr. Edward Short All these exchanges surprise me. Are the Government considering loans instead of grants for postgraduate students? Mr. van Straubenzee My right hon. Friend has said in public that it is one of the matters under consideration in the context of the future development of higher education. 21. Mr. Douglas asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement on the progress of the Scottish Business School. Mr. van Straubenzee I understand that the chairman, secretary and members of the council have been appointed and that an interim programme of postgraduate and post-experience courses is already in operation. Mr. Douglas Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Scottish Business School is getting off to a good start and that eventually the students coming through the school might make an impact on the Scottish economy—if we can get rid of the present Government so that we shall have an economy in Scotland? Mr. van Straubenzee I am glad to confirm that the school has got off to an admirable start. One of the three constituent universities is the one in which I spent a year, and the good start is under this good Government. 23. Mrs. Monks asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science which local authorities are providing places in nursery schools and classes under the urban programme. Mr. van Straubenzee The provision of 16,300 places by 76 local education authorities in England has been approved. With permission, I will circulate details in the Official Report. About 2,000 additional places will be approved shortly in areas of high unemployment. Mrs. Monks May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the emphasis she is putting on this provision and say how glad I am to note that a large increase is proposed? Mr. van Straubenzee I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. She will find when the details are circulated that they are of considerable assistance. Following are the detail: Notes: (i) Phases I and II relate to projects approved for starting in the period 1968–70. Phases III and V provide for building starts up to 31st March, 1973. (ii) Phase IV comprised non-capital projects to be carried out in 1971–72. 24. Mr. Ashton asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further plans she has for redistributing expenditure on education; and on what aspects of education these will take place. Mrs. Thatcher The present plans of the Government for expenditure on education are set out in the White Paper “Public Expenditure to 1975–76” . Mr. Ashton May I take that as an assurance that the Minister will not take any money from things like the provision of milk to give it to grant-aided schools? Can she assure us that she has stopped pursuing a policy of taking from the under-privileged to give to the over-privileged? Mrs. Thatcher I can assure the hon. Gentleman that extra money will continue to be given to education to expand the education programme. Copyright © Margaret Thatcher Foundation 2024. All Rights Reserved.

right

speech etc mr deakin ask secretary state education science financial request receive local education authority permission start scheme improvement replacement maintain secondary school year percentage request authorise year secretary state education science mrs margaret thatcher information ask question provide disproportionate expenditure money manpower secondary school improvement replacement project include programme column main objective improvement condition primary school mr deakins right hon lady try extra resource primary secondary school welcome opportunity cutback give slow progress comprehensive secondary reorganisation mrs thatcher take view condition primary school require urgent improvement condition secondary school year present government improvement programme time money allocate total previous year great go primary school mr scotthopkin right hon friend continue emphasise primary school replacement programme primary school derbyshire build century start build new secondary school comprehensive type mrs thatcher aware urgency replace large number primary school programme welcome like secondary school improvement project possible extent indicate answer mr mark secretary state cut primary secondary school building programme use money immediate improvement secondary school mrs thatcher cut school building programme record programme building programme raising schoolleaving age come end complete apart combine basis need improvement programme increase previous year mr spearing ask secretary state education science step propose implement section education act mrs thatcher regard section present section report education year submit parliament course mr spearing thank right hon lady nonreply ask realise defy education act requirement parliament report central advisory council aware exist statutory duty advise matter afraid receive advice matter school milk school building mrs thatcher government party take view appoint independent committee advise specific matter extensive source advice hon gentleman take lengthy interesting adjournment debate subject add say occasion mr brucegardyne ask secretary state education science response far consultative document financing student union statement mrs thatcher organisation consult take preliminary discussion send write memoranda consultation continue mr brucegardyne outcome consultation right hon friend care ensure future student oblige belong national union student oblige contribute family resource cost student union look carefully bizarre proposal green paper future voluntary student contribution political fund charge taxpayer ratepayer mrs thatcher moment guarantee hon friend seek supplementary question reference consultative document column consultation vicechancellor local education authority today receive message say student fix date meeting week think well continue discussion announce premature decision mr alan williams right hon lady aware fact student unanimously incense government entirely understand absolutely predictable halfbake idea see firm proposal possible alternative discuss detail document preface word probably acceptable acceptable right hon lady appreciate central proposition document wrong future labour government revoke mrs thatcher find come hon gentleman difficult suggest regulation labour government leave office student like right interruption alter regulation student right compulsory fee anxious discussion continue continue vicechancellor local education authority student unanimously proposal judge letter receive mr john e b hill right hon friend agree desirable result discussion student union accountable public money receive constitution student union adequate minimum safeguard ensure operate interest majority student abuse militant minority defect procedure hope hon member long position student union strengthen university institution learn mrs thatcher agree main point raise hon friend column supplementary question important money properly account decision take body properly representative student wish mr whitehead right hon lady realise good forthcoming discussion take seriously today word encouragement useful work nus vast majority student union particularly word appear consultative document mrs thatcher gladly acknowledge excellent work nus number student union mr rost ask secretary state education science examine objection raise parent melbourne astonontrent barrowontrent westonontrent area derbyshire propose reorganisation secondary education sector b derby borough assurance equality educational opportunity provide child area offer child derby borough undersecretary state education science mr william van straubenzee period objection statutory proposal expire monday make decision right hon friend carefully consider objection receive stage mr rost thank hon friend slightly helpful reply ask assurance parent melbourne aston weston barrowontrent area let reorganisation sector b parent constituency reorganisation sector e botchedup scheme bulldoze good interest teacher parent assurance letter receive adequately consider minister confirmation fact county column committee reluctantly lodge official objection derby borough education proposal mr van straubenzee confirm objection receive parent describe hon friend confirm formal objection county authority receive carefully consider weigh say expiry period occur monday hope hon friend feel answer slightly helpful mr ohalloran ask secretary state education science hope announce decision propose primary school st gabriel s parish statement mr van straubenzee inner london education authoritys proposal school building programme include build new roman catholic primary school upper holloway right hon friend hope announce programme spring mr ohalloran view disappointing reply ask hon gentleman bear mind child travel outside islington school day number grow intend mr van straubenzee hope hon gentleman appreciate order particular school place local authoritys list concern local authority sure encouragement fact authority propose primary improvement project right hon friend able approve total cost million good pointer future mr pavitt ask secretary state education science consult home department ascertain area immigrant know eligible receive work permit indicate column settle purpose enable estimate number child school age place require seek power extra help local education authority likely large influx mrs thatcher touch right hon friend matter authority substantial number immigrant pupil eligible special help provision mr pavitt right hon lady aware slight racialist overtone question integration area fantastically good thank help community relation committee willesden chronicle kingsbury news excellent coverage matter minister aware large number people need school place grateful maximum practical help enable absorb large number area mrs thatcher grateful hon gentleman comment assure shall good help mr edward short extent concentration immigrant criterion allocate money urban programme mrs thatcher criterion criterion change right hon gentleman office dr marshall ask secretary state education science time past year medical research council refuse undertake specific research project request department health social security ministry health mrs thatcher sir dr marshall case need change kind recommend rothschild report mrs thatcher possible change research council column purpose consultation start think unwise complete government decide proposal bring forward mr alan williams research council refuse project mrs thatcher speak offhand believe agricultural research council refuse project suggest specifically look mr jeffrey archer ask secretary state education science establish inquiry problem violence school mrs thatcher share hon friend concern sure centralised inquiry good contribution solve problem mr archer right hon friend realise satisfactory reply aware teacher parent genuinely worried likely happen future result present trend positive simply express hope future mrs thatcher genuinely worried violence school probably true situation school extent reflect situation society like dash inquiry certain positive contribution subject mr merlyn rees fact violence school mrs thatcher violence school long concern difficult strike right balance concerned violence exist overemphasise mr lamond ask secretary state education science average waiting period oldham column admission special residential school compare average waiting time country mr van straubenzee understand local education authority average waiting time handicap pupil place year month seven pupil present unplaced wait average month attend day school meantime national average figure available mr lamond minister agree figure disappointing consider child kind home disruptive rest family agree attention matter high priority give million grantaide school money apply solution problem mr van straubenzee want note complacency answer study particularly case await admission include know hon gentleman personally concerned rightly think prospect admission foreseeable future hon gentleman know new day school talk day school maladjusted child open lancashire year consideration present program start year encouraging indication mr edward short undersecretary remember right hon friend minute ago say follow previous practice central advisory council ad hoc purpose agree case reestablish council consider field special education mr van straubenzee right hon gentleman know right hon friend available sphere specialist advice draw continue draw mr marten ask secretary state education science local educational authority column discretion allow pupil spend extra year school leave age raise year fulltime course technical college parent headmaster agree mr cormack ask secretary state education science encourage use technical college facility schoolleaving age raise year mrs thatcher circular explain schoolleaving age raise education college long empower provide fulltime education pupil age group appropriate case welcome cooperation school education mean link course circular draw attention mr marten realise link course point right hon friend agree small proportion child benefit far fulltime course technical college stay secondary school require slight amendment law right hon friend look matter particularly light happen northern ireland law alter purpose mrs thatcher great proportion time need education college conjunction headmaster school tantamount raise schoolleaving age young people stop go school fulltime particular course attract college education education mr cormack right hon friend think people teaching profession extremely alarmed apprehensive consequence raise schoolleaving age meet point mrs thatcher think college education regard able cope necessarily difficult problem column school young people wish stay school year right balance encourage maximum cooperation college education school like work practice mr molloy right hon lady aware grave concern problem bad local authority feel resolve problem assistance department regard present plan london borough eale instance right hon lady prepared education authority borough eale examine difficulty regard scale teacher programme resolve great contribution problem mrs thatcher congratulate hon gentleman ingenuity supplementary question recollection eale fully decide particular pattern comprehensive education finally wish pursue naturally come department mr lane ask secretary state education science response local education authority recent circular preparation raise schoolleaving age satisfied response statement mrs thatcher fiftyfive report receive december reminder send authority far reply shall full statement soon practicable mr lane congratulate right hon friend go ahead desirable reform government postpone acknowledge real anxiety teacher involve minister utmost speech way sure preparation pursue necessary urgency month mrs thatcher know anxiety try information possible time remedy defect gladly speech desirability raise schoolleaving age go doubt mr spearing right hon lady appreciate great difficulty provide suitable education stay adequate space current regulation space school inadequate ask inspector look question report mrs thatcher accept current regulation space inadequate see excellent school build current regulation sum million allocate building programme raise schoolleaving age mr carter ask secretary state education science late figure child eat school meal compare situation prior increase charge mrs thatcher october pupil maintain school england wale take school meal compare autumn free meal take year compare year mr carter minister agree figure completely undermine oftrepeate claim number eventually return preincrease charge level agree trend continue increase announce implement likely leave rump school meal service close extinction mrs thatcher increase shall set census figure shall know exactly happen remind hon gentleman school meal charge raise takeup fall mr farr right hon friend agree charge column nature raise temporary fallingoff number gradually good following month mrs thatcher frequently happen secondary school different pattern midday provision emerge time statistic look number take different kind meal standard midday meal number secondary school miss lestor right hon lady aware fact half year increase take place forecast return number take school meal happen comment tremendous concern express primary school teacher medical officer health large number child primary school go hot school meal school milk sort refreshment morning get home night child deprive area start show sign malnutrition mrs thatcher happen committee medical aspect school meal report naturally wish level take school meal primary school great level take school meal secondary school mr dalyell ask secretary state education science timescale mind suggestion send arise green paper framework government research development mrs thatcher timing set paragraph government green paper mr dalyell exactly rationale say learn society research council get january detailed opinion controversial report recent time mrs thatcher get january final date consultation february mr palmer right hon lady impress right hon friend leader house need early debate recess important subject cause great consternation scientific circle mrs thatcher draw right hon friend attention hon gentleman say consultation continue month christmas house consider period good hold debate mr david clark ask secretary state education science advice send local education authority reference pricing policy milk sell school statement mrs thatcher circular advise local education authority charge cover cost milk expense provide mr clark right hon lady confirm local education authority abide strictly circular charge twice cost milk light follow practice cabinet colleague accept wrong decision reintroduce free milk primary school child mrs thatcher confirm hon gentleman supplementary question contrary variation charge school milk considerable authority provide little wholesale cost cost good deal long authority balance account milk area charge specifically cost specific school mr scotthopkin right hon friend aware primary school milk available parent wish buy school local education authority column milk available parent wish purchase child mrs thatcher hon friend raise extremely important matter education authority sell milk understand sell scheme successful see go country understand parent prepared pay milk sale mr loughlin right hon lady consult right hon friend home secretary view increase provision prison cater number labour councillor refuse implement school milk policy ensure child receive free milk councillor gaol mrs thatcher hon gentleman capable put abstruse point reginald maudlingmy right hon friend mr david james ask secretary state education science introduce legislation ensure child age exceptional musical dancing promise educate special approve establishment government expense view inability local education authority evaluate talent pay specialised residential education involve mrs thatcher sir local education authority power assist case mr james right hon friend recognise addition factor list question great reluctance local authority send child area hit particularly hard constituent carmel russill age able cheetham school manchester receive cello lesson richly deserve mrs thatcher local authority usually send pupil outside area feel provide column proper education consider carefully case raise hon friend kindly tell parent young person concern read letter let early today mr fauld right hon lady realise responsible question ask house afternoon regret great deal artisticallygifte talent go waste child gift particularly present situation tory control temporary transient thank god education authority mrs thatcher deal particular case talented young person local education authority power hon friend seek administer scheme ask administer central government mr john e b hill ask secretary state education science request local education authority ensure new primary school building space nursery class mrs thatcher appropriate case local authority hope bear mind possibility later addition nursery class plan new primary school present resource concentrate replacement improvement old primary school expansion nursery education urban programme mr hill right hon friend agree provision space planning new scheme vital nursery class add later encourage local education authority space available far voluntary activity behalf child lease play group organisation provide child mrs thatcher agree hon friend space provide new primary school later addition nursery school class resource available mr barry jones hundred thousand youngster rural area suffer social blight suffer child urban area minister special measure inject urgency nursery school building rural area peripatetic teacher nursery service means get round difficult problem mrs thatcher problem education rural area great old city centre reason give extensive primary school programme rural area resource available nursery school need rural area consider dr stuttaford right hon friend agree raising schoolleaving age advantage pupil spending additional fund nursery school level advantage nearly child shall obtain equality educational opportunity adequate nursery school mrs thatcher like good deal nursery education hon member possible suddenly switch resource devote raise schoolleaving age add extension secondary school extra provision nursery school bear mind hon friend anxious nursery provision mr freeson minister accept hon friend member norfolk south mr john e b hill suggest provision space nursery class condition planning consent scheme building ahead stage bear mind local authority prepare spend money vote head education achieve provision preschool facility ahead provision nursery department allow mrs thatcher hon friend ask request local authority provide space possible available miss fooke ask secretary state education science number teacher centre england wale mrs thatcher understand school council teacher centre miss fooke view importance centre inservice training ask right hon friend satisfied number particularly distribution centre country mrs thatcher satisfied see work excellent applaud way local education authority go inevitably well hope steady improvement number quality mr latham right hon lady agree aspect preparedness raising schoolleaving age apart accommodation money nature treatment old child stay school encouragement give teacher play create old child adult atmosphere school away day gym slip pigtail short trouser school cap associate senior pupil year mrs thatcher teacher play prominent curriculum presentation raise schoolleaving age school council hope hon gentleman read school council literature subject distribute teacher teacher centre know teacher find valuable mrs knight ask secretary state education science statement question provide loan instead grant postgraduate student mr van straubenzee right hon friend statement present mrs knight hon friend aware education authority occasionally extremely good reason find impossible grant postgraduate student student enable loan continue study mr van straubenzee great support come central fund way position statement switch loan postgraduate mr alan williams hon gentleman assurance time come policy statement simply answer written oral question house formal statement view important principle involve mr van straubenzee yes need consultation shall way government announce increase fee overseas student write question day parliament sit mr edward short exchange surprise government consider loan instead grant postgraduate student mr van straubenzee right hon friend say public matter consideration context future development high education mr douglas ask secretary state education science statement progress scottish business school mr van straubenzee understand chairman secretary member council appoint interim programme postgraduate postexperience course operation mr douglas hon gentleman agree scottish business school get good start eventually student come school impact scottish economy rid present government shall economy scotland mr van straubenzee glad confirm school get admirable start constituent university spend year good start good government mrs monk ask secretary state education science local authority provide place nursery school class urban programme mr van straubenzee provision place local education authority england approve permission circulate detail official report additional place approve shortly area high unemployment mrs monk congratulate right hon friend emphasis put provision glad note large increase propose mr van straubenzee oblige hon friend find detail circulate considerable assistance follow detail note phase ii relate project approve start period phase iii v provide building start march ii phase iv comprise noncapital project carry mr ashton ask secretary state education science plan redistribute expenditure education aspect education place mrs thatcher present plan government expenditure education set white paper public expenditure mr ashton assurance minister money thing like provision milk grantaided school assure stop pursue policy take underprivileged overprivilege mrs thatcher assure hon gentleman extra money continue give education expand education programme copyright margaret thatcher foundation right reserve

Speeches, etc. Copyright © Margaret Thatcher Foundation 2024. All Rights Reserved.

right

speech etc copyright margaret thatcher foundation right reserve

Speeches, etc. A further 36,000 teachers have entered the profession during the past two years and the number of oversize primary classes has dropped by two thirds, Lord Belstead, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Education and Science, said here today. “It is to the credit of the colleges, university departments of education and local education authorities that 1970 saw an increase of 18,000 to the teaching profession” , he said at the North of England Education Conference. In October, 1971, there was a further increase of almost exactly the same amount. “Total numbers now stand at about 380,000: the pupil-teacher ratio now stands at 22–1: and the proportion of primary classes over 40 has dropped in two years from 9.5 per cent to 3.3 per cent in January, 1971, and I hope that this month's returns will show that this long standing reproach on our education system will continue to be eliminated.” According to the DES the pupil-teacher ratio improved by the equivalent of one pupil every two years. The raising of the school-leaving age will temporarily check this improvement but effectively the teacher shortage should be over during the next few years except in some unfavoured areas. The question then arises of the level at which teacher numbers, and by extension the pupil-teacher ratio, should be stabilized. The findings of the James committee, whose report is expected later this month, will affect both the structure of higher education and the way in which teachers are trained, as well as effecting the process of answering the question. Referring to “slow learners” , Lord Belstead said the Government was willing to make available teachers additional to those on quota. About 500 extra teachers for slow learners had been recruited under this scheme and the Government hoped authorities would do more to improve provision for such pupils. Lord Belstead had some optimistic news about immigrant pupils. In 1966 the proportion of immigrant children with language difficulties that prevented them from following a normal curriculum was 25 per cent. By January, 1970, it had fallen to below 16 per cent. Referring to plans by local authorities to supply “refreshments” other than milk and meals in schools, Lord Belstead said the authorities had to make a charge for such refreshments but the amount and the way in which it was collected was within their discretion. The response from teachers to Lord Belstead 's announcement was guarded. “There has been an improvement, but there are still far too many classes with 40 or even more pupils” , Mr Edward Britton, general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, said. The union considered that a reasonable maximum class size was 30 children. Mr Britton added: “Our campaign for smaller classes has had some effect on today's figures, but there is still a terrific way to go.” A Staff Reporter writes Mrs Thatcher, Secretary of State for Education and Science, points out in a letter to Mr Britton that she “hopes and expects to see a progressive reduction in the size of all the largest classes, starting with, but not confined to, those over 40” . Mrs Thatcher states that she particularly disapproves of groups of more than 40 children being taught for most of the week by only one teacher. She does not explain exactly how class sizes are to be reduced further. The NUT is to press all those local education authorities with classes of more than 40 pupils to invest in extra temporary mobile classrooms to try to reduce over-crowding. It hopes to encourage authorities to have a maximum of 35 children in classes soon, and is anxious that eventually no teacher should have more than 30 pupils in a class. In the past the NUT has found that some local authorities have been reluctant to use temporary classrooms because that might prevent their obtaining building permission for entirely new buildings from the Department of Education and Science. Mrs Thatcher states that “the use of one or two relocatable classrooms to reduce class sizes to below 40 would not tip the balance against a major project” . Copyright © Margaret Thatcher Foundation 2024. All Rights Reserved.

right

speech etc teacher enter profession past year number oversize primary class drop third lord belstead parliamentary undersecretary state department education science say today credit college university department education local education authority see increase teaching profession say north england education conference october increase exactly total number stand pupilteacher ratio stand proportion primary class drop year cent cent january hope month return long stand reproach education system continue eliminate accord des pupilteacher ratio improve equivalent pupil year raising schoolleaving age temporarily check improvement effectively teacher shortage year unfavoured area question arise level teacher number extension pupilteacher ratio stabilize finding james committee report expect later month affect structure high education way teacher train effect process answer question refer slow learner lord belstead say government willing available teacher additional quota extra teacher slow learner recruit scheme government hope authority improve provision pupil lord belstead optimistic news immigrant pupil proportion immigrant child language difficulty prevent follow normal curriculum cent january fall cent refer plan local authority supply refreshment milk meal schools lord belstead say authority charge refreshment way collect discretion response teacher lord belstead s announcement guard improvement far class pupil mr edward britton general secretary national union teacher say union consider reasonable maximum class size child mr britton add campaign small class effect today figure terrific way staff reporter write mrs thatcher secretary state education science point letter mr britton hope expect progressive reduction size large class start confine mrs thatcher state particularly disapprove group child teach week teacher explain exactly class size reduce nut press local education authority class pupil invest extra temporary mobile classroom try reduce overcrowd hope encourage authority maximum child class soon anxious eventually teacher pupil class past nut find local authority reluctant use temporary classroom prevent obtain building permission entirely new building department education science mrs thatcher state use relocatable classroom reduce class size tip balance major project copyright margaret thatcher foundation right reserve

This bill extends until September 30, 2026, the use of Highway 209, a federally owned road within the boundaries of the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, by certain commercial vehicles that serve local businesses.

right

bill extend september use highway federally own road boundary delaware water gap national recreation area certain commercial vehicle serve local business

Jun 25, 2020 Fox News held a Donald Trump town hall hosted by Sean Hannity in Green Bay, Wisconsin. He said the violence in Chicago, Baltimore, other US cities are like “living in hell.” He also talked about statues being torn down, John Bolton’s book, the Roger Stone case, Joe Biden, and more. Read the full transcript of the interview & Q+A here. Transcribe Your Own Content Try Rev for free and save time transcribing, captioning, and subtitling. Sean Hannity: (00:00)And now, here’s my town hall that we taped earlier today from an airplane hangar in Green Bay, Wisconsin. Now, by the way, we followed all the rules and recommendations of the county in which we’re doing this. So as to have as many people as they recommended, small crowd, but an enthusiastic group of people. Obviously, because of all that we’ve been dealing with COVID-19, we had a lot of ground to cover tonight. Watch this. Thank you, Mr. President. Thanks for joining us. We’re going to take some audience questions throughout the hour. You’re here in Wisconsin, one of the things that everybody’s looking for and we’ll get into more detail throughout the hour is the economy, you are going to leave this town hall, and you’re going to announce that you’re building 20 new ships. You rebuilding the military and how many jobs? Donald Trump: (00:48)Well, it’s going to be probably 6,000, 7,000 jobs, could go up to 10 in Wisconsin alone. And it’s a great shipyard that was on hard times. And now it’s a very good shipyard and a lot of people are going to be working. And it’s one of the most beautiful ships. It looks like a yacht with a lot of ammunition on it, I will tell you. It’s really something. And we’ll probably end up with 20 or 25. And these are big ones, beautiful ships. And they do a beautiful job in Wisconsin. So I’m here, it’s sort of like a launch. We’re starting work and the contract’s all given and you won it right here, so congratulations folks. Sean Hannity: (01:27)We as a nation, we’ve been watching, it was universal agreement that what happened to George Floyd should never happen, can never happen again. And you’ve been very outspoken about it as well. And they were peaceful protestors, but then there were people rioting. We see anarchy, we see rocks and bottles and bricks and Molotov cocktails thrown at police officers, police precincts burn to the ground. In Seattle, an autonomous zone that still remains, is changing apparently today but taken over, including a police precinct. And you’re offering all of these states help, New York, Illinois, and Washington. What are they telling you when you offer them help? Donald Trump: (02:07)Well, first of all, we have arrested, I think almost, but it could be over the number, hundreds of people. We have arrested a lot of people for what they’ve done. They’ve created bedlam. They’ve destroyed very important things. I mean, you’re also talking about statues of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln. They’d like to get Jesus, you know that, right? They said, “We want to get Jesus.” Sean Hannity: (02:28)Yeah, you had Shaun King, the radical. Donald Trump: (02:30)These have nothing to do with any particular event, other than they’re troublemakers or agitators. And they’re anarchists. The big thing they want is they want to really destabilize our country and we don’t let them. So I said to my people, “If you’ve arrested so many, how come we don’t know about it?” They said, “We don’t talk about it, sir, we do it.” But I said, “I think the public should know it.” And we have a statues act, a monument act, which puts you in jail for 10 years if you do what they’ve done. So we’ve got that. We’ve got all the tapes because the nice part is it’s all on television. Like the character on the horse the other day, he’s up there putting on the ropes. He’s in trouble, on the Andrew Jackson … beautiful, it’s beautiful, right opposite the White House. Donald Trump: (03:09)And you got to remember Andrew Jackson, the Battle of New Orleans and so much. He was a very good president. He was a great general and you can’t let that happen. But they’re after Abraham Lincoln and tonight, I guess they’re looking at Abraham Lincoln and that was the Emancipation Proclamation. So you have that and you’re signing Emancipation Proclamation and you have somebody, I think that wasn’t freed, and he’s getting up. It’s the position of, he’s getting up. He’s being freed by Abraham Lincoln. And I can see controversy, but I can also see beauty in it. And it was paid for by slaves. I don’t know if you know that, it was paid for because they were so grateful to the president. Donald Trump: (03:51)It was paid for that reason and they want to take it down. And we can take things down too, I can understand certain things being taken down. But they ought to go through a process legally and then we take it down. In some cases, put them in museums or wherever they may go. But these are really rioters and they’re a lot of bad people involved. They talk about protestors and they’re protestors, but there are beyond protesters too, and we’re not going to allow it. So we have many, many people under arrest and we have some just from the other night in Washington, but I’m talking about in other states also. Sean Hannity: (04:26)You’ve offered help to New York- Donald Trump: (04:28)Excuse me, by the way, and Washington is not D.C., not a state. Because if I say that, a little statement like that, sometimes I’ll say, should I correct myself? Because the fake news will say, “He thought D.C. was a state.” So I just want to make that clear so they can’t do it, okay. Sean Hannity: (04:43)Always predicting ahead. Donald Trump: (04:43)Oh, by the way, they do it all the time. You know what I mean? Sean Hannity: (04:48)Let’s talk about these states though. You see your old city, you’re now a Florida resident. You’re going to save a lot of money on taxes. There’s no state income tax in Florida, but you see New York City, 350% increase. You see in Chicago last weekend, 102 of our fellow citizens were shot. 12 were children and 14 died. The carnage existed all throughout these years that Joe Biden was vice president. Barack was president. I don’t know any reforms that they put in place after Ferguson or after Baltimore or many other incidents. Donald Trump: (05:22)Yeah, they did virtually nothing. And I call him Corrupt Joe, he’s corrupt. And you look at that administration. They have had more … and wait until you see what’s happening. Because you saw the notes now from the Oval Office meeting and all of the things- Sean Hannity: (05:34)We’re going to get to that. Donald Trump: (05:34)What’s happening is a disgrace. This is a corrupt situation. We caught them spying on my campaign. They were spying. I said that a long time ago, remember, but I said it without great knowledge. It turned out to be correct. They were spying on my campaign. And if that were the other way around, if it was switched with Democrat and Republican, the opposite way, you’d have people in jail for 50 years for they did because that’s treason. That’s a terrible thing what they did. And what they’ve done to people like General Flynn and like others is disgraceful, it’s disgraceful. Sean Hannity: (06:08)I want to get back to that. I want to stay on this issue though. If we are to become a more perfect union and if we really want to pursue happiness, we first have to have law and order. Donald Trump: (06:19)Correct. Sean Hannity: (06:20)Okay, these big cities, we’ve watched Chicago violence now for how long? All through the Obama, Joe Biden administration. Donald Trump: (06:29)Years ago. Sean Hannity: (06:30)They barely mentioned it in eight years. You see Seattle, you see New York City. We see now people dying in the autonomous zone. I don’t know how people can pursue their happiness and dreams in life, if they don’t have basic fundamental security. Donald Trump: (06:45)You can’t, you can’t. Look, Chicago’s an example. It’s like worse than Afghanistan. It’s worse than, I shouldn’t say because they’re working with us, Honduras, Guatemala, they’re all working with us now. You know, we have our lowest numbers. We have phenomenal numbers on the border. Border patrol has done a great job. We built 220 miles of wall. It’s going up very rapidly. We should be doing about 10 miles a week now. And we’re going to have … it will be completed very soon. But what we’ve done there is incredible. But you look at Honduras, Guatemala, all of these different places. We have cities that are worse. In some cases, far worse. Take a look at Detroit, take a look at what’s happening in Oakland. Take a look at what’s happening in Baltimore. And everyone gets upset when I say it, they say, “Oh, is that a racist statement?” It’s not a racist. Donald Trump: (07:38)Frankly, Black people come up to me say, “Thank you, thank you sir, for saying it.” They want help, these cities, it’s like living in hell. But last week and I think two weeks before that, they shot 14 and 18 people killed and 68 people in Chicago. Sean Hannity: (07:59)104 last weekend. Donald Trump: (08:01)If I’ve ever seen a case, I know it’s very controversial to say stop and frisk, okay. Stop and frisk, you take guns away. Chicago is the greatest example I think I’ve ever seen of that. Rudy Giuliani was a great mayor, he did it in New York. He started it and it worked great. Bloomberg blew it because he went crazy with it. And ultimately it took away a lot of rights and a lot of, it wasn’t a good job he did. But Rudy Giuliani started stop and frisk and he did a great, it was a great thing he did for New York. Sean Hannity: (08:33)The murder rate went, for those that don’t know, I lived in New York City at the time, went from around 2,500 a year, they drove it all the way down to 500. And what they did is they went into the areas that had the highest incidents of crime. Donald Trump: (08:48)That’s right. Sean Hannity: (08:48)And saved a lot of lives. So we’re Americans, I think we can do anything. I’m that optimistic, we could stop the violence, right, we could- Donald Trump: (08:55)Could stop it quickly. And at some point in the not too distant future, I’m going to do it. And if they don’t do something with Seattle, we’re going to do that. We’re going to go in there because what’s happening, they’re taking over American cities. By the way, in all cases, it’s Democrats, they’re Democrat run, in all cases. And Joe Biden would have that be the whole country. It’s so crazy what’s happening. Here’s a guy, doesn’t talk. Nobody hears him. Whenever he does talk, he can’t put two sentences together. I don’t want to be nice or un-nice, okay. But I mean, the man can’t speak and he’s going to be your president because some people don’t love me maybe and all I’m doing is doing my job. Don’t forget, before the China plague came in and it’s the China plague, before that came in, we had the best job numbers we’ve ever had. Donald Trump: (09:43)We had the best economy we’ve ever had. We had the best stock market we’ve ever had, which by the way, is getting very close to those numbers anyway. And in NASDAQ, it’s actually beat those numbers. But we have the best numbers we’ve ever had. African American, Asian American, Hispanic American, women, young people without a diploma, young people with a diploma, college, everything, everything. We had the best numbers we’ve ever had, the best economy we’ve ever had. I was absolutely doing a number on China. Not that I want to, but we’re taking billions and billions away. China ran away from us when we had … they were going to take over our country. If I didn’t come along, they would have taken over our country. What they did to Obama and Biden, they ripped off this country, hundreds of billions of dollars a year, going into China. And nobody said anything. They didn’t even talk about it. Donald Trump: (10:33)You know, it’s not like we had a bad deal with China. It was worse, we had no deal. They did whatever and I get along very well with them. I said, “How did it happen?” They said, “Nobody ever asked.” Nobody said, we’ve got to make a deal. We’re taking in hundreds of billions of dollars worth of tariffs. And we’re not paying for them, China is paying for them because they devalue their currency. So we’ve done an incredible job. We beat China badly. China had the worst year they’ve had 67 years, prior to the plague coming in, they had the- Donald Trump: (11:03)In 67 years prior to the plague coming in, they had the worst year they had in 67 years because of the tariffs and all of the things that I’ve done. But he’ll say, “He got beat in the China deal.” They didn’t do a China deal. China ate our lunch before me, and they would have destroyed our country. China, in my opinion, would have destroyed our country economically if I didn’t get elected, and many other things. Coronavirus … we did the ventilators. We didn’t have any ventilators. We did the ventilators. We did so much. Sean Hannity: (11:28)Ten days after the first identified case of coronavirus in the United States- Donald Trump: (11:33)Right. Sean Hannity: (11:33)You implemented a travel ban, followed by a quarantine that hadn’t had happened in 50 years, and then subsequent travel bans. Joe said it was hysteria, xenophobic, and- Donald Trump: (11:45)That’s right. Terrible. Sean Hannity: (11:46)… fear mongering. Donald Trump: (11:46)Well, he didn’t say it. They have people that … I’ll make a statement. It’ll be a nice statement. It’ll be a little complex, or maybe it’s not complex. And they will have that statement analyzed, and they’ll say, “Vice President Biden said …” and they’ll have it broken down to … And I said, “He didn’t say that. He never said xenophobic, because I don’t think he knows what the word means.” But he said it was xenophobic. It was horrible. I made it … that was at the end of January. That’s very early. January. Sean Hannity: (12:12)January 31st. Donald Trump: (12:13)Nancy Pelosi and many other people, including Republicans, were … months later, they were saying, “Let’s go to Chinatown and celebrate.” Nancy Pelosi was celebrating- [crosstalk 00:12:23] Sean Hannity: (12:23)February 24th. Donald Trump: (12:24)Correct. In the streets of Chinatown. You know, there’s no business like this. You could do a great job like Schumer. I did a phenomenal job on a trade deal, and they asked him, “What’d you think of the deal?” Donald Trump: (12:38)“I didn’t like it. No good. No good.” He never even saw the deal. It’s just an automatic thing. You hear the sound of that helicopter? Is that a beautiful sound? Sean Hannity: (12:45)Beautiful sound. Donald Trump: (12:46)Made in the USA. It’s all made in the US. Sean Hannity: (12:50)You mentioned earlier [inaudible 00:01:51]. Look, I was a little surprised. I’m not going to lie. They had predicted for May 9.5 million jobs lost. We ended up gaining 2.5 million. Donald Trump: (13:03)Almost three. Sean Hannity: (13:04)We had the largest retail sales month … I don’t know if you all saw the numbers. 18%. That’s a record. Here’s my list- Donald Trump: (13:11)And we had a pretty good number come out today on jobs, too. Sean Hannity: (13:14)I didn’t see that number. Donald Trump: (13:15)Also, better than projected. But more importantly … So, we have more cases because we do the greatest testing. If we didn’t do testing, we’d have no cases. Other countries, they don’t test millions. So, up to almost 30 million tests. When you do 30 million … You’re going to have a kid with the sniffles, and they’ll say, “It’s coronavirus, whatever you want to call it.” I said the other night, “There were so many names to this, I could name 19 names like CORONA-19,” but I could name 19 names. But the fact is that there’s never been a thing like this. We’ve done 30 million … almost. We’ll be there probably today or tomorrow. 30 million tests. Donald Trump: (13:53)Now, when you do tests, you have cases. But what they don’t say is there are fewer deaths than they have been way. Way, way down. Our mortality rate is among the best countries in the world meaning people that die, because a lot of these tests, it’s a case. It’s a kid that doesn’t even know. In some cases, it’s people that didn’t even know they were sick. Maybe they weren’t, but it shows up in a test. So, they’ll say 30 million tests. Now, you have a big percentage of that, but other countries do very few tests. So, it shows very few cases. Sometimes I jokingly say or sarcastically say, “If we didn’t do tests, we’d look great.” You know what? It’s not the right thing to do. Sean Hannity: (14:30)Treatment vaccine. Where are we? Donald Trump: (14:33)I think the vaccines are coming along great. And I think the … what they call therapeutics are coming along great. I think we’re going to have an answer very soon. Very soon, indeed. I think it will be even before the end of the year, we’ll have a vaccine. We have great companies, and we’re totally mobilized. Military is doing it. We’re ready to go. As soon as they have it, we will be distributing that all over the country. Sean Hannity: (14:56)Let me go. You had talked about my list earlier. Joe Biden was Vice President for eight years. He has a record that at some point, I assume, somebody might have to ask him, or maybe you will when you debate him if he shows up … which is a question we will find out in the future. But 13 million more Americans after eight years were on Food Stamps, 8 million more in poverty, the lowest labor participation rates since the ’70s. Donald Trump: (15:22)Right. Sean Hannity: (15:22)Worst recovery since the ’40s, lowest home ownership rate in 15 years. Now, I look at your record. Pre-coronavirus, we had record after record low unemployment with every … African Americans, Hispanic Americans, you know the list. Even African American youth unemployment. I want to get to the issue, because it seems like if we look, and compare, and contrast historically Black colleges of five-year commitment with more money than ever before, opportunity zones, I think one of the biggest changes is- Donald Trump: (15:55)Criminal justice. Sean Hannity: (15:56)Criminal justice reform. Donald Trump: (15:58)Well, the biggest thing, criminal justice reform. Obama and Biden never even tried it. That was something so important for the Black community. They came to me. They wanted it so badly, because it is … it’s a very unfair situation. And they came- Sean Hannity: (16:13)Unfair to minorities. Donald Trump: (16:16)And especially Black and Hispanic. It’s so unfair. And I said, “Why wasn’t this done before?” Now, Obama didn’t try. If he did, he may come out and say, “We did try,” but he didn’t get it done. I got it done. People said, “You wouldn’t be able to get it done.” I got it done with the help of some very good Republicans that frankly … they could have gone either way on it, to be honest. Although we had some very strong conservative Republicans, like Mike Lee. Republicans that wanted it very much. Chuck Grassley. Some great, strong conservative Republicans that wanted it very much. Donald Trump: (16:51)It was both ways. Very unusual. You had some very strong conservatives, and you also had some really, really liberal people. But we did criminal justice reform. Nobody thought it was possible to get it done. I got it done. They couldn’t get it done. Then they’ll say such horrible things. I mean, on the campaign they’ll say such horrible things about me. It’s a very unfair business. But it’s a great ad for them. “I got beaten by China.” Wrong. I beat China very badly. [crosstalk 00:17:22] I didn’t do this coronavirus. Sean Hannity: (17:24)I might take Joe’s side though, because I don’t think your son got 1.5 billion dollars. Donald Trump: (17:31)That’s right. That’s right. It’s a way of looking at it. I’ll tell you. Now, nobody’s ever seen anything like that. But what they’ll do is they’ll take five or six points, and just say I lost. If you look at what we’ve done on ventilators, on testing, again, where we have 30 million … Germany is second with maybe 4, maybe 5 million. Germany is going to show fewer cases because they’re testing far fewer people. Different sized countries and all, but they’re testing far fewer people. But many countries don’t do testing like that, so it shows we’re way up in testing. Donald Trump: (18:01)But what it also shows by doing that … in all fairness, it shows a very, very low mortality rate. Just about the lowest. We’re right at the bottom in a positive way. I think that people are starting to see it. But if I don’t do a show like this, which is live or semi-live … If I don’t do a show like this, we’re not going to get the word out. Because the press is really corrupt and dishonest. I can’t believe it. I used to say, “Fake news. Fake news.” It’s much worse than fake news. And it’s not only what they say. It’s what they don’t say. Sean Hannity: (18:34)Yeah. Donald Trump: (18:34)Something great could be happening, and they refuse to report it. Sean Hannity: (18:37)You mentioned General Flynn. We saw Peter Strzok. A lot of it was redacted, my sources have been telling me. In this program- Donald Trump: (18:46)It’s big stuff. Sean Hannity: (18:46)I’ve devoted almost three years to unpeeling every layer of the onion. In fact, what we now know is that there was that Jack Flynn was exonerated. The case was going to be closed. Then Joe Biden brought up the Logan Act, which you mentioned earlier, 1799 law nobody’s ever been prosecuted for. Now, not only was it that. We’ve now learned that there was premeditated fraud on a FISA Court to spy on you as a candidate, you and your transition team, and deep into your presidency. James Comey signed three of the four warrants, but he came to you after he signed the first one in Trump Tower and said … well, again, now we know the bulk of information was Hillary’s dirty Russian disinformation document. Donald Trump: (19:29)She paid a lot of money for it. Sean Hannity: (19:31)She paid for it. They knew it. They said they had verified it. It turned out to be all untrue. But it ended up for you to be in the country a three year nightmare. My question though is this: I mean, General Flynn lost four years of his life. Donald Trump: (19:48)Right. Sean Hannity: (19:48)Roger Stone’s supposed to report to jail, and the jury foreperson in his case … Paul Manafort’s case was dead. And many people that work for you paid how much in lawyer’s fees over this lie? Donald Trump: (20:02)So, start in reverse order. Paul Manafort, they sent it a book. It looked like he got all sorts of cash. It turned out to be a fraud. What they did to that man … what they did to Paul Manafort. Roger Stone, what they’ve done to Roger Stone because he knew me … he wasn’t on the campaign except the very, very beginning. What they did with Roger Stone, what they did to General Flynn. Then how about Papadopoulos? I didn’t know Papadopoulos. But what they put him through. He turned out to be totally … they had a tape of his conversation. It was supposed to be this conversation was like a perfect conversation. Donald Trump: (20:34)They also have a tape of Flynn’s conversation with the Russian ambassador, which is a normal thing to do. You’re going to have that position. You start calling up because you want to coordinate between countries, and the tape was … as you said, with the Russia, with the Ukrainian situation. It was a perfect tape. It was a perfect conversation that he had. What they’ve done to General Flynn … who’s a nice man, tough guy, smart guy, a great general. I’ll tell you, General Milley said he’s one of the finest people. He’s just a good man, Flynn. Donald Trump: (21:07)What happened to him, the way they went after him … And if you remember … you remember well. The FBI left. They said he did nothing wrong. They said he didn’t lie. They didn’t say he lied. They said he didn’t lie. They persecuted him. Sean Hannity: (21:18)They threatened to put his son and go after his son. Donald Trump: (21:20)They said to me, “What was the toughest friends of mine? What’s the toughest country to deal with? Who is it? Is it China? Is it Russia? Could it be North Korea?” I said, “No, it’s the United States of America. The toughest country to deal with.” Because we have Schumer, and Pelosi, and people that are bad people that I honestly believe don’t love our country. What they do to our country, and what they’ve done with this scam … the whole scam. Flynn is a piece of it. The Mueller scam. Now, it came out that Mueller should have announced in the first week that we did nothing wrong. In other words, they had evidence in the first few days that there was no collusion with Russia. There was nothing to do with Russia. They knew that immediately. He didn’t have to take two or two and a half years. Donald Trump: (22:03)They knew that immediately. He didn’t have to take two or two and a half years. They knew it immediately. What they’ve put this country through. Jeff Sessions was a disaster. He was a total disaster because he basically let it happen, unknowingly because he’s not very smart, but they let it happen. And it’s a shame what they put this country through. Sean Hannity: (22:22)As you look… We now have a Durham report, we now have the Inspector General report. I would imagine there’s probably going to be indictments at the end of this. When you look at the names of the people, for example, the jury foreperson in Roger Stone’s case was prejudiced against… That was not a fair and impartial jury. Donald Trump: (22:39)Can you believe it? Can you believe it? The hatred that she had for him and for me. And she said, “Oh no, I don’t know.” She acted like she was an innocent. She ran for Congress or something and lost. But she was pretending to be an innocent. How did she even get into the jury pool? She must have had a little contact. And the judge, who’s been brutal. The judge who sentenced Roger has been brutal. Take a look at what she’s done to people. Sean Hannity: (23:05)Same judge in the Manafort case. Donald Trump: (23:07)Well, take a look at what she did for Hillary related things, okay? Wasn’t brutal there. But look at what she did to people. Just take a look at what she’s done. And Roger Stone had a jury foreman, forewoman, who was a disaster. How that’s not declared a mistrial or more than a mistrial is incredible to anybody that sees it. This is a person that hated Roger Stone, hated me, and obviously said wonderful things. Otherwise, she couldn’t have gone and- Sean Hannity: (23:39)It looks like he reports to jail, I believe in four days. Are you thinking about a pardon for any of them? Donald Trump: (23:45)We’re going to see. I don’t want to get into that. Sean Hannity: (23:47)Commutation? Donald Trump: (23:47)But I think he was treated very unfairly. Sean Hannity: (23:51)Clearly. Donald Trump: (23:51)Other than he may have been involved very early on, and I’ve known him for a long time, but I’ve known him like everybody in Washington knew him. You have a lot of guys in Washington. He was not involved in the campaign. Maybe a little bit at the very, very beginning, but he wasn’t a part of the campaign. But he’s a professional. They’ve destroyed his life. Totally destroyed his life. What they’ve done to Roger Stone is incredible. And the jury forewoman stands out. And to at least not give him a new trial is inconceivable. And by the way, she was a dominant person. The jurors said she was very dominating in the room. She dominated. He got a tremendously big sentence. You see these guys, they’re burning down buildings, they’re ripping down statues, they’re hurting police. They don’t go to jail. Nothing happens to them. They wanted to give him nine years in jail. Sean Hannity: (24:48)Process crime. Donald Trump: (24:50)Yeah. If that. If that. And then you have these prosecutors who were Mueller related, the whole Mueller related thing. One friend said to me, “You have to be the most innocent man in the history of the United States.” I had 18 angry Democrat geniuses, all smart, smart as hell. Mueller lost it. But they’re all smart as hell. All these guys were after me. They spent 45, 49, 55, I hear all different numbers, million dollars over a period of two and a half years. And they got nothing on me. I think I am the probably… A friend of mine said, “You have to be the most perfect person.” Sean Hannity: (25:32)They had everybody. We’ll take a break. We’ll come back. As we continue from great Green Bay, Wisconsin. Also, the president will be answering your questions as we continue. Stay with us. Sean Hannity: (25:49)All right, welcome back. We are in Green Bay, Wisconsin. All right. The audience has some questions for the president. We’re going to start from Linda. Hi Linda from… Linda: (25:59)Wausau, Wisconsin. Sean Hannity: (26:00)Thank you for being here with us today. Say hello to President Trump. Donald Trump: (26:03)Wausau Windows, right? Windows. You know, I bought a lot of Wausau Windows over the years. I shouldn’t give them a free commercial, but they did a good job. It’s a great window. Linda: (26:12)They are. Donald Trump: (26:13)Wisconsin. Linda: (26:14)Love it up here. Donald Trump: (26:15)Thank you. Linda: (26:19)[foreign language 00:26:16] My Cuban background. Donald Trump: (26:21)Good. Linda: (26:22)I have a question for you. I appreciate so much what you have done for this country. And I know it’s been tough. What do you think is your greatest accomplishment, in your eyes? Donald Trump: (26:37)So a lot of people think it’s the fact that we will have, I think before I’m finished this term, we’ll have close to 300 federal judges. A lot of people think… Because that’s a record. That’s a number that nobody can even believe. And part of it was that President Obama was unable to get judges approved in a large number, about 142 judges. So I took it off, got them approved, and then got a lot approved beyond. So we’ll be close to 302 Supreme Court judges, great ones. And so I think a lot of people would say that. Donald Trump: (27:07)I think one of them, though, is our military. We have Space Force, which we’ve added after 76 years, we’ve added a new branch of the military. It’s a big deal, a very important deal, because space is going to be very important. It already is. I would say the rebuilding of the military and the taking care of our vets. We had a 91% joint approval rating the other day. The VA. The VA was a disaster. All of my life, I’ve seen these horror stories. I don’t want to really jinx it, because they’ll go around and find somebody that’s unhappy. But you don’t see that anymore. And our administrator, our secretary, has done a fantastic job. And we’re 91% approval rating with the VA. Donald Trump: (27:47)And we got Veterans Choice approved and Veterans Accountability. That’s where you can fire people that do a bad job. You couldn’t do it before. Very hard to get. They tried to get it for 50 years. Because of civil service unions, et cetera, you couldn’t get it. I got it. And the other thing is Veterans Choice, where if they can’t see a doctor, we have great doctors in the VA. But if you can’t see a doctor, you go out and you get a private doctor, we pay the bill. You have no idea how great it’s been. And it’s actually, you save money, believe it or not. But you have no idea. We save lives, tremendous number of lives. And I would say that’s an achievement. Donald Trump: (28:22)But we’ve done a lot. The largest tax cuts ever, the largest regular… If you look at our regulation cut, Sean, more than any other administration in history, whether it’s eight years or in one case, more than that, we cut regulations. And we we still have a lot more we’re going to be cutting over the next month and a half, two months. So we’ve done a lot and we’re very proud of it. And we had the best, until this artificial problem, because I call it an artificial problem. We had to turn off our country to save millions of lives, and now we’ve turned it back on, and it’s coming back much faster than anybody thought possible. So we’ve done a lot of things. But it could be judges, could be the military. Thank you. Linda: (29:03)Thank you very much. Sean Hannity: (29:05)Two questions. Question I get asked most often. The people that love and support you, they want to know why you fight so hard with the media. Why do you fight against them? Why do you com… You take on anybody that goes on. And you answered this, interestingly, in the Martha and Brett town hall. And for those that say, well, maybe you shouldn’t fight on all these issues, what do you say to them? Donald Trump: (29:32)I don’t think I have a choice. If I didn’t take on the media, I guarantee I wouldn’t be here with you tonight. I’d be watching on television, maybe I’d be in the crowd, but I’d be watching. I wouldn’t be interviewed. You couldn’t win. And I haven’t, even to this day, every… The New York Times is so dishonest. The Washington Post is so dishonest. They write things… You can do something great and they can make it sound horrible. You can do something good and they can make it sound beyond belief bad, like it’s the worst thing ever. And I said it a little bit before, you can do something great and it doesn’t get reported. That’s, in a way, just as bad, because a lot of people can figure it out. Donald Trump: (30:15)The level of dishonesty in the media is… I think they’re the most dishonest people I’ve ever dealt with. Now, not everybody. You’re an honest journalist. You’re a great journalist. We have great journalists. Look at the Pulitzer Prize. The Pulitzer Prize is very embarrassed. It’s lost a lot of its credibility, because all these writers got Pulitzer Prizes on the Russia, Russia, Russia, and they were all wrong. But John Solomon and all of the people that you deal with. And you, by the way. Laura, Lou Dobbs, Fox and Friends, people that are great. Great group in the morning, including the weekends, to be honest, with Pete. You have some great people. But they got Pulitzer Prizes on Russia, Russia, Russia, and they were wrong. Now, a committee should meet- Sean Hannity: (31:05)We were right on the deep state. They were wrong. For years, they were wrong for three years. Donald Trump: (31:09)No, you were right about everything. You were right on Ukraine. The Ukraine thing was a hoax. It was a pure hoax. Think of it. They impeached a duly elected President of the United States on a perfect conversation. Actually, there were two conversations. The first one was, “Hello, goodbye.” They don’t even talk about that. The second one was about the same thing. They impeached a President of the United States. Now, in all fairness, the Republican Party was great, because they got 196 to nothing Republican votes in the House, and 52 1/2 to 1/2, Romney. Romney. Half of a… I call it 52 1/2 to 1/2, because he had two votes and one was yes. But we did. They were great. The Republican Party was great. They were steadfast because they knew it was a hoax. It was purely a party line impeachment. Nothing like that’s ever happened before. Sean Hannity: (32:05)To add to that, they had to ignore Joe on tape saying, “You’re not getting the billion unless you fire the prosecutor investigating my zero experience on making millions.” But with that said, Jim is with us from beautiful Wisconsin. Hey, Jim. Jim: (32:20)Thank you, Sean. Mr. President, welcome to Green Bay, Wisconsin and Northeast Wisconsin. Donald Trump: (32:25)Thank you. Jim: (32:25)Great to have you with us. My question for you is, with all the unrest we’ve seen across the country, and right here in the state of Wisconsin, last night in our capital city, a Senator was beaten, Lady Forward was ripped off her pedestal, we lost some other statues. What steps is the administration taking to give us back our streets? Donald Trump: (32:44)So very strong. You happen to have a Democrat governor right now. If you would have had Governor Walker, that wouldn’t have happened. Jim: (32:52)That’s right. Donald Trump: (32:52)Wouldn’t have happened. I’m not saying it. If Scott were your governor, that would not have happened. But it did happen and it was a shame. And the person they beat up was a dem- Donald Trump: (33:03)And it was a shame. The person they beat up was a Democrat who happened to be gay. He was probably out there rooting them on or something, because Democrats think it’s wonderful that they’re destroying our country. It’s a very sick thing going on. Nobody’s ever seen it. Donald Trump: (33:16)Biden is going to be… Look, I don’t think Biden’s a radical left, but it doesn’t matter, because they’re going to just do whatever they want to do. They’ll take him over. He can’t perform. He’s not going to be able to perform. He’s shot. He’s shot. Whether you like it or not, he’s shot. The radical left is going to take him over. Look what happened. Eliot Engel was a pretty main line guy. He lost by like 37 points or so. He just got killed in the election we just had yesterday. Donald Trump: (33:45)He was supposed to be a shoo-in, and he got hit by a strong far left candidate. You have a couple of other Congressmen and women that probably are going to lose, or are going to lose, very close. Too close to call. Look at what’s happened to the Democrats, and these are real lefties. These are people that… Take a look at Venezuela. Venezuela was a very rich country, a great country, a beacon 20 years ago, 15 years ago. People looked… Richest country in Latin South America. Richest, everything good. They don’t have food. They don’t have water. They have death all over. People have nothing. Donald Trump: (34:27)It’s the same exact mindset and philosophy that we have today on attack, and it won’t happen. Not while I’m here, it won’t happen. But a guy like Biden, he’s going to have no power to do anything about it. And they’re dragging him. I don’t know if you saw, Bernie Sanders said, “My sole focus now is to take Joe Biden way left.” They’re going to do it, because there’s nobody in the center left. He was left anyway, but there’s nobody in the center or center left. Donald Trump: (34:56)I mean, it’s a disgrace what’s happened to our country. Now, with that being said, the Republicans have to get tougher. And I’m telling them all the time, because they’re sitting back, they want to be politically correct. They think, “Oh, it’s terrible to say something bad.” No, no, no. I told them. You’ll see, if anyone attacks… I stopped it the other night, I stopped it a number of times, but you’ll see what’s happening. We told him, every night we’re going to get tougher and tougher. At some point, there’s going to be retribution, because there has to be. These people have vandals, but they’re agitators, but they’re really terrorists, in a sense. Donald Trump: (35:33)So I think you’ll be extremely impressed, but you have to put pressure. Also, I love the Republicans. I told you, they came from me a hundred percent. I’m at 96% approval rating in the Republican party. But I said, “You’re going to have to get tougher. You can’t be politically correct anymore, because we’re really fighting something that’s very dangerous.” Thank you. Speaker 1: (35:53)Thank you, Mr. President. Sean Hannity: (35:55)Let’s talk about a second term. If you hear in 131 days from now, at some point in the night or early morning, we can now project Donald J. Trump has been reelected the 45th president of the United States. Let’s talk. What’s at stake in this election as you compare and contrast, and what is one of your top priority items for a second term? Donald Trump: (36:17)Well, one of the things that will be really great… You know, the word experience is still good. I always say talent is more important than experience. I’ve always said that, but the word experience is a very important word. It’s a very important meeting. I never did this before. I never slept over in Washington. I was in Washington, I think, 17 times. All of a sudden, I’m president of the United States. You know the story. I’m riding down Pennsylvania Avenue with our First Lady and I say, “This is great.” Donald Trump: (36:43)But I didn’t know very many people in Washington, it wasn’t my thing. I was from Manhattan from New York. Now I know everybody, and I have great people in the administration. You make some mistakes. An idiot like Bolton, all he wanted to do is drop bombs on everybody. You don’t have to drop bums on everybody. You don’t have to kill people. [ crosstalk 00:37:01]- Sean Hannity: (37:01)If John Bolton, in fact, released classified material. Should he be prosecuted? Donald Trump: (37:06)Yeah. Oh, absolutely. Well, he did release classified. Actually, he had a… A judge said that they released the book early, so he couldn’t do it. Sean Hannity: (37:14)Yeah, so they couldn’t stop it. Donald Trump: (37:14)But he said, “This is very dangerous, what you’ve done for yourself. And also, any money that you’ve made, good luck.” This was a very powerful opinion that we had. No. He’s sort of a sick guy. There’s something wrong with him. But I noticed that earlier, he made two very bad mistakes. He made a mistake where he talked about the Libyan model. I won’t go to explain that, but some of you understand, he was on Deface the Nation. And he talked about the Libyan model. I said, “That’s a disaster,” because you know why. Donald Trump: (37:45)And the other thing he said, “Going into Iraq was a good thing.” I said, “Okay, John, but now you know it wasn’t, right?” “No, no. I still think it was.” I said, “So we’re in for $8 trillion in the Middle East, and you think that was a good thing?” And I’m pulling out, you know, I’ve getting everybody out nice and easy. Everyone’s going nicely. Going nicely. “You think it was good to go into Iraq, go into the Middle East?” Donald Trump: (38:10)“Yes.” So those two things happened early in his little period of time. He was only there a short while. Once he said those two things, I no longer paid much attention to him, if any. But I’ll tell you, he was good for one thing. Everyone thought he was crazy, because all he wants to do is bomb people. You know, he’ll fight Russia. Let’s fight Russia. Let’s fight China. Let’s take them on at the same time. He’s crazy. When I walked into a room with him, I knew that. When they saw Bolton, they always gave me what I wanted, because they said, “Trump’s going to drop bombs on me. He’s got this maniac with him.” Donald Trump: (38:42)So in a way, he helped me in terms of a negotiation. But seriously, he didn’t do a good job. He wasn’t smart. He wasn’t sharp. And he’s the only man I think I’ve ever met… I knew him for a year, one year, whatever the time was, short time. I don’t think I ever saw him smile once. I said to him once, “John, do you have a smile?” And it tells you something about somebody. Sean Hannity: (39:04)You still beat back the caliphate. You got Baghdadi and associates, you got Soleimani. You got the al Qaeda leader in Yemen. Donald Trump: (39:11)We’ve done a lot, we’ve done a lot. We took out Soleimani, number one heroist in the world. We took out al-Baghdadi. He was also considered number one. I guess they fought for number one, I got them both. Obama should have gotten al-Baghdadi, but we took them both out. Sean Hannity: (39:25)And the caliphate. Donald Trump: (39:26)We took a hundred percent of the caliphate. When I took it over, it was all over the place. It was a disaster. That’s the ISIS caliphate. Sean Hannity: (39:32)It won’t be on your second term agenda to drop cargo planes of cash for mullahs in Iran, I’m just guessing. Donald Trump: (39:40)I got 1.8 billion in green, beautiful cash. But in cash, 1.8 billion, I think it was five plane loads of cash. Five plane loads. Sean Hannity: (39:48)Cargo. Donald Trump: (39:49)1.8 billion and 150 billion. Actually, I was more impressed with 1.8 billion in cash, if you want to know that truth. So it was one of those things. Sean Hannity: (39:56)Mark, Wisconsin. Hey Mark, how are you? Donald Trump: (39:58)Hi Mark. Mark: (39:59)Doing well. Looking forward to your second- Donald Trump: (40:02)He looks like Bolton, but a better looking version. Look at him. Mark: (40:06)I could do the same- Donald Trump: (40:07)Much better looking. Mark: (40:07)I could do a better job, I think. Donald Trump: (40:08)I don’t think he likes it. Mark: (40:10)Looking forward to your second term. Donald Trump: (40:13)Thank you. Mark: (40:13)The big concern I’ve got is, how are you going to make sure that the election is fair and free from fraudulent “absentee votes” and mail-in ballots? That’s the concern I’ve got. Donald Trump: (40:25)I think it’s the most important question I’ll be asked, because it’s a great question. Now we have a mail-in thing. As you see California, he’s sending out millions and millions of ballots. Where are they going? Where aren’t they going? Is the postman going to hand them out? Are they going to take them out of the mailboxes? Donald Trump: (40:42)The other thing, Mark, it’s very important. You get to foreign countries. You know, they keep talking, oh, Russia, China, this. Especially China, not Russia, especially China. Are they going to print millions of ballots using the exact same paper, using the exact same machines, and are they going to print ballots, and then hand them in? And all of a sudden, it’s the biggest risk we have: the mail-in ballot. Not so much the absentee ballot, because an absentee, like I’m in the White House, and I have to vote in Florida, et cetera, et cetera. You’re absentee, it’s okay. Donald Trump: (41:14)But people go through a process for that. You know, it’s really pretty good. But the mail-in ballots, they mail them to anybody, and they send them out by the millions. I think I read over 30 million ballots are going to be sent out in California. Where are they going? Nobody’s standing there watching you vote. At least the other way, you get in line, and they’re using… You know, I said the other day. We went through World War I and we voted. We went through World War II and we voted, and now we have a virus. By that time, it’ll be less and less. Why aren’t we going to vote? People want to vote, but it would be nice to be able to see the people. On top of that, they should have ID voting. Mark: (41:53)Absolutely. Donald Trump: (41:53)Okay. We should have ID ballots. Mark: (41:55)Absolutely. Sean Hannity: (41:57)Great question. You’ve said you would like to have more than three debates with Joe Biden. Donald Trump: (42:03)I said I’ll have three, and any amount they want. I didn’t say I want more. See, if you say you want more, just to show what a tricky business is. I want more. They’ll say, “Oh, he feels he’s losing. He wants more,” so I don’t like to say that. I will do whatever number they want to do. That’s okay with me three. Sean Hannity: (42:19)But a minimum of three. Donald Trump: (42:20)Yeah, I guess the three is the minimum. Now, he’s already saying that he can’t do the debates because of COVID. You believe it? “I can’t do the debates because of COVID.” I just heard a little inkling of it two days ago. I said, “Watch this one.” Now, I will do any amount of debates. You understand what I mean? If I say, “I want to do 10 debates,” they’ll say, “Oh, he’s afraid. He’s afraid he’s going to lose.” Donald Trump: (42:40)No, no. What I want to do is, I’ll do the three, and I’ll do any amount that they want. It doesn’t make any difference to me. He is a candidate that will destroy this country, and he may not do it himself. He will be run by a radical fringe group of lunatics that will destroy our country. And people have to know that. Transcribe Your Own Content Try Rev and save time transcribing, captioning, and subtitling. Copyright Disclaimer Under Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Get a weekly digest of the week’s most important transcripts in your inbox. It’s the news, without the news.

right

jun fox news hold donald trump town hall host sean hannity green bay wisconsin say violence chicago baltimore city like live hell talk statue tear john bolton book roger stone case joe biden read transcript interview qa transcribe content try rev free save time transcribe captioning subtitle sean hannity town hall tape early today airplane hangar green bay wisconsin way follow rule recommendation county people recommend small crowd enthusiastic group people obviously deal lot ground cover tonight watch thank mr president thank join go audience question hour wisconsin thing everybody look detail hour economy go leave town hall go announce build new ship rebuild military job donald trump go probably job wisconsin great shipyard hard time good shipyard lot people go work beautiful ship look like yacht lot ammunition tell probably end big one beautiful ship beautiful job wisconsin sort like launch start work contract give win right congratulation folk sean hannity nation watch universal agreement happen george floyd happen happen outspoken peaceful protestor people riot anarchy rock bottle brick molotov cocktail throw police officer police precinct burn ground seattle autonomous zone remain change apparently today take include police precinct offer state help new york illinois washington tell offer help donald trump arrest think number hundred people arrest lot people create bedlam destroy important thing mean talk statue george washington abraham lincoln like jesus know right say want jesus sean hannity shaun king radical donald trump particular event troublemaker agitator anarchist big thing want want destabilize country let say people arrest come know say talk sir say think public know statue act monument act put jail year get get tape nice television like character horse day put rope trouble andrew jackson beautiful beautiful right opposite white house donald trump get remember andrew jackson battle new orleans good president great general let happen abraham lincoln tonight guess look abraham lincoln emancipation proclamation sign emancipation proclamation somebody think free get position get free abraham lincoln controversy beauty pay slave know know pay grateful president donald trump pay reason want thing understand certain thing take ought process legally case museum rioter lot bad people involve talk protestor protestor protester go allow people arrest night washington talk state sean hannity offer help new york donald trump way washington dc state little statement like correct fake news think dc state want clear okay sean hannity predict ahead donald trump way time know mean sean hannity talk state old city florida resident go save lot money taxis state income tax florida new york city increase chicago weekend fellow citizen shoot child die carnage exist year joe biden vice president barack president know reform place ferguson baltimore incident donald trump virtually corrupt joe corrupt look administration wait happen see note oval office meeting thing sean hannity go donald trump happen disgrace corrupt situation catch spy campaign spy say long time ago remember say great knowledge turn correct spy campaign way switch democrat republican opposite way people jail year treason terrible thing people like general flynn like disgraceful disgraceful sean hannity want want stay issue perfect union want pursue happiness law order donald trump sean hannity big city watch chicago violence long obama joe biden administration donald trump ago sean hannity barely mention year seattle new york city people die autonomous zone know people pursue happiness dream life basic fundamental security donald trump look chicago example like bad afghanistan bad work honduras guatemala work know low number phenomenal number border border patrol great job build mile wall go rapidly mile week go complete soon incredible look honduras guatemala different place city bad case far worse look detroit look happen oakland look happen baltimore get upset oh racist statement racist donald trump black people come thank thank sir say want help city like live hell week think week shoot people kill people chicago sean hannity weekend donald trump see case know controversial stop frisk okay stop frisk gun away chicago great example think see rudy giuliani great mayor new york start work great bloomberg blow go crazy ultimately take away lot right lot good job rudy giuliani start stop frisk great great thing new york sean hannity murder rate go know live new york city time go year drive way go area high incident crime donald trump right sean hannity save lot life americans think optimistic stop violence right donald trump stop quickly point distant future go seattle go go happen take american city way case democrats democrat run case joe biden country crazy happen guy talk hear talk sentence want nice unnice okay mean man speak go president people love maybe job forget china plague come china plague come good job number donald trump good economy good stock market way get close number nasdaq actually beat number good number african american asian american hispanic american woman young people diploma young people diploma college good number good economy absolutely number china want take billion billion away china run away go country come take country obama biden rip country hundred billion dollar year go china say talk donald trump know like bad deal china bad deal say happen say ask say get deal take hundred billion dollar worth tariff pay china pay devalue currency incredible job beat china badly china bad year year prior plague come donald trump year prior plague come bad year year tariff thing get beat china deal china deal china eat lunch destroy country china opinion destroy country economically elect thing coronavirus ventilator ventilator ventilator sean hannity day identify case coronavirus united states donald trump sean hannity implement travel ban follow quarantine happen year subsequent travel ban joe say hysteria xenophobic donald trump right terrible sean hannity fear monger donald trump people statement nice statement little complex maybe complex statement analyze vice president biden say break say say xenophobic think know word mean say xenophobic horrible end january early january sean hannity donald trump pelosi people include republicans month later say let chinatown celebrate nancy pelosi celebrate crosstalk sean hannity donald trump street chinatown know business like great job like schumer phenomenal job trade deal ask think deal donald trump like good good see deal automatic thing hear sound helicopter beautiful sound sean hannity sound donald trump usa sean hannity mention early inaudible look little surprised go lie predict million job lose end gain million donald trump sean hannity large retail sale month know see number record list donald trump pretty good number come today job sean hannity number donald trump well project importantly case great testing test case country test million million test million go kid sniffle coronavirus want say night name name like name fact thing like million probably today tomorrow million test donald trump test case few death way way way mortality rate good country world mean people die lot test case kid know case people know sick maybe show test million test big percentage country test show case jokingly sarcastically test look great know right thing sean hannity vaccine donald trump think vaccine come great think therapeutic come great think go answer soon soon think end year vaccine great company totally mobilize military ready soon distribute country sean hannity talk list early joe biden vice president year record point assume somebody ask maybe debate show question find future million american year food stamp million poverty low labor participation rate donald trump sean hannity recovery low home ownership rate year look record precoronavirus record record low unemployment african americans hispanic americans know list african american youth unemployment want issue like look compare contrast historically black college fiveyear commitment money opportunity zone think big change donald trump justice sean hannity justice reform donald trump big thing criminal justice reform obama biden try important black community come want badly unfair situation come sean hannity minority donald trump especially black hispanic unfair say obama try come try get people say able get help good republican frankly go way honest strong conservative republicans like mike lee republicans want chuck grassley great strong conservative republican want donald trump way unusual strong conservative liberal people criminal justice reform think possible get horrible thing mean campaign horrible thing unfair business great ad get beat china wrong beat china badly crosstalk coronavirus sean hannity joe think son get billion dollar donald trump right right way look tell see like point lose look ventilator test million germany second maybe maybe million germany go few case test far few people different sized country test far few people country test like show way test donald trump show fairness show low mortality rate low right positive way think people start like live semilive like go word press corrupt dishonest believe fake news fake news bad fake news sean hannity donald trump great happen refuse report sean hannity mention general flynn see peter strzok lot redact source tell program donald trump big stuff sean hannity devote year unpeele layer onion fact know jack flynn exonerate case go close joe biden bring logan act mention early law prosecute learn premeditate fraud fisa court spy candidate transition team deep presidency james comey sign warrant come sign trump tower say know bulk information hillary dirty russian disinformation document donald trump pay lot money sean hannity pay know say verify turn untrue end country year nightmare question mean general flynn lose year life donald trump sean hannity stone suppose report jail jury foreperson case paul manafort case dead people work pay lawyer fee lie donald trump start reverse order paul manafort send book look like get sort cash turn fraud man paul manafort roger stone roger stone know campaign begin roger stone general flynn papadopoulo know papadopoulo turn totally tape conversation suppose conversation like perfect conversation donald trump tape flynn conversation russian ambassador normal thing go position start call want coordinate country tape say russia ukrainian situation perfect tape perfect conversation general flynn nice man tough guy smart guy great general tell general milley say fine people good man flynn donald trump happen way go remember remember fbi leave say wrong say lie lie say lie persecute sean hannity threaten son son donald trump say tough friend tough country deal china russia north korea say united states america tough country deal schumer pelosi people bad people honestly believe love country country scam scam flynn piece mueller scam come mueller announce week wrong word evidence day collusion russia russia know immediately half year donald trump know immediately half year know immediately country jeff session disaster total disaster basically let happen unknowingly smart let happen shame country sean hannity look durham report inspector general report imagine probably go indictment end look name people example jury foreperson roger stone case prejudice fair impartial jury donald trump believe believe hatred say oh know act like innocent run congress lose pretend innocent jury pool little contact judge brutal judge sentence roger brutal look people sean hannity judge manafort case donald trump look hillary relate thing okay brutal look people look roger stone jury foreman forewoman disaster declare mistrial mistrial incredible anybody see person hate roger stone hate obviously say wonderful thing go sean hannity look like report jail believe day think pardon donald trump go want sean hannity donald trump think treat unfairly sean hannity donald trump involve early know long time know like everybody washington know lot guy washington involve campaign maybe little bit beginning campaign professional destroy life totally destroy life roger stone incredible jury forewoman stand new trial inconceivable way dominant person juror say dominate room dominate get tremendously big sentence guy burn building rip statue hurt police jail happen want year jail sean hannity crime donald trump prosecutor mueller relate mueller related thing friend say innocent man history united states angry democrat geniuse smart smart hell mueller lose smart hell guy spend hear different number million dollar period half year get think probably friend say perfect person sean hannity everybody break come continue great green bay wisconsin president answer question continue stay sean hannity right welcome green bay wisconsin right audience question president go start linda hi linda linda wisconsin sean hannity today hello president trump donald trump window right window know buy lot wausau window year free commercial good job great window linda donald trump linda donald trump linda language cuban background donald trump linda question appreciate country know tough think great accomplishment eye donald trump lot people think fact think finish term close federal judge lot people think record number believe president obama unable judge approve large number judge take get approve get lot approve close supreme court judge great one think lot people donald trump think military space force add year add new branch military big deal important deal space go important rebuilding military taking care vet joint approval rate day va va disaster life see horror story want jinx find somebody unhappy anymore administrator secretary fantastic job approval rating va donald trump get veteran choice approve veteran accountability fire people bad job hard try year civil service union et cetera get thing veteran choice doctor great doctor va doctor private doctor pay bill idea great actually save money believe idea save live tremendous number life achievement donald trump lot large tax cut large regular look regulation cut sean administration history year case cut regulation lot go cut month half month lot proud good artificial problem artificial problem turn country save million life turn come fast anybody think possible lot thing judge military thank linda sean hannity question question ask people love support want know fight hard medium fight com anybody go answer interestingly martha brett town hall maybe fight issue donald trump think choice medium guarantee tonight watch television maybe crowd watch interview win day new york times dishonest washington post dishonest write thing great sound horrible good sound belief bad like bad thing say little bit great report way bad lot people figure donald trump level dishonesty media think dishonest people deal everybody honest journalist great journalist great journalist look pulitzer prize pulitzer prize embarrassed lose lot credibility writer get pulitzer prize russia russia russia wrong john solomon people deal way laura lou dobbs fox friend people great great group morning include weekend honest pete great people get pulitzer prize russia russia russia wrong committee meet sean hannity right deep state wrong year wrong year donald trump right right ukraine ukraine thing hoax pure hoax think impeach duly elect president united states perfect conversation actually conversation hello goodbye talk second thing impeach president united states fairness republican party great get republican vote house romney romney half vote yes great republican party great steadfast know hoax purely party line impeachment like happen sean hannity add ignore joe tape say get billion fire prosecutor investigate zero experience make million say jim beautiful wisconsin hey jim jim sean mr president welcome green bay wisconsin northeast wisconsin donald trump jim question unrest see country right state wisconsin night capital city senator beat lady forward rip pedestal lose statue step administration take street donald trump strong happen democrat governor right governor walker happen jim right donald trump happen say scott governor happen happen shame person beat dem donald trump shame person beat democrat happen gay probably root democrats think wonderful destroy country sick thing go see donald trump go look think biden radical left matter go want perform go able perform shoot shoot like shoot radical left go look happen eliot engel pretty main line guy lose like point get kill election yesterday donald trump suppose shooin get hit strong far left candidate couple congressman woman probably go lose go lose close close look happen democrats real lefty people look venezuela venezuela rich country great country beacon year ago year ago people look rich country latin south america richest good food water death people donald trump exact mindset philosophy today attack will happen will happen guy like biden go power drag know see bernie sander say sole focus joe biden way leave go center leave leave center center leave donald trump mean disgrace happen country say republicans tough tell time sit want politically correct think oh terrible bad tell attack stop night stop number time happen tell night go tough tough point go retribution people vandal agitator terrorist sense donald trump think extremely impressed pressure love republicans tell come percent approval rating republican party say go tough politically correct anymore fight dangerous thank speaker mr president sean hannity talk second term hear day point night early morning project donald j trump reelect president united states let talk stake election compare contrast priority item second term donald trump thing great know word experience good talent important experience say word experience important word important meeting sleep washington washington think time sudden president united states know story ride pennsylvania avenue lady great donald trump know people washington thing manhattan new york know everybody great people administration mistake idiot like bolton want drop bomb everybody drop bum everybody kill people crosstalk sean hannity john bolton fact release classified material prosecute donald trump oh absolutely release classify actually judge say release book early sean hannity stop donald trump say dangerous money good luck powerful opinion sort sick guy wrong notice early bad mistake mistake talk libyan model will explain understand deface nation talk libyan model say disaster know donald trump thing say go iraq good thing say okay john know right think say trillion middle east think good thing pull know get everybody nice easy going nicely go nicely think good iraq middle east donald trump thing happen early little period time short say thing long pay attention tell good thing think crazy want bomb people know fight russia let fight russia let fight china let time crazy walk room know see bolton give want say trump go drop bomb get maniac donald trump way help term negotiation seriously good job smart sharp man think meet know year year time short time think see smile say john smile tell somebody sean hannity beat caliphate get baghdadi associate get soleimani get al qaeda leader yemen donald trump lot lot take soleimani number heroist world take albaghdadi consider number guess fight number get obama get albaghdadi take sean hannity caliphate donald trump take percent caliphate take place disaster isis caliphate sean hannity will second term agenda drop cargo plane cash mullah iran guess donald trump get billion green beautiful cash cash billion think plane load cash plane load sean hannity donald trump billion billion actually impressed billion cash want know truth thing sean hannity wisconsin hey mark donald trump mark mark look forward second donald trump look like bolton well look version look mark donald trump well look mark well job think donald trump think like mark forward second term donald trump mark big concern get go sure election fair free fraudulent absentee vote mailin ballot concern get donald trump think important question ask great question mailin thing california send million million ballot go go postman go hand go mailbox donald trump thing mark important foreign country know talk oh russia china especially china russia especially china go print million ballot exact paper exact machine go print ballot hand sudden big risk mailin ballot absentee ballot absentee like white house vote florida et cetera et cetera absentee okay donald trump people process know pretty good mailin ballot mail anybody send million think read million ballot go send california go stand watch vote way line know say day go world war vote go world war ii vote virus time go vote people want vote nice able people d voting mark donald trump d ballot mark sean hannity question say like debate joe biden donald trump say want want want tricky business want oh feel lose want like number want okay sean hannity minimum donald trump guess minimum say debate covid believe debate covid hear little inkling day ago say watch debate understand mean want debate oh afraid afraid go lose donald trump want want difference candidate destroy country run radical fringe group lunatic destroy country people know transcribe content try rev save time transcribe captioning subtitle copyright disclaimer title usc section allowance fair use purpose criticism comment news reporting teaching scholarship research fair use permit copyright statute infringe weekly digest week important transcript inbox news news

Speeches, etc. Copyright © Margaret Thatcher Foundation 2024. All Rights Reserved.

right

speech etc copyright margaret thatcher foundation right reserve

Speeches, etc. Copyright © Margaret Thatcher Foundation 2024. All Rights Reserved.

right

speech etc copyright margaret thatcher foundation right reserve

October 21, 1984 Ms. Ridings. Good evening from the Municipal Auditorium in Kansas City. I am Dorothy Ridings, the president of the League of Women Voters, the sponsor of this final Presidential debate of the 1984 campaign between Republican Ronald Reagan and Democrat Walter Mondale. Our panelists for tonight's debate on defense and foreign policy issues are Georgie Anne Geyer, syndicated columnist for Universal Press Syndicate; Marvin Kalb, chief diplomatic correspondent for NBC News; Morton Kondracke, executive editor of the New Republic magazine; and Henry Trewhitt, diplomatic correspondent for the Baltimore Sun. Edwin Newman, formerly of NBC News and now a syndicated columnist for King Features, is our moderator. Ed. Mr. Newman. Dorothy Ridings, thank you. A brief word about our procedure tonight. The first question will go to Mr. Mondale. He'll have 2 1/2 minutes to reply. Then the panel member who put the question will ask a followup. The answer to that will be limited to 1 minute. After that, the same question will be put to President Reagan. Again, there will be a followup. And then each man will have 1 minute for rebuttal. The second question will go to President Reagan first. After that, the alternating will continue. At the end there will be 4-minute summations, with President Reagan going last. We have asked the questioners to be brief. Let's begin. Ms. Geyer, your question to Mr. Mondale. Central America Ms. Geyer. Mr. Mondale, two related questions on the crucial issue of Central America. You and the Democratic Party have said that the only policy toward the horrendous civil wars in Central America should be on the economic development and negotiations, with perhaps a quarantine of Marxist Nicaragua. Do you believe that these answers would in any way solve the bitter conflicts there? Do you really believe that there is no need to resort to force at all? Are not the solutions to Central America's gnawing problems simply, again, too weak and too late? Mr. Mondale. I believe that the question oversimplifies the difficulties of what we must do in Central America. Our objectives ought to be to strengthen the democracies, to stop Communist and other extremist influences, and stabilize the community in that area. To do that we need a three-pronged attack: one is military assistance to our friends who are being pressured; secondly, a strong and sophisticated economic aid program and human rights program that offers a better life and a sharper alternative to the alternative offered by the totalitarians who oppose us; and finally, a strong diplomatic effort that pursues the possibilities of peace in the area. That's one of the big disagreements that we have with the President -- that they have not pursued the diplomatic opportunities either within El Salvador or as between the countries and have lost time during which we might have been able to achieve a peace This brings up the whole question of what Presidential leadership is all about. I think the lesson in Central America, this recent embarrassment in Nicaragua where we are giving instructions for hired assassins, hiring criminals, and the rest -- all of this has strengthened our opponents. A President must not only assure that we're tough, but we must also be wise and smart in the exercise of that power. We saw the same thing in Lebanon, where we spent a good deal of America's assets. But because the leadership of this government did not pursue wise policies, we have been humiliated, and our opponents are stronger. The bottom line of national strength is that the President must be in command, he must lead. And when a President doesn't know that submarine missiles are recallable, says that 70 percent of our strategic forces are conventional, discovers 3 years into his administration that our arms control efforts have failed because he didn't know that most Soviet missiles were on land -- these are things a President must know to command. A President is called the Commander in Chief. And he's called that because he's supposed to be in charge of the facts and run our government and strengthen our nation. Ms. Geyer. Mr. Mondale, if I could broaden the question just a little bit: Since World War II, every conflict that we as Americans have been involved with has been in non-conventional or irregular terms. And yet, we keep fighting in conventional or traditional military terms. The Central American wars are very much in the same pattern as China, as Lebanon, as Iran, as Cuba, in their early days. Do you see any possibility that we are going to realize the change in warfare in our time, or react to it in those terms? Mr. Mondale. We absolutely must, which is why I responded to your first question the way I did. It's much more complex. You must understand the region; you must understand the politics in the area; you must provide a strong alternative; and you must show strength -- and all at the same time. That's why I object to the covert action in Nicaragua. That's a classic example of a strategy that's embarrassed us, strengthened our opposition, and undermined the moral authority of our people and our country in the region. Strength requires knowledge, command. We've seen in the Nicaraguan example a policy that has actually hurt us, strengthened our opposition, and undermined the moral authority of our country in that region. Ms. Geyer. Mr. President, in the last few months it has seemed more and more that your policies in Central America were beginning to work. Yet, just at this moment, we are confronted with the extraordinary story of a CIA guerrilla manual for the anti-Sandinista contras whom we are backing, which advocates not only assassinations of Sandinistas but the hiring of criminals to assassinate the guerrillas we are supporting in order to create martyrs. Is this not, in effect, our own state-supported terrorism? The President. No, but I'm glad you asked that question, because I know it's on many peoples' minds. I have ordered an investigation. I know that the CIA is already going forward with one. We have a gentleman down in Nicaragua who is on contract to the CIA, advising -- supposedly on military tactics -- the contras. And he drew up this manual. It was turned over to the agency head of the CIA in Nicaragua to be printed. And a number of pages were excised by that agency head there, the man in charge, and he sent it on up here to CIA, where more pages were excised before it was printed. But some way or other, there were 12 of the original copies that got out down there and were not submitted for this printing process by the CIA. Now, those are the details as we have them. And as soon as we have an investigation and find out where any blame lies for the few that did not get excised or changed, we certainly are going to do something about that. We'll take the proper action at the proper time. I was very interested to hear about Central America and our process down there, and I thought for a moment that instead of a debate I was going to find Mr. Mondale in complete agreement with what we're doing, because the plan that he has outlined is the one we've been following for quite some time, including diplomatic processes throughout Central America and working closely with the Contadora group. So, I can only tell you about the manual -- that we're not in the habit of assigning guilt before there has been proper evidence produced and proof of that guilt. But if guilt is established, whoever is guilty we will treat with that situation then, and they will be removed. Ms. Geyer. Well, Mr. President, you are implying then that the CIA in Nicaragua is directing the contras there. I'd also like to ask whether having the CIA investigate its own manual in such a sensitive area is not sort of like sending the fox into the chicken coop a second time? The President. I'm afraid I misspoke when I said a CIA head in Nicaragua. There's not someone there directing all of this activity. There are, as you know, CIA men stationed in other countries in the world and, certainly, in Central America. And so it was a man down there in that area that this was delivered to, and he recognized that what was in that manual was in direct contravention of my own Executive order, in December of 1981, that we would have nothing to do with regard to political assassinations. Mr. Newman. Mr. Mondale, your rebuttal. Mr. Mondale. What is a President charged with doing when he takes his oath of office? He raises his right hand and takes an oath of office to take care to faithfully execute the laws of the land. A President can't know everything, but a President has to know those things that are essential to his leadership and the enforcement of our laws. This manual -- several thousands of which were produced -- was distributed, ordering political assassinations, hiring of criminals, and other forms of terrorism. Some of it was excised, but the part dealing with political terrorism was continued. How can this happen? How can something this serious occur in an administration and have a President of the United States in a situation like this say he didn't know? A President must know these things. I don't know which is worse, not knowing or knowing and not stopping it. And what about the mining of the harbors in Nicaragua which violated international law? This has hurt this country, and a President's supposed to command. Mr. Newman. Mr. President, your rebuttal. The President. Yes. I have so many things there to respond to, I'm going to pick out something you said earlier. You've been all over the country repeating something that, I will admit, the press has also been repeating -- that I believed that nuclear missiles could be fired and then called back. I never, ever conceived of such a thing. I never said any such thing. In a discussion of our strategic arms negotiations, I said that submarines carrying missiles and airplanes carrying missiles were more conventional-type weapons, not as destabilizing as the land-based missiles, and that they were also weapons that -- or carriers -- that if they were sent out and there was a change, you could call them back before they had launched their missiles. But I hope that from here on you will no longer be saying that particular thing, which is absolutely false. How anyone could think that any sane person would believe you could call back a nuclear missile, I think is as ridiculous as the whole concept has been. So, thank you for giving me a chance to straighten the record. I'm sure that you appreciate that. [Laughter] Mr. Newman. Mr. Kalb, your question to President Reagan. Soviet Union Mr. Kalb. Mr. President, you have often described the Soviet Union as a powerful, evil empire intent on world domination. But this year you have said, and I quote. "If they want to keep their Mickey Mouse system, that's okay with me.'' Which is it, Mr. President? Do you want to contain them within their present borders and perhaps try to reestablish detente -- or what goes for detente -- or do you really want to roll back their empire? The President. I have said on a number of occasions exactly what I believe about the Soviet Union. I retract nothing that I have said. I believe that many of the things they have done are evil in any concept of morality that we have. But I also recognize that as the two great superpowers in the world, we have to live with each other. And I told Mr. Gromyko we don't like their system. They don't like ours. And we're not going to change their system, and they sure better not try to change ours. But between us, we can either destroy the world or we can save it. And I suggested that, certainly, it was to their common interest, along with ours, to avoid a conflict and to attempt to save the world and remove the nuclear weapons. And I think that perhaps we established a little better understanding. I think that in dealing with the Soviet Union one has to be realistic. I know that Mr. Mondale, in the past, has made statements as if they were just people like ourselves, and if we were kind and good and did something nice, they would respond accordingly. And the result was unilateral disarmament. We canceled the B - 1 under the previous administration. What did we get for it? Nothing. The Soviet Union has been engaged in the biggest military buildup in the history of man at the same time that we tried the policy of unilateral disarmament, of weakness, if you will. And now we are putting up a defense of our own. And I've made it very plain to them, we seek no superiority. We simply are going to provide a deterrent so that it will be too costly for them if they are nursing any ideas of aggression against us. Now, they claim they're not. And I made it plain to them, we're not. There's been no change in my attitude at all. I just thought when I came into office it was time that there was some realistic talk to and about the Soviet Union. And we did get their attention. Regions Vital to U.S. Interests Mr. Kalb. Mr. President, perhaps the other side of the coin, a related question, sir. Since World War II, the vital interests of the United States have always been defined by treaty commitments and by Presidential proclamations. Aside from what is obvious, such as NATO, for example, which countries, which regions in the world do you regard as vital national interests of this country, meaning that you would send American troops to fight there if they were in danger? The President. Ah, well, now you've added a hypothetical there at the end, Mr. Kalb, about where we would send troops in to fight. I am not going to make the decision as to what the tactics could be, but obviously there are a number of areas in the world that are of importance to us. One is the Middle East, and that is of interest to the whole Western World and the industrialized nations, because of the great supply of energy upon which so many depend there. Our neighbors here in America are vital to us. We're working right now in trying to be of help in southern Africa with regard to the independence of Namibia and the removal of the Cuban surrogates, the thousands of them, from Angola. So, I can say there are a great many interests. I believe that we have a great interest in the Pacific Basin. That is where I think the future of the world lies. But I am not going to pick out one and, in advance, hypothetically say, ``Oh, yes, we would send troops there.'' I don't want to send troops any place. Mr. Newman. I'm sorry, Mr. President. Sir, your time was up. The President. All right. Soviet Union Mr. Kalb. Mr. Mondale, you have described the Soviet leaders as, and I'm quoting, ``. . . cynical, ruthless, and dangerous,'' suggesting an almost total lack of trust in them. In that case, what makes you think that the annual summit meetings with them that you have proposed will result in agreements that would satisfy the interests of this country? Mr. Mondale. Because the only type of agreements to reach with the Soviet Union are the types that are specifically defined, so we know exactly what they must do; subject to full verification, which means we know every day whether they're living up to it; and followups, wherever we find suggestions that they're violating it; and the strongest possible terms. I have no illusions about the Soviet Union leadership or the nature of that state. They are a tough and a ruthless adversary, and we must be prepared to meet that challenge, and I would. Where I part with the President is that despite all of those differences we must, as past Presidents before this one have done, meet on the common ground of survival. And that's where the President has opposed practically every arms control agreement, by every President, of both political parties, since the bomb went off. And he now completes this term with no progress toward arms control at all, but with a very dangerous arms race underway instead. There are now over 2,000 more warheads pointed at us today than there were when he was sworn in, and that does not strengthen us. We must be very, very realistic in the nature of that leadership, but we must grind away and talk to find ways of reducing these differences, particularly where arms races are concerned and other dangerous exercises of Soviet power. There will be no unilateral disarmament under my administration. I will keep this nation strong. I understand exactly what the Soviets are up to, but that, too, is a part of national strength. To do that, a President must know what is essential to command and to leadership and to strength. And that's where the President's failure to master, in my opinion, the essential elements of arms control has cost us dearly. He's 3 years into this administration. He said he just discovered that most Soviet missiles are on land, and that's why his proposal didn't work. I invite the American people tomorrow -- because I will issue the statement quoting President Reagan -- he said exactly what I said he said. He said that these missiles were less dangerous than ballistic missiles because you could fire them, and you could recall them if you decided there'd been a miscalculation. Mr. Newman. I'm sorry, sir -- -- Mr. Mondale. A President must know those things. Eastern Europe Mr. Kalb. A related question, Mr. Mondale, on Eastern Europe. Do you accept the conventional diplomatic wisdom that Eastern Europe is a Soviet sphere of influence? And if you do, what could a Mondale administration realistically do to help the people of Eastern Europe achieve the human rights that were guaranteed to them as a result of the Helsinki accords? Mr. Mondale. I think the essential strategy of the United States ought not accept any Soviet control over Eastern Europe. We ought to deal with each of these countries separately. We ought to pursue strategies with each of them, economic and the rest, that help them pull away from their dependence upon the Soviet Union. Where the Soviet Union has acted irresponsibly, as they have in many of those countries, especially, recently, in Poland, I believe we ought to insist that Western credits extended to the Soviet Union bear the market rate. Make the Soviets pay for their irresponsibility. That is a very important objective -- to make certain that we continue to look forward to progress toward greater independence by these nations and work with each of them separately. Mr. Newman. Mr. President, your rebuttal. The President. Yes. I'm not going to continue trying to respond to these repetitions of the falsehoods that have already been stated here. But with regard to whether Mr. Mondale would be strong, as he said he would be, I know that he has a commercial out where he's appearing on the deck of the Nimitz and watching the F - 14's take off. And that's an image of strength -- except that if he had had his way when the Nimitz was being planned, he would have been deep in the water out there because there wouldn't have been any Nimitz to stand on -- he was against it. [Laughter] He was against the F - 14 fighter, he was against the M - 1 tank, he was against the B - 1 bomber, he wanted to cut the salary of all of the military, he wanted to bring home half of the American forces in Europe. And he has a record of weakness with regard to our national defense that is second to none. Audience member. Hear, hear! The President. Indeed, he was on that side virtually throughout all his years in the Senate. And he opposed even President Carter, when toward the end of his term President Carter wanted to increase the defense budget. Mr. Newman. Mr. Mondale, your rebuttal. Mr. Mondale. Mr. President, I accept your commitment to peace, but I want you to accept my commitment to a strong national defense. [Applause] I propose a budget -- I have proposed a budget which would increase our nation's strength, in real terms, by double that of the Soviet Union. I'll tell you where we disagree. It is true over 10 years ago I voted to delay production of the F - 14, and I'll tell you why. The plane wasn't flying the way it was supposed to be; it was a waste of money. Your definition of national strength is to throw money at the Defense Department. My definition of national strength is to make certain that a dollar spent buys us a dollar's worth of defense. There's a big difference between the two of us. A President must manage that budget. I will keep us strong, but you'll not do that unless you command that budget and make certain we get the strength that we need. You pay $500 for a $5 hammer, you're not buying strength. Mr. Newman. I would ask the audience not to applaud. All it does is take up time that we would like to devote to the debate. Mr. Kondracke, your question to Mr. Mondale. Use of Military Force Mr. Kondracke. Mr. Mondale, in an address earlier this year you said that before this country resorts to military force, and I'm quoting, ``American interests should be sharply defined, publicly supported, congressionally sanctioned, militarily feasible, internationally defensible, open to independent scrutiny, and alert to regional history.'' Now, aren't you setting up such a gauntlet of tests here that adversaries could easily suspect that as President you would never use force to protect American interests? Mr. Mondale. No. As a matter of fact, I believe every one of those standards is essential to the exercise of power by this country. And we can see that in both Lebanon and in Central America. In Lebanon, this President exercised American power, all right, but the management of it was such that our marines were killed, we had to leave in humiliation, the Soviet Union became stronger, terrorists became emboldened. And it was because they did not think through how power should be exercised, did not have the American public with them on a plan that worked, that we ended up the way we did. Similarly, in Central America: What we're doing in Nicaragua with this covert war -- which the Congress, including many Republicans, have tried to stop -- is finally end up with a public definition of American power that hurts us, where we get associated with political assassins and the rest. We have to decline, for the first time in modern history, jurisdiction in the World Court because they'll find us guilty of illegal actions. And our enemies are strengthened from all of this. We need to be strong, we need to be prepared to use that strength, but we must understand that we are a democracy. We are a government by the people, and when we move, it should be for very severe and extreme reasons that serve our national interests and end up with a stronger country behind us. It is only in that way that we can persevere. Nicaragua Mr. Kondracke. You've been quoted as saying that you might quarantine Nicaragua. I'd like to know what that means. Would you stop Soviet ships, as President Kennedy did in 1962? And wouldn't that be more dangerous than President Reagan's covert war? Mr. Mondale. What I'm referring to there is the mutual self-defense provisions that exist in the Inter-American treaty, the so-called Rio Pact, that permits the nations, our friends in that region, to combine to take steps -- diplomatic and otherwise -- to prevent Nicaragua, when she acts irresponsibly in asserting power in other parts outside of her border, to take those steps, whatever they might be, to stop it. The Nicaraguans must know that it is the policy of our government that that leadership must stay behind the boundaries of their nation, not interfere in other nations. And by working with all of the nations in the region -- unlike the policies of this administration and unlike the President said, they have not supported negotiations in that region -- we will be much stronger, because we'll have the moral authority that goes with those efforts. Lebanon Mr. Kondracke. President Reagan, you introduced U.S. forces into Lebanon as neutral peacekeepers, but then you made them combatants on the side of the Lebanese Government. Eventually you were forced to withdraw them under fire, and now Syria, a Soviet ally, is dominant in the country. Doesn't Lebanon represent a major failure on the part of your administration and raise serious questions about your capacity as a foreign policy strategist and as Commander in Chief? The President. No, Morton, I don't agree to all of those things. First of all, when we and our allies -- the Italians, the French, and the United Kingdom -- went into Lebanon, we went in there at the request of what was left of the Lebanese Government to be a stabilizing force while they tried to establish a government. But the first -- pardon me -- the first time we went in, we went in at their request because the war was going on right in Beirut between Israel and the PLO terrorists. Israel could not be blamed for that. Those terrorists had been violating their northern border consistently, and Israel chased them all the way to there. Then we went in with the multinational force to help remove, and did remove, more than 13,000 of those terrorists from Lebanon. We departed. And then the Government of Lebanon asked us back in as a stabilizing force while they established a government and sought to get the foreign forces all the way out of Lebanon and that they could then take care of their own borders. And we were succeeding. We were there for the better part of a year. Our position happened to be at the airport. Oh, there were occasional snipings and sometimes some artillery fire, but we did not engage in conflict that was out of line with our mission. I will never send troops anywhere on a mission of that kind without telling them that if somebody shoots at them, they can darn well shoot back. And this is what we did. We never initiated any kind of action; we defended ourselves there. But we were succeeding to the point that the Lebanese Government had been organized -- if you will remember, there were the meetings in Geneva in which they began to meet with the hostile factional forces and try to put together some kind of a peace plan. We were succeeding, and that was why the terrorist acts began. There are forces there -- and that includes Syria, in my mind -- who don't want us to succeed, who don't want that kind of a peace with a dominant Lebanon, dominant over its own territory. And so, the terrorist acts began and led to the one great tragedy when they were killed in that suicide bombing of the building. Then the multilateral force withdrew for only one reason: We withdrew because we were no longer able to carry out the mission for which we had been sent in. But we went in in the interest of peace and to keep Israel and Syria from getting into the sixth war between them. And I have no apologies for our going on a peace mission. Mr. Kondracke. Mr. President, 4 years ago you criticized President Carter for ignoring ample warnings that our diplomats in Iran might be taken hostage. Haven't you done exactly the same thing in Lebanon, not once, but three times, with 300 Americans, not hostages, but dead? And you vowed swift retaliation against terrorists, but doesn't our lack of response suggest that you're just bluffing? The President. Morton, no. I think there's a great difference between the Government of Iran threatening our diplomatic personnel, and there is a government that you can see and can put your hand on. In the terrorist situation, there are terrorist factions all over. In a recent 30-day period, 37 terrorist acts in 20 countries have been committed. The most recent has been the one in Brighton. In dealing with terrorists, yes, we want to retaliate, but only if we can put our finger on the people responsible and not endanger the lives of innocent civilians there in the various communities and in the city of Beirut where these terrorists are operating. I have just signed legislation to add to our ability to deal, along with our allies, with this terrorist problem. And it's going to take all the nations together, just as when we banded together we pretty much resolved the whole problem of skyjackings sometime ago. Well, the red light went on. I could have gone on forever. Mr. Newman. Mr. Mondale, your rebuttal? Mr. Mondale. Groucho Marx said, ``Who do you believe? -- me, or your own eyes?'' And what we have in Lebanon is something that the American people have seen. The Joint Chiefs urged the President not to put our troops in that barracks because they were indefensible. They went to him 5 days before they were killed and said, ``Please, take them out of there.'' The Secretary of State admitted that this morning. He did not do so. The report following the explosion of the barracks disclosed that we had not taken any of the steps that we should have taken. That was the second time. Then the Embassy was blown up a few weeks ago, and once again none of the steps that should have been taken were taken. And we were warned 5 days before that explosives were on their way, and they weren't taken. The terrorists have won each time. The President told the terrorists he was going to retaliate. He didn't. They called their bluff. And the bottom line is that the United States left in humiliation, and our enemies are stronger. Mr. Newman. Mr. President, your rebuttal? The President. Yes. First of all, Mr. Mondale should know that the President of the United States did not order the marines into that barracks. That was a command decision made by the commanders on the spot and based with what they thought was best for the men there. That is one. On the other things that you've just said about the terrorists, I'm tempted to ask you what you would do. These are unidentified people, and after the bomb goes off, they're blown to bits because they are suicidal individuals who think they're going to go to paradise if they perpetrate such an act and lose their life in doing it. We are going to, as I say, we're busy trying to find the centers where these operations stem from, and retaliation will be taken. But we're not going to simply kill some people to say, ``Oh, look, we got even.'' We want to know when we retaliate that we're retaliating with those who are responsible for the terrorist acts. And terrorist acts are such that our own United States Capitol in Washington has been bombed twice. Mr. Newman. Mr. Trewhitt, your question to President Reagan? The President's Age Mr. Trewhitt. Mr. President, I want to raise an issue that I think has been lurking out there for 2 or 3 weeks and cast it specifically in national security terms. You already are the oldest President in history. And some of your staff say you were tired after your most recent encounter with Mr. Mondale. I recall yet that President Kennedy had to go for days on end with very little sleep during the Cuban missile crisis. Is there any doubt in your mind that you would be able to function in such circumstances? The President. Not at all, Mr. Trewhitt, and I want you to know that also I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience. [Laughter and applause] If I still have time, I might add, Mr. Trewhitt, I might add that it was Seneca or it was Cicero, I don't know which, that said, ``If it was not for the elders correcting the mistakes of the young, there would be no state.'' Strategic Missiles Mr. Trewhitt. Mr. President, I'd like to head for the fence and try to catch that one before it goes over, but I'll go on to another question. You and Mr. Mondale have already disagreed about what you had to say about recalling submarine-launched missiles. There's another, a similar issue out there that relates to your -- it is said, at least, that you were unaware that the Soviet retaliatory power was based on land-based missiles. First, is that correct? Secondly, if it is correct, have you informed yourself in the meantime? And third, is it even necessary for the President to be so intimately involved in strategic details? The President. Yes, this had to do with our disarmament talks. And the whole controversy about land missiles came up because we thought that the strategic nuclear weapons, the most destabilizing are the land-based. You put your thumb on a button and somebody blows up 20 minutes later. So, we thought that it would be simpler to negotiate first with those. And then we made it plain, a second phase, take up the submarine-launched or the airborne missiles. The Soviet Union, to our surprise -- and not just mine -- made it plain when we brought this up that they placed, they thought, a greater reliance on the land-based missiles and, therefore, they wanted to take up all three. And we agreed. We said, ``All right, if that's what you want to do.'' But it was a surprise to us, because they outnumbered us 64 to 36 in submarines and 20 percent more bombers capable of carrying nuclear missiles than we had. So, why should we believe that they had placed that much more reliance on land-based? But even after we gave in and said, ``All right, let's discuss it all,'' they walked away from the table. We didn't. The President's Age Mr. Trewhitt. Mr. Mondale, I'm going to hang in there. Should the President's age and stamina be an issue in the political campaign? Mr. Mondale. No. And I have not made it an issue, nor should it be. What's at issue here is the President's application of his authority to understand what a President must know to lead this nation, secure our defense, and make the decisions and the judgments that are necessary. A minute ago the President quoted Cicero, I believe. I want to quote somebody a little closer to home, Harry Truman. He said, ``The buck stops here.'' We just heard the President's answer for the problems at the barracks in Lebanon, where 241 marines were killed. What happened? First, the Joint Chiefs of Staff went to the President, said, ``Don't put those troops there.'' They did it. And then 5 days before the troops were killed, they went back to the President, through the Secretary of Defense, and said, ``Please, Mr. President, take those troops out of there because we can't defend them.'' They didn't do it. And we know what happened. After that, once again, our Embassy was exploded. This is the fourth time this has happened -- an identical attack, in the same region, despite warnings -- even public warnings -- from the terrorists. Who's in charge? Who's handling this matter? That's my main point. Now, on arms control, we're completing 4 years. This is the first administration since the bomb went off that made no progress. We have an arms race underway instead. A President has to lead his government or it won't be done. Different people with different views fight with each other. For 3 1/2 years, this administration avoided arms control, resisted tabling arms control proposals that had any hope of agreeing, rebuked their negotiator in 1981 when he came close to an agreement, at least in principle, on medium-range weapons. And we have this arms race underway. And a recent book that just came out by perhaps the Nation's most respected author in this field, Strobe Talbott, called ``Deadly Gambits,'' concludes that this President has failed to master the essential details needed to command and lead us, both in terms of security and terms of arms control. That's why they call the President the Commander in Chief. Good intentions, I grant. But it takes more than that. You must be tough and smart. The President's Leadership Mr. Trewhitt. This question of leadership keeps arising in different forms in this discussion already. And the President, Mr. Mondale, has called you whining and vacillating, among the more charitable phrases -- weak, I believe. It is a question of leadership. And he has made the point that you have not repudiated some of the semidiplomatic activity of the Reverend Jackson, particularly in Central America. Did you approve of his diplomatic activity? And are you prepared to repudiate him now? Mr. Mondale. I read his statement the other day. I don't admire Fidel Castro at all. And I've said that. Che Guevara was a contemptible figure in civilization's history. I know the Cuban state as a police state, and all my life I've worked in a way that demonstrates that. But Jesse Jackson is an independent person. I don't control him. And let's talk about people we do control. In the last debate*, the Vice President of the United States said that I said the marines had died shamefully and died in shame in Lebanon. I demanded an apology from Vice President Bush because I had, instead, honored these young men, grieved for their families, and think they were wonderful Americans that honored us all. What does the President have to say about taking responsibility for a Vice President who won't apologize for something like that? Mr. Newman. Mr. President, your rebuttal? The President. Yes. I know it'll come as a surprise to Mr. Mondale, but I am in charge. And, as a matter of fact, we haven't avoided arms control talks with the Soviet Union. Very early in my administration I proposed -- and I think something that had never been proposed by any previous administration -- I proposed a total elimination of intermediate-range missiles, where the Soviets had better than a 10 -- and still have -- better than a 10-to-1 advantage over the allies in Europe. When they protested that and suggested a smaller number, perhaps, I went along with that. The so-called negotiation that you said I walked out on was the so-called walk in the woods between one of our representatives and one of the Soviet Union, and it wasn't me that turned it down, the Soviet Union disavowed it. Mr. Newman. Mr. Mondale, your rebuttal? Mr. Mondale. There are two distinguished authors on arms control in this country -- there are many others, but two that I want to cite tonight. One is Strobe Talbott in his classic book, ``Deadly Gambits.'' The other is John Neuhaus, who's one of the most distinguished arms control specialists in our country. Both said that this administration turned down the ``walk in the woods'' agreement first, and that would have been a perfect agreement from the standpoint of the United States in Europe and our security. When Mr. Nitze, a good negotiator, returned, he was rebuked, and his boss was fired. This is the kind of leadership that we've had in this administration on the most deadly issue of our times. Now we have a runaway arms race. All they've got to show for 4 years in U.S.-Soviet relations is one meeting in the last weeks of an administration, and nothing before. They're tough negotiators, but all previous Presidents have made progress. This one has not. Mr. Newman. Ms. Geyer, your question to Mr. Mondale. Illegal Immigration Ms. Geyer. Mr. Mondale, many analysts are now saying that actually our number one foreign policy problem today is one that remains almost totally unrecognized: massive illegal immigration from economically collapsing countries. They are saying that it is the only real territorial threat to the American nation-state. You, yourself, said in the 1970's that we had a ``hemorrhage on our borders.'' Yet today you have backed off any immigration reform, such as the balanced and highly crafted Simpson-Mazzoli bill. Why? What would you do instead today, if anything? Mr. Mondale. This is a very serious problem in our country, and it has to be dealt with. I object to that part of the Simpson-Mazzoli bill which I think is very unfair and would prove to be so. That is the part that requires employers to determine the citizenship of an employee before they're hired. I'm convinced that the result of this would be that people who are Hispanic, people who have different languages or speak with an accent, would find it difficult to be employed. I think that's wrong. We've never had citizenship tests in our country before, and I don't think we should have a citizenship card today. That is counterproductive. I do support the other aspects of the Simpson-Mazzoli bill that strengthen enforcement at the border, strengthen other ways of dealing with undocumented workers in this difficult area and dealing with the problem of settling people who have lived here for many, many years and do not have an established status. I have further strongly recommended that this administration do something it has not done, and that is to strengthen enforcement at the border, strengthen the officials in this government that deal with undocumented workers, and to do so in a way that's responsible and within the Constitution of the United States. We need an answer to this problem, but it must be an American answer that is consistent with justice and due process. Everyone in this room, practically, here tonight, is an immigrant. We came here loving this nation, serving it, and it has served all of our most bountiful dreams. And one of those dreams is justice. And we need a measure -- and I will support a measure -- that brings about those objectives but avoids that one aspect that I think is very serious. The second part is to maintain and improve relations with our friends to the south. We cannot solve this problem all on our own. And that's why the failure of this administration to deal in an effective and a good-faith way with Mexico, with Costa Rica, with the other nations in trying to find a peaceful settlement to the dispute in Central America has undermined our capacity to effectively deal diplomatically in this area as well. Ms. Geyer. Sir, people as well-balanced and just as Father Theodore Hesburgh at Notre Dame, who headed the select commission on immigration, have pointed out repeatedly that there will be no immigration reform without employer sanctions, because it would be an unbalanced bill, and there would be simply no way to enforce it. However, putting that aside for the moment, your critics have also said repeatedly that you have not gone along with the bill or with any immigration reform because of the Hispanic groups -- or Hispanic leadership groups -- who actually do not represent what the Hispanic-Americans want, because polls show that they overwhelmingly want some kind of immigration reform. Can you say, or how can you justify your position on this? And how do you respond to the criticism that this is another, or that this is an example of your flip-flopping and giving in to special interest groups at the expense of the American nation? Mr. Mondale. I think you're right that the polls show that the majority of Hispanics want that bill, so I'm not doing it for political reasons. I'm doing it because all my life I've fought for a system of justice in this country, a system in which every American has a chance to achieve the fullness in life without discrimination. This bill imposes upon employers the responsibility of determining whether somebody who applies for a job is an American or not. And just inevitably, they're going to be reluctant to hire Hispanics or people with a different accent. If I were dealing with politics here, the polls show the American people want this. I am for reform in this area, for tough enforcement at the border, and for many other aspects of the Simpson-Mazzoli bill, but all my life I've fought for a fair nation. And despite the politics of it, I stand where I stand, and I think I'm right, and before this fight is over we're going to come up with a better bill, a more effective bill that does not undermine the liberties of our people. Ms. Geyer. Mr. President, you, too, have said that our borders are out of control. Yet this fall you allowed the Simpson-Mazzoli bill -- which would at least have minimally protected our borders and the rights of citizenship -- because of a relatively unimportant issue of reimbursement to the States for legalized aliens. Given that, may I ask what priority can we expect you to give this forgotten national security element? How sincere are you in your efforts to control, in effect, the nation-state that is the United States? The President. Georgie Anne, we, believe me, supported the Simpson-Mazzoli bill strongly -- and the bill that came out of the Senate. However, there were things added in in the House side that we felt made it less of a good bill; as a matter of fact, made it a bad bill. And in conference -- we stayed with them in conference all the way to where even Senator Simpson did not want the bill in the manner in which it would come out of the conference committee. There were a number of things in there that weakened that bill. I can't go into detail about them here. But it is true our borders are out of control. It is also true that this has been a situation on our borders back through a number of administrations. And I supported this bill. I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and who have lived here even though sometime back they may have entered illegally. With regard to the employer sanctions, we must have that not only to ensure that we can identify the illegal aliens, but also, while some keep protesting about what it would do to employers, there is another employer that we shouldn't be so concerned about, and these are employers down through the years who have encouraged the illegal entry into this country because they then hire these individuals and hire them at starvation wages and with none of the benefits that we think are normal and natural for workers in our country, and the individuals can't complain because of their illegal status. We don't think that those people should be allowed to continue operating free. And this was why the provisions that we had in with regard to sanctions, and so forth -- and I'm going to do everything I can, and all of us in the administration are, to join in again when Congress is back at it to get an immigration bill that will give us, once again, control of our borders. And with regard to friendship below the border and with the countries down there, yes, no administration that I know has established the relationship that we have with our Latin friends. But as long as they have an economy that leaves so many people in dire poverty and unemployment, they are going to seek that employment across our borders. And we work with those other countries. Ms. Geyer. Mr. President, the experts also say that the situation today is terribly different quantitatively -- qualitatively different from what it has been in the past because of the gigantic population growth. For instance, Mexico's population will go from about 60 million today to 120 million at the turn of the century. Many of these people will be coming into the United States not as citizens, but as illegal workers. You have repeatedly said recently that you believe that Armageddon, the destruction of the world, may be imminent in our times. Do you ever feel that we are in for an Armageddon or a situation, a time of anarchy, regarding the population explosion in the world? The President. No. As a matter of fact, the population explosion, if you look at the actual figures, has been vastly exaggerated -- over exaggerated. As a matter of fact, there are some pretty scientific and solid figures about how much space there still is in the world and how many more people we can have. It's almost like going back to the Malthusian theory, when even then they were saying that everyone would starve with the limited population they had then. But the problem of population growth is one, here, with regard to our immigration. And we have been the safety valve, whether we wanted to or not, with the illegal entry here, in Mexico, where their population is increasing and they don't have an economy that can absorb them and provide the jobs. And this is what we're trying to work out, not only to protect our own borders but to have some kind of fairness and recognition of that problem. Mr. Newman. Mr. Mondale, your rebuttal? Mr. Mondale. One of the biggest problems today is that the countries to our south are so desperately poor that these people who will almost lose their lives if they don't come north, come north despite all the risks. And if we're going to find a permanent, fundamental answer to this, it goes to American economic and trade policies that permit these nations to have a chance to get on their own two feet and to get prosperity, so that they can have jobs for themselves and their people. And that's why this enormous national debt, engineered by this administration, is harming these countries in fueling this immigration. These high interest rates -- real rates that have doubled under this administration -- have had the same effect on Mexico and so on, and the cost of repaying those debts is so enormous that it results in massive unemployment, hardship, and heartache. And that drives our friends to the south up into our region, and we need to end those deficits as well. Mr. Newman. Mr. President, your rebuttal. The President. Well, my rebuttal is I've heard the national debt blamed for a lot of things, but not for illegal immigration across our border -- [laughter] -- and it has nothing to do with it. But with regard to these high interest rates, too, at least give us the recognition of the fact that when you left office, Mr. Mondale, they were 211 /2 -- the prime rate. It's now 12 1/4, and I predict it'll be coming down a little more shortly. So, we're trying to undo some of the things that your administration did. [Applause] Mr. Newman. No applause, please. Mr. Kalb, your question to President Reagan. Armageddon Mr. Kalb. Mr. President, I'd like to pick up this Armageddon theme. You've been quoted as saying that you do believe, deep down, that we are heading for some kind of biblical Armageddon. Your Pentagon and your Secretary of Defense have plans for the United States to fight and prevail in a nuclear war. Do you feel that we are now heading perhaps, for some kind of nuclear Armageddon? And do you feel that this country and the world could survive that kind of calamity? The President. Mr. Kalb, I think what has been hailed as something I'm supposedly, as President, discussing as principle is the recall of just some philosophical discussions with people who are interested in the same things; and that is the prophecies down through the years, the biblical prophecies of what would portend the coming of Armageddon, and so forth, and the fact that a number of theologians for the last decade or more have believed that this was true, that the prophecies are coming together that portend that. But no one knows whether Armageddon, those prophecies mean that Armageddon is a thousand years away or day after tomorrow. So, I have never seriously warned and said we must plan according to Armageddon. Now, with regard to having to say whether we would try to survive in the event of a nuclear war, of course we would. But let me also point out that to several parliaments around the world, in Europe and in Asia, I have made a statement to each one of them, and I'll repeat it here: A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. And that is why we are maintaining a deterrent and trying to achieve a deterrent capacity to where no one would believe that they could start such a war and escape with limited damage. But the deterrent -- and that's what it is for -- is also what led me to propose what is now being called the Star Wars concept, but propose that we research to see if there isn't a defensive weapon that could defend against incoming missiles. And if such a defense could be found, wouldn't it be far more humanitarian to say that now we can defend against a nuclear war by destroying missiles instead of slaughtering millions of people? Strategic Defense Initiative Mr. Kalb. Mr. President, when you made that proposal, the so-called Star Wars proposal, you said, if I'm not mistaken, that you would share this very super-sophisticated technology with the Soviet Union. After all of the distrust over the years, sir, that you have expressed towards the Soviet Union, do you really expect anyone to take seriously that offer that you would share the best of America's technology in this weapons area with our principal adversary? The President. Why not? What if we did -- and I hope we can; we're still researching -- what if we come up with a weapon that renders those missiles obsolete? There has never been a weapon invented in the history of man that has not led to a defensive, a counter weapon. But suppose we came up with that? Now, some people have said, "Ah, that would make war imminent, because they would think that we could launch a first strike because we could defend against the enemy.'' But why not do what I have offered to do and asked the Soviet Union to do? Say, ``Look, here's what we can do. We'll even give it to you. Now, will you sit down with us and once and for all get rid, all of us, of these nuclear weapons and free mankind from that threat?'' I think that would be the greatest use of a defensive weapon. Mr. Kalb. Mr. Mondale, you've been very sharply critical of the President's Strategic Defense Initiative. And yet, what is wrong with a major effort by this country to try to use its best technology to knock out as many incoming nuclear warheads as possible? Mr. Mondale. First of all, let me sharply disagree with the President on sharing the most advanced, the most dangerous, the most important technology in America with the Soviet Union. We have had for many years, understandably, a system of restraints on high technology because the Soviets are behind us. And any research or development along the Star Wars schemes would inevitably involve our most advanced computers, our most advanced engineering. And the thought that we would share this with the Soviet Union is, in my opinion, a total non-STARTer. I would not let the Soviet Union get their hands on it at all. Now, what's wrong with Star Wars? There's nothing wrong with the theory of it. If we could develop a principle that would say both sides could fire all their missiles and no one would get hurt, I suppose it's a good idea. But the fact of it is we're so far away from research that even comes close to that, that the Director of Engineering Research at the Defense Department said to get there we would have to solve eight problems, each of which are more difficult than the atomic bomb and the Manhattan project. It would cost something like a trillion dollars to test and deploy weapons. The second thing is this all assumes that the Soviets wouldn't respond in kind. And they always do. We don't get behind. They won't get behind. And that's been the tragic story of the arms race. We have more at stake in space satellites than they do. If we could stop, right now, the testing and the deployment of these space weapons -- and the President's proposals go clear beyond research; if it was just research we wouldn't have any argument, because maybe someday, somebody will think of something -- but to commit this nation to a buildup of antisatellite and space weapons at this time, in their crude state, would bring about an arms race that's very dangerous indeed. One final point. The most dangerous aspect of this proposal is, for the first time, we would delegate to computers the decision as to whether to start a war. That's dead wrong. There wouldn't be time for a President to decide; it would be decided by these remote computers. It might be an oil fire, it might be a jet exhaust, the computer might decide it's a missile -- and off we go. Why don't we stop this madness now and draw a line and keep the heavens free from war? [Applause] Nuclear Freeze Mr. Kalb. Mr. Mondale, in this general area, sir, of arms control, President Carter's national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, said, "A nuclear freeze is a hoax.'' Yet the basis of your arms proposals, as I understand them, is a mutual and verifiable freeze on existing weapons systems. In your view, which specific weapons systems could be subject to a mutual and verifiable freeze, and which could not? Mr. Mondale. Every system that is verifiable should be placed on the table for negotiations for an agreement. I would not agree to any negotiations or any agreement that involved conduct on the part of the Soviet Union that we couldn't verify every day. I would not agree to any agreement in which the United States security interest was not fully recognized and supported. That's why we say mutual and verifiable freezes. Now, why do I support the freeze? Because this ever-rising arms race madness makes both nations less secure. It's more difficult to defend this nation. It's putting a hair-trigger on nuclear war. This administration, by going into the Star Wars system, is going to add a dangerous new escalation. We have to be tough on the Soviet Union, but I think the American people -- -- Mr. Newman. Your time is up, Mr. Mondale. Mr. Mondale. -- -- and the people of the Soviet Union want it to stop. Mr. Newman. President Reagan, your rebuttal? The President. Yes, my rebuttal, once again, is that this invention that has just been created here of how I would go about rolling over for the Soviet Union -- no, Mr. Mondale, my idea would be with that defensive weapon that we would sit down with them and then say, ``Now, are you willing to join us? Here's what we'' -- give them a demonstration and then say -- ``Here's what we can do. Now, if you're willing to join us in getting rid of all the nuclear weapons in the world, then we'll give you this one, so that we would both know that no one can cheat; that we're both got something that if anyone tries to cheat . . . .'' But when you keep star-warring it -- I never suggested where the weapons should be or what kind; I'm not a scientist. I said, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff agreed with me, that it was time for us to turn our research ability to seeing if we could not find this kind of defensive weapon. And suddenly somebody says, ``Oh, it's got to be up there, and it's Star Wars,'' and so forth. I don't know what it would be, but if we can come up with one, I think the world will be better off. Mr. Newman. Mr. Mondale, your rebuttal. Mr. Mondale. Well, that's what a President's supposed to know -- where those weapons are going to be. If they're space weapons, I assume they'll be in space. [Laughter] If they're antisatellite weapons, I assume they're going to be aimed against satellites. Now, this is the most dangerous technology that we possess. The Soviets try to spy on us, steal this stuff. And to give them technology of this kind, I disagree with. You haven't just accepted research, Mr. President. You've set up a Strategic Defense Initiative, an agency, you're beginning to test, you're talking about deploying, you're asking for a budget of some $30 billion for this purpose. This is an arms escalation. And we will be better off, far better off, if we stop right now, because we have more to lose in space then they do. If someday, somebody comes along with an answer, that's something else. But that there would be an answer in our lifetime is unimaginable. Why do we start things that we know the Soviets will match and make us all less secure? That's what a President's for. Mr. Newman. Mr. Kondracke, your question to Mr. Mondale. Strategic Weapons Mr. Kondracke. Mr. Mondale, you say that with respect to the Soviet Union you want to negotiate a mutual nuclear freeze, yet you would unilaterally give up the MX missile and the B - 1 bomber before the talks have even begun. And you have announced, in advance, that reaching an agreement with the Soviets is the most important thing in the world to you. Now, aren't you giving away half the store before you even sit down to talk? Mr. Mondale. No. As a matter of fact, we have a vast range of technology and weaponry right now that provides all the bargaining chips that we need. And I support the air launch cruise missile, the ground launch cruise missile, the Pershing missile, the Trident submarine, the D - 5 submarine, Stealth technology, the Midgetman -- we have a whole range of technology. Why I disagree with the MX is that it's a sitting duck. It'll draw an attack. It puts a hair-trigger, and it is a dangerous, destabilizing weapon. And the B - 1 is similarly to be opposed, because for 15 years the Soviet Union has been preparing to meet the B - 1. The Secretary of Defense himself said it would be a suicide mission if it were built. Instead, I want to build the Midgetman, which is mobile and thus less vulnerable, contributing to stability, and a weapon that will give us security and contribute to an incentive for arms control. That's why I'm for Stealth technology, to build a Stealth bomber -- which I've supported for years -- that can penetrate the Soviet air defense system without any hope that they can perceive where it is because their radar system is frustrated. In other words, a President has to make choices. This makes us stronger. The final point is that we can use this money that we save on these weapons to spend on things that we really need. Our conventional strength in Europe is under strength. We need to strengthen that in order to assure our Western allies of our presence there, a strong defense, but also to diminish and reduce the likelihood of a commencement of a war and the use of nuclear weapons. It's in this way, by making wise choices, that we're stronger, we enhance the chances of arms control. Every President until this one has been able to do it, and this nation -- or the world is more dangerous as a result. Nuclear Freeze Mr. Kondracke. I want to follow up on Mr. Kalb's question. It seems to me on the question of verifiability, that you do have some problems with the extent of the freeze. It seems to me, for example, that testing would be very difficult to verify because the Soviets encode their telemetry. Research would be impossible to verify. Numbers of warheads would be impossible to verify by satellite, except for with onsite inspection, and production of any weapon would be impossible to verify. Now, in view of that, what is going to be frozen? Mr. Mondale. I will not agree to any arms control agreement, including a freeze, that's not verifiable. Let's take your warhead principle. The warhead principle -- there have been counting rules for years. Whenever a weapon is tested we count the number of warheads on it, and whenever that warhead is used we count that number of warheads, whether they have that number or less on it, or not. These are standard rules. I will not agree to any production restrictions -- or agreements, unless we have the ability to verify those agreements. I don't trust the Russians. I believe that every agreement we reach must be verifiable, and I will not agree to anything that we cannot tell every day. In other words, we've got to be tough. But in order to stop this arms madness, we've got to push ahead with tough negotiations that are verifiable so that we know the Soviets are agreeing and living up to their agreement. Support for U.S. Allies Mr. Kondracke. Mr. President, I want to ask you a question about negotiating with friends. You severely criticized President Carter for helping to undermine two friendly dictators who got into trouble with their own people -- the Shah of Iran and President Somoza of Nicaragua. Now there are other such leaders heading for trouble, including President Pinochet of Chile and President Marcos of the Philippines. What should you do, and what can you do to prevent the Philippines from becoming another Nicaragua? The President. Morton, I did criticize the President because of our undercutting of what was a stalwart ally -- the Shah of Iran. And I am not at all convinced that he was that far out of line with his people or that they wanted that to happen. The Shah had done our bidding and carried our load in the Middle East for quite some time, and I did think that it was a blot on our record that we let him down. Have things gotten better? The Shah, whatever he might have done, was building low-cost housing, had taken land away from the Mullahs and was distributing it to the peasants so they could be landowners -- things of that kind. But we turned it over to a maniacal fanatic who has slaughtered thousands and thousands of people, calling it executions. The matter of Somoza -- no, I never defended Somoza. And, as a matter of fact, the previous administration stood by and so did I -- not that I could have done anything in my position at that time -- but for this revolution to take place. And the promise of the revolution was democracy, human rights, free labor unions, free press. And then, just as Castro had done in Cuba, the Sandinistas ousted the other parties to the revolution. Many of them are now the contras. They exiled some, they jailed some, they murdered some. And they installed a Marxist-Leninist totalitarian government. And what I have to say about this is, many times -- and this has to do with the Philippines, also, I know there are things there in the Philippines that do not look good to us from the standpoint right now of democratic rights, but what is the alternative? It is a large Communist movement to take over the Philippines. They have been our friend since their inception as a nation. And I think that we've had enough of a record of letting -- under the guise of revolution -- someone that we thought was a little more right than we would be, letting that person go, and then winding up with totalitarianism, pure and simple, as the alternative. And I think that we're better off, for example with the Philippines, of trying to retain our friendship and help them right the wrongs we see, rather than throwing them to the wolves and then facing a Communist power in the Pacific. Mr. Kondracke. Mr. President, since the United States has two strategically important bases in the Philippines, would the overthrow of President Marcos constitute a threat to vital American interests and, if so, what would you do about it? The President. Well, as I say, we have to look at what an overthrow there would mean and what the government would be that would follow. And there is every evidence, every indication that that government would be hostile to the United States. And that would be a severe blow to our abilities there in the Pacific. Mr. Kondracke. And what would you do about it? Mr. Newman. Sorry. I'm sorry, you've asked the followup question. Mr. Mondale, your rebuttal? Mr. Mondale. Perhaps in no area do we disagree more than this administration's policies on human rights. I went to the Philippines as Vice President, pressed for human rights, called for the release of Aquino, and made progress that had been stalled on both the Subic and the Clark airfield bases. What explains this administration cozying up to the Argentine dictators after they took over? Fortunately, a democracy took over, but this nation was embarrassed by this current administration's adoption of their policies. What happens in South Africa, where, for example, the Nobel Prize winner, 2 days ago, said this administration is seen as working with the oppressive government of South Africa. That hurts this nation. We need to stand for human rights. We need to make it clear we're for human liberty. National security and human rights must go together. But this administration time and time again has lost its way in this field. Mr. Newman. President Reagan, your rebuttal. The President. Well, the invasion of Afghanistan didn't take place on our watch. I have described what has happened in Iran, and we weren't here then either. I don't think that our record of human rights can be assailed. I think that we have observed, ourselves, and have done our best to see that human rights are extended throughout the world. Mr. Mondale has recently announced a plan of his to get the democracies together and to work with the whole world to turn to democracy. And I was glad to hear him say that, because that's what we've been doing ever since I announced to the British Parliament that I thought we should do this. Human rights are not advanced when, at the same time, you then stand back and say, ``Whoops, we didn't know the gun was loaded,'' and you have another totalitarian power on your hands. Mr. Newman. In this segment, because of the pressure of time, there will be no rebuttals, and there will be no followup questions. Mr. Trewhitt, your question to President Reagan. Mr. Trewhitt. One question to each candidate? Mr. Newman. One question to each candidate. Nuclear Weapons Mr. Trewhitt. Mr. President, could I take you back to something you said earlier, and if I'm misquoting you, please correct me. But I understood you to say that if the development of space military technology was successful, you might give the Soviets a demonstration and say, ``Here it is,'' which sounds to me as if you might be trying to gain the sort of advantage that would enable you to dictate terms, and which I will then suggest to you might mean scrapping a generation of nuclear strategy called mutual deterrence in which we, in effect, hold each other hostage. Is that your intention? The President. Well, I can't say that I have round tabled that and sat down with the Chiefs of Staff, but I have said that it seems to me that this could be a logical step in what is my ultimate goal, my ultimate dream, and that is the elimination of nuclear weapons in the world. And it seems to me that this could be an adjunct, or certainly a great assisting agent in getting that done. I am not going to roll over, as Mr. Mondale suggests, and give them something that could turn around and be used against us. But I think it's a very interesting proposal, to see if we can find, first of all, something that renders those weapons obsolete, incapable of their mission. But Mr. Mondale seems to approve MAD -- MAD is mutual assured destruction -- meaning, if you use nuclear weapons on us, the only thing we have to keep you from doing it is that we'll kill as many people of yours as you'll kill of ours. I think that to do everything we can to find, as I say, something that would destroy weapons and not humans is a great step forward in human rights. Mr. Trewhitt. Mr. Mondale, could I ask you to address the question of nuclear strategy then? The formal doctrine is very arcane, but I'm going to ask you to deal with it anyway. Do you believe in MAD, mutual assured destruction, mutual deterrence as it has been practiced for the last generation? Mr. Mondale. I believe in a sensible arms control approach that brings down these weapons to manageable levels. I would like to see their elimination. And in the meantime, we have to be strong enough to make certain that the Soviet Union never tempts us. Now, here we have to decide between generalized objectives and reality. The President says he wants to eliminate or reduce the number of nuclear weapons. But, in fact, these last 4 years have seen more weapons built, a wider and more vigorous arms race than in human history. He says he wants a system that will make nuclear wars safe, so nobody's going to get hurt. Well, maybe someday, somebody can dream of that. But why start an arms race now? Why destabilize our relationship? Why threaten our space satellites upon which we depend? Why pursue a strategy that would delegate to computers the question of starting a war? A President, to defend this country and to get arms control, must master what's going on. I accept his objective and his dream; we all do. But the hard reality is that we must know what we're doing and pursue those objectives that are possible in our time. He's opposed every effort of every President to do so, and in the 4 years of his administration he's failed to do so. And if you want a tough President who uses that strength to get arms control and draws the line in the heavens, vote for Walter Mondale. [Applause] Mr. Newman. Please, I must again ask the audience not to applaud, not to cheer, not to demonstrate its feelings in any way. We've arrived at the point in the debate now where we call for closing statements. You have the full 4 minutes, each of you. Mr. Mondale, will you go first? Closing Statements Mr. Mondale. I want to thank the League of Women Voters, the good citizens of Kansas City, and President Reagan for agreeing to debate this evening. This evening we talked about national strength. I believe we need to be strong, and I will keep us strong. But I think strength must also require wisdom and smarts in its exercise. That's key to the strength of our nation. A President must know the essential facts essential to command. But a President must also have a vision of where this nation should go. Tonight, as Americans, you have a choice. And you're entitled to know where we would take this country if you decide to elect us. As President, I would press for long-term, vigorous economic growth. That's why I want to get these debts down and these interest rates down, restore America's exports, help rural America, which is suffering so much, and bring the jobs back here for our children. I want this next generation to be the best educated in American history, to invest in the human mind and science again, so we're out front. I want this nation to protect its air, its water, its land, and its public health. America is not temporary; we're forever. And as Americans, our generation should protect this wonderful land for our children. I want a nation of fairness, where no one is denied the fullness of life or discriminated against, and we deal compassionately with those in our midst who are in trouble. And, above all, I want a nation that's strong. Since we debated 2 weeks ago, the United States and the Soviet Union have built a hundred more warheads, enough to kill millions of Americans and millions of Soviet citizens. This doesn't strengthen us. This weakens the chances of civilization to survive. I remember the night before I became Vice President. I was given the briefing and told that any time, night or day, I might be called upon to make the most fateful decision on Earth -- whether to fire these atomic weapons that could destroy the human species. That lesson tells us two things: One, pick a President that you know will know if that tragic moment ever comes what he must know, because there'll be no time for staffing committees or advisers. A President must know right then. But above all, pick a President who will fight to avoid the day when that God-awful decision ever needs to be made. And that's why this election is so terribly important. America and Americans decide not just what's happening in this country. We are the strongest and most powerful free society on Earth. When you make that judgment, you are deciding not only the future of our nation; in a very profound respect, you're deciding the future of the world. We need to move on. It's time for America to find new leadership. Please, join me in this cause to move confidently and with a sense of assurance and command to build the blessed future of our nation. Mr. Newman. President Reagan, your summation, please. The President. Yes. My thanks to the League of Women Voters, to the panelists, the moderator, and to the people of Kansas City for their warm hospitality and greeting. I think the American people tonight have much to be grateful for -- an economic recovery that has become expansion, freedom and, most of all, we are at peace. I am grateful for the chance to reaffirm my commitment to reduce nuclear weapons and, one day, to eliminate them entirely. The question before you comes down to this: Do you want to see America return to the policies of weakness of the last 4 years? Or do we want to go forward, marching together, as a nation of strength and that's going to continue to be strong? We shouldn't be dwelling on the past, or even the present. The meaning of this election is the future and whether we're going to grow and provide the jobs and the opportunities for all Americans and that they need. Several years ago, I was given an assignment to write a letter. It was to go into a time capsule and would be read in 100 years when that time capsule was opened. I remember driving down the California coast one day. My mind was full of what I was going to put in that letter about the problems and the issues that confront us in our time and what we did about them. But I couldn't completely neglect the beauty around me -- the Pacific out there on one side of the highway, shining in the sunlight, the mountains of the coast range rising on the other side. And I found myself wondering what it would be like for someone -- wondering if someone 100 years from now would be driving down that highway, and if they would see the same thing. And with that thought, I realized what a job I had with that letter. I would be writing a letter to people who know everything there is to know about us. We know nothing about them. They would know all about our problems. They would know how we solved them, and whether our solution was beneficial to them down through the years or whether it hurt them. They would also know that we lived in a world with terrible weapons, nuclear weapons of terrible destructive power, aimed at each other, capable of crossing the ocean in a matter of minutes and destroying civilization as we knew it. And then I thought to myself, what are they going to say about us, what are those people 100 years from now going to think? They will know whether we used those weapons or not. Well, what they will say about us 100 years from now depends on how we keep our rendezvous with destiny. Will we do the things that we know must be done and know that one day, down in history 100 years or perhaps before, someone will say, ``Thank God for those people back in the 1980's for preserving our freedom, for saving for us this blessed planet called Earth, with all its grandeur and its beauty.'' You know, I am grateful to all of you for giving me the opportunity to serve you for these 4 years, and I seek reelection because I want more than anything else to try to complete the new beginning that we charted 4 years ago. George Bush, who I think is one of the finest Vice Presidents this country has ever had -- George Bush and I have crisscrossed the country, and we've had, in these last few months, a wonderful experience. We have met young America. We have met your sons and daughters. Mr. Newman. Mr. President, I'm obliged to cut you off there under the rules of the debate. I'm sorry. The President. All right. I was just going to -- -- Mr. Newman. Perhaps I should point out that the rules under which I did that were agreed upon by the two campaigns -- -- The President. I know. Mr. Newman. -- -- with the league, as you know, sir. The President. I know, yes. Mr. Newman. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. Mondale. Our thanks also to the panel, finally, to our audience. We thank you, and the League of Women Voters asks me to say to you, don't forget to vote on November 6th. Note: The debate began at 7:01 p.m. in the Music Hall at the Kansas City Convention Center. Following the debate, the President attended a reception hosted by the League of Women Voters in the Little Theater. He then returned to the Westin Crown Center Hotel, where he remained overnight. *Mr. Mondale was referring to an earlier debate between George Bush and Geraldine Ferarro, the Vice-Presidential candidates. 40 Presidential Drive Simi Valley, CA 93065 800-410-8354 [email protected] Museum Hours Mon-Sun 10am-5pm Research Room Hours Mon-Fri 9am-5pm Appointments Are Required Holiday and Special Event Hours Closed Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day, and New Year's Day

right

october ms riding good evening municipal auditorium kansas city dorothy riding president league woman voter sponsor final presidential debate campaign republican ronald reagan democrat walter mondale panelist tonight debate defense foreign policy issue georgie anne geyer syndicate columnist universal press syndicate marvin kalb chief diplomatic correspondent nbc news morton kondracke executive editor new republic magazine henry trewhitt diplomatic correspondent baltimore sun edwin newman nbc news syndicate columnist king feature moderator ed mr newman dorothy riding thank brief word procedure tonight question mr mondale hell minute reply panel member question ask followup answer limit minute question president reagan followup man minute rebuttal second question president reagan alternating continue end summation president reagan go ask questioner brief let begin ms geyer question mr mondale central america ms geyer mr mondale relate question crucial issue central america democratic party say policy horrendous civil war central america economic development negotiation quarantine marxist nicaragua believe answer way solve bitter conflict believe need resort force solution central america gnaw problem simply weak late mr mondale believe question oversimplify difficulty central america objective ought strengthen democracy stop communist extremist influence stabilize community area need threepronge attack military assistance friend pressure secondly strong sophisticated economic aid program human right program offer well life sharp alternative alternative offer totalitarian oppose finally strong diplomatic effort pursue possibility peace area s big disagreement president pursue diplomatic opportunity el salvador country lose time able achieve peace bring question presidential leadership think lesson central america recent embarrassment nicaragua give instruction hire assassin hire criminal rest strengthen opponent president assure tough wise smart exercise power see thing lebanon spend good deal americas asset leadership government pursue wise policy humiliate opponent strong line national strength president command lead president not know submarine missile recallable say percent strategic force conventional discover year administration arm control effort fail not know soviet missile land thing president know command president call commander chief s call s suppose charge fact run government strengthen nation ms geyer mr mondale broaden question little bit world war ii conflict americans involve nonconventional irregular term fight conventional traditional military term central american war pattern china lebanon iran cuba early day possibility go realize change warfare time react term mr mondale absolutely respond question way complex understand region understand politic area provide strong alternative strength time s object covert action nicaragua s classic example strategy s embarrassed strengthen opposition undermine moral authority people country region strength require knowledge command ve see nicaraguan example policy actually hurt strengthen opposition undermine moral authority country region ms geyer mr president month policy central america begin work moment confront extraordinary story cia guerrilla manual antisandinista contras back advocate assassination sandinista hiring criminal assassinate guerrilla support order create martyr effect statesupporte terrorism president m glad ask question know people mind order investigation know cia go forward gentleman nicaragua contract cia advise supposedly military tactic contras draw manual turn agency head cia nicaragua print number page excise agency head man charge send cia page excise print way original copy get submit printing process cia detail soon investigation find blame lie excise change certainly go proper action proper time interested hear central america process think moment instead debate go find mr mondale complete agreement plan outline ve follow time include diplomatic process central america work closely contadora group tell manual habit assign guilt proper evidence produce proof guilt guilt establish guilty treat situation remove ms geyer mr president imply cia nicaragua direct contra d like ask have cia investigate manual sensitive area sort like send fox chicken coop second time president m afraid misspoke say cia head nicaragua s direct activity know cia man station country world certainly central america man area deliver recognize manual direct contravention executive order december regard political assassination mr newman mr mondale rebuttal mr mondale president charge take oath office raise right hand take oath office care faithfully execute law land president not know president know thing essential leadership enforcement law manual thousand produce distribute order political assassination hiring criminal form terrorism excise deal political terrorism continue happen occur administration president united states situation like not know president know thing not know bad know knowing stop mining harbor nicaragua violate international law hurt country president suppose command mr newman mr president rebuttal president yes thing respond m go pick say early ve country repeat admit press repeat believe nuclear missile fire call conceive thing say thing discussion strategic arm negotiation say submarine carry missile airplane carry missile conventionaltype weapon destabilizing landbase missile weapon carrier send change launch missile hope long say particular thing absolutely false think sane person believe nuclear missile think ridiculous concept thank give chance straighten record m sure appreciate laughter mr newman mr kalb question president reagan soviet union mr kalb mr president describe soviet union powerful evil empire intent world domination year say quote want mickey mouse system s okay mr president want contain present border try reestablish detente go detente want roll empire president say number occasion exactly believe soviet union retract say believe thing evil concept morality recognize great superpower world live tell mr gromyko not like system not like go change system sure well try change destroy world save suggest certainly common interest avoid conflict attempt save world remove nuclear weapon think establish little well understanding think deal soviet union realistic know mr mondale past statement people like kind good nice respond accordingly result unilateral disarmament cancel b previous administration soviet union engage big military buildup history man time try policy unilateral disarmament weakness put defense ve plain seek superiority simply go provide deterrent costly nurse idea aggression claim plain s change attitude think come office time realistic talk soviet union attention region vital interest mr kalb mr president coin relate question sir world war ii vital interest united states define treaty commitment presidential proclamation aside obvious nato example country region world regard vital national interest country mean send american troop fight danger president ah ve add hypothetical end mr kalb send troop fight go decision tactic obviously number area world importance middle east interest western world industrialized nation great supply energy depend neighbor america vital work right try help southern africa regard independence namibia removal cuban surrogate thousand angola great interest believe great interest pacific basin think future world lie go pick advance hypothetically oh yes send troop not want send troop place mr newman m sorry mr president sir time president right soviet union mr kalb mr mondale describe soviet leader m quote cynical ruthless dangerous suggest total lack trust case make think annual summit meeting propose result agreement satisfy interest country mr mondale type agreement reach soviet union type specifically define know exactly subject verification mean know day live followup find suggestion violate strong possible term illusion soviet union leadership nature state tough ruthless adversary prepare meet challenge president despite difference past president meet common ground survival s president oppose practically arm control agreement president political party bomb go complete term progress arm control dangerous arm race underway instead warhead point today swear strengthen realistic nature leadership grind away talk find way reduce difference particularly arm race concerned dangerous exercise soviet power unilateral disarmament administration nation strong understand exactly soviet national strength president know essential command leadership strength s president failure master opinion essential element arm control cost dearly s year administration say discover soviet missile land s proposal not work invite american people tomorrow issue statement quote president reagan say exactly say say say missile dangerous ballistic missile fire recall decide d miscalculation mr newman m sorry sir mr mondale president know thing eastern europe mr kalb related question mr mondale eastern europe accept conventional diplomatic wisdom eastern europe soviet sphere influence mondale administration realistically help people eastern europe achieve human right guarantee result helsinki accord mr mondale think essential strategy united states ought accept soviet control eastern europe ought deal country separately ought pursue strategy economic rest help pull away dependence soviet union soviet union act irresponsibly country especially recently poland believe ought insist western credit extend soviet union bear market rate soviet pay irresponsibility important objective certain continue look forward progress great independence nation work separately mr newman mr president rebuttal president yes m go continue try respond repetition falsehood state regard mr mondale strong say know commercial s appear deck nimitz watch f s image strength way nimitz plan deep water not nimitz stand laughter f fighter m tank b bomber want cut salary military want bring home half american force europe record weakness regard national defense second audience member hear hear president virtually year senate oppose president carter end term president carter want increase defense budget mr newman mr mondale rebuttal mr mondale mr president accept commitment peace want accept commitment strong national defense applause propose budget propose budget increase nation strength real term double soviet union ill tell disagree true year ago vote delay production f ill tell plane not fly way suppose waste money definition national strength throw money defense department definition national strength certain dollar spend buy dollar worth defense s big difference president manage budget strong ll command budget certain strength need pay hammer buy strength mr newman ask audience applaud time like devote debate mr kondracke question mr mondale use military force mr kondracke mr mondale address early year say country resort military force m quote american interest sharply define publicly support congressionally sanctioned militarily feasible internationally defensible open independent scrutiny alert regional history not set gauntlet test adversary easily suspect president use force protect american interest mr mondale matter fact believe standard essential exercise power country lebanon central america lebanon president exercise american power right management marine kill leave humiliation soviet union strong terrorist embolden think power exercise american public plan work end way similarly central america nicaragua covert war congress include republicans try stop finally end public definition american power hurt associate political assassin rest decline time modern history jurisdiction world court ll find guilty illegal action enemy strengthen need strong need prepared use strength understand democracy government people severe extreme reason serve national interest end strong country way persevere nicaragua mr kondracke ve quote say quarantine nicaragua d like know mean stop soviet ship president kennedy not dangerous president reagan covert war mr mondale m refer mutual selfdefense provision exist interamerican treaty socalled rio pact permit nation friend region combine step diplomatic prevent nicaragua act irresponsibly assert power part outside border step stop nicaraguan know policy government leadership stay boundary nation interfere nation work nation region unlike policy administration unlike president say support negotiation region strong moral authority go effort lebanon mr kondracke president reagan introduce force lebanon neutral peacekeeper combatant lebanese government eventually force withdraw fire syria soviet ally dominant country not lebanon represent major failure administration raise question capacity foreign policy strategist commander chief president morton not agree thing ally italians french united kingdom go lebanon go request leave lebanese government stabilize force try establish government pardon time go go request war go right beirut israel plo terrorist israel blame terrorist violate northern border consistently israel chase way go multinational force help remove remove terrorist lebanon depart government lebanon ask stabilize force establish government seek foreign force way lebanon care border succeed well year position happen airport oh occasional sniping artillery fire engage conflict line mission send troop mission kind tell somebody shoot darn shoot initiate kind action defend succeed point lebanese government organize remember meeting geneva begin meet hostile factional force try kind peace plan succeed terrorist act begin force include syria mind not want succeed not want kind peace dominant lebanon dominant territory terrorist act begin lead great tragedy kill suicide bombing building multilateral force withdraw reason withdraw long able carry mission send go interest peace israel syria get sixth war apology go peace mission mr kondracke mr president year ago criticize president carter ignore ample warning diplomat iran take hostage not exactly thing lebanon time americans hostage dead vow swift retaliation terrorist not lack response suggest bluff president morton think s great difference government iran threaten diplomatic personnel government hand terrorist situation terrorist faction recent period terrorist act country commit recent brighton deal terrorist yes want retaliate finger people responsible endanger life innocent civilian community city beirut terrorist operate sign legislation add ability deal ally terrorist problem go nation band pretty resolve problem skyjacking ago red light go go forever mr newman mr mondale rebuttal mr mondale groucho marx say believe eye lebanon american people see joint chief urge president troop barracks indefensible go day kill say secretary state admit morning report follow explosion barrack disclose take step take second time embassy blow week ago step take take warn day explosive way not take terrorist win time president tell terrorist go retaliate not call bluff line united states leave humiliation enemy strong mr newman mr president rebuttal president yes mr mondale know president united states order marine barrack command decision commander spot base think good man thing ve say terrorist m tempt ask unidentified people bomb go blow bit suicidal individual think go paradise perpetrate act lose life go busy try find center operation stem retaliation take go simply kill people oh look get want know retaliate retaliate responsible terrorist act terrorist act united states capitol washington bomb twice mr newman mr trewhitt question president reagan president age mr trewhitt mr president want raise issue think lurk week cast specifically national security term old president history staff tired recent encounter mr mondale recall president kennedy day end little sleep cuban missile crisis doubt mind able function circumstance president mr trewhitt want know age issue campaign go exploit political purpose opponent youth inexperience laughter applause time add mr trewhitt add seneca cicero not know say elder correct mistake young state strategic missile mr trewhitt mr president d like head fence try catch go ill question mr mondale disagree recall submarinelaunche missile s similar issue relate say unaware soviet retaliatory power base landbase missile correct secondly correct inform meantime necessary president intimately involved strategic detail president yes disarmament talk controversy land missile come think strategic nuclear weapon destabilizing landbase thumb button somebody blow minute later think simple negotiate plain second phase submarinelaunched airborne missile soviet union surprise plain bring place think great reliance landbase missile want agree say right s want surprise outnumber submarine percent bomber capable carry nuclear missile believe place reliance landbase give say right let discuss walk away table not president age mr trewhitt mr mondale m go hang president age stamina issue political campaign mr mondale issue s issue president application authority understand president know lead nation secure defense decision judgment necessary minute ago president quote cicero believe want quote somebody little close home harry truman say buck stop hear president answer problem barracks lebanon marine kill happen joint chief staff go president say not troop day troop kill go president secretary defense say mr president troop not defend not know happen embassy explode fourth time happen identical attack region despite warning public warning terrorist s charge s handle matter s main point arm control complete year administration bomb go progress arm race underway instead president lead government will not different people different view fight year administration avoid arm control resist tabling arm control proposal hope agree rebuke negotiator come close agreement principle mediumrange weapon arm race underway recent book come nation respected author field strobe talbott call deadly gambit conclude president fail master essential detail need command lead term security term arm control s president commander chief good intention grant take tough smart president leadership mr trewhitt question leadership keep arise different form discussion president mr mondale call whine vacillate charitable phrase weak believe question leadership point repudiate semidiplomatic activity reverend jackson particularly central america approve diplomatic activity prepared repudiate mr mondale read statement day not admire fidel castro ve say che guevara contemptible figure civilization history know cuban state police state life ve work way demonstrate jesse jackson independent person not control let talk people control debate vice president united states say say marine die shamefully die shame lebanon demand apology vice president bush instead honor young man grieve family think wonderful americans honor president take responsibility vice president will not apologize like mr newman mr president rebuttal president yes know ll come surprise mr mondale charge matter fact not avoid arm control talk soviet union early administration propose think propose previous administration propose total elimination intermediaterange missile soviet well well advantage ally europe protest suggest small number go socalled negotiation say walk socalled walk wood representative soviet union not turn soviet union disavow mr newman mr mondale rebuttal mr mondale distinguished author arm control country want cite tonight strobe talbott classic book deadly gambit john neuhaus s distinguished arm control specialist country say administration turn walk wood agreement perfect agreement standpoint united states europe security mr nitze good negotiator return rebuke boss fire kind leadership ve administration deadly issue time runaway arm race ve get year ussoviet relation meeting week administration tough negotiator previous president progress mr newman ms geyer question mr mondale illegal immigration ms geyer mr mondale analyst say actually number foreign policy problem today remain totally unrecognized massive illegal immigration economically collapse country say real territorial threat american nationstate say hemorrhage border today back immigration reform balanced highly craft simpsonmazzoli bill instead today mr mondale problem country deal object simpsonmazzoli bill think unfair prove require employer determine citizenship employee hire m convinced result people hispanic people different language speak accent find difficult employ think s wrong ve citizenship test country not think citizenship card today counterproductive support aspect simpsonmazzoli bill strengthen enforcement border strengthen way deal undocumented worker difficult area deal problem settle people live year established status strongly recommend administration strengthen enforcement border strengthen official government deal undocumented worker way s responsible constitution united states need answer problem american answer consistent justice process room practically tonight immigrant come love nation serve serve bountiful dream dream justice need measure support measure bring objective avoid aspect think second maintain improve relation friend south solve problem s failure administration deal effective goodfaith way mexico costa rica nation try find peaceful settlement dispute central america undermine capacity effectively deal diplomatically area ms geyer sir people wellbalance father theodore hesburgh notre dame head select commission immigration point repeatedly immigration reform employer sanction unbalanced bill simply way enforce put aside moment critic say repeatedly go bill immigration reform hispanic group hispanic leadership group actually represent hispanicamerican want poll overwhelmingly want kind immigration reform justify position respond criticism example flipflopping give special interest group expense american nation mr mondale think right poll majority hispanic want bill m political reason m life ve fight system justice country system american chance achieve fullness life discrimination bill impose employer responsibility determine somebody apply job american inevitably go reluctant hire hispanic people different accent deal politic poll american people want reform area tough enforcement border aspect simpsonmazzoli bill life ve fight fair nation despite politic stand stand think m right fight go come well bill effective bill undermine liberty people ms geyer mr president say border control fall allow simpsonmazzoli bill minimally protect border right citizenship relatively unimportant issue reimbursement state legalized alien give ask priority expect forget national security element sincere effort control effect nationstate united states president georgie anne believe support simpsonmazzoli bill strongly bill come senate thing add house feel good bill matter fact bad bill conference stay conference way senator simpson want bill manner come conference committee number thing weaken bill not detail true border control true situation border number administration support bill believe idea amnesty root live enter illegally regard employer sanction ensure identify illegal alien protest employer employer not concerned employer year encourage illegal entry country hire individual hire starvation wage benefit think normal natural worker country individual not complain illegal status not think people allow continue operate free provision regard sanction forth m go administration join congress immigration bill control border regard friendship border country yes administration know establish relationship latin friend long economy leave people dire poverty unemployment go seek employment border work country ms geyer mr president expert situation today terribly different quantitatively qualitatively different past gigantic population growth instance mexicos population million today million turn century people come united states citizen illegal worker repeatedly say recently believe armageddon destruction world imminent time feel armageddon situation time anarchy population explosion world president matter fact population explosion look actual figure vastly exaggerated exaggerated matter fact pretty scientific solid figure space world people like go malthusian theory say starve limited population problem population growth regard immigration safety valve want illegal entry mexico population increase not economy absorb provide job try work protect border kind fairness recognition problem mr newman mr mondale rebuttal mr mondale big problem today country south desperately poor people lose life not come north come north despite risk go find permanent fundamental answer go american economic trade policy permit nation chance foot prosperity job people s enormous national debt engineer administration harm country fuel immigration high interest rate real rate double administration effect mexico cost repay debt enormous result massive unemployment hardship heartache drive friend south region need end deficit mr newman mr president rebuttal president rebuttal ve hear national debt blame lot thing illegal immigration border laughter regard high interest rate recognition fact leave office mr mondale prime rate predict ll come little shortly try undo thing administration applause mr newman applause mr kalb question president reagan armageddon mr kalb mr president d like pick armageddon theme ve quote say believe deep head kind biblical armageddon pentagon secretary defense plan united states fight prevail nuclear war feel head kind nuclear armageddon feel country world survive kind calamity president mr kalb think hail m supposedly president discuss principle recall philosophical discussion people interested thing prophecy year biblical prophecy portend coming armageddon forth fact number theologian decade believe true prophecy come portend know armageddon prophecy mean armageddon thousand year away day tomorrow seriously warn say plan accord armageddon regard have try survive event nuclear war course let point parliament world europe asia statement ill repeat nuclear war win fight maintain deterrent try achieve deterrent capacity believe start war escape limited damage deterrent s lead propose call star war concept propose research not defensive weapon defend incoming missile defense find not far humanitarian defend nuclear war destroy missile instead slaughter million people strategic defense initiative mr kalb mr president proposal socalled star war proposal say m mistaken share supersophisticated technology soviet union distrust year sir express soviet union expect seriously offer share good americas technology weapon area principal adversary president hope research come weapon render missile obsolete weapon invent history man lead defensive counter weapon suppose come people say ah war imminent think launch strike defend enemy offer ask soviet union look here sit rid nuclear weapon free mankind threat think great use defensive weapon mr kalb mr mondale ve sharply critical president strategic defense initiative wrong major effort country try use good technology knock incoming nuclear warhead possible mr mondale let sharply disagree president share advanced dangerous important technology america soviet union year understandably system restraint high technology soviet research development star war scheme inevitably involve advanced computer advanced engineering thought share soviet union opinion total nonstarter let soviet union hand s wrong star war s wrong theory develop principle side fire missile hurt suppose good idea fact far away research come close director engineering research defense department say solve problem difficult atomic bomb manhattan project cost like trillion dollar test deploy weapon second thing assume soviet not respond kind not will not s tragic story arm race stake space satellite stop right testing deployment space weapon president proposal clear research research not argument maybe someday somebody think commit nation buildup antisatellite space weapon time crude state bring arm race s dangerous final point dangerous aspect proposal time delegate computer decision start war s dead wrong not time president decide decide remote computer oil fire jet exhaust computer decide missile not stop madness draw line heaven free war applause nuclear freeze mr kalb mr mondale general area sir arms control president carter national security adviser zbigniew brzezinski say nuclear freeze hoax basis arm proposal understand mutual verifiable freeze exist weapon system view specific weapon system subject mutual verifiable freeze mr mondale system verifiable place table negotiation agreement agree negotiation agreement involve conduct soviet union not verify day agree agreement united states security interest fully recognize support s mutual verifiable freeze support freeze everrise arm race madness make nation secure difficult defend nation put hairtrigger nuclear war administration go star war system go add dangerous new escalation tough soviet union think american people mr newman time mr mondale mr mondale people soviet union want stop mr newman president reagan rebuttal president yes rebuttal invention create roll soviet union mr mondale idea defensive weapon sit willing join here demonstration here willing join get rid nuclear weapon world know cheat get try cheat starwarre suggest weapon kind m scientist say joint chief staff agree time turn research ability see find kind defensive weapon suddenly somebody say oh get star war forth not know come think world well mr newman mr mondale rebuttal mr mondale s president suppose know weapon go space weapon assume ll space laughter antisatellite weapon assume go aim satellite dangerous technology possess soviet try spy steal stuff technology kind disagree not accept research mr president ve set strategic defense initiative agency begin test talk deploy ask budget billion purpose arm escalation well far well stop right lose space someday somebody come answer s answer lifetime unimaginable start thing know soviet match secure s president mr newman mr kondracke question mr mondale strategic weapon mr kondracke mr mondale respect soviet union want negotiate mutual nuclear freeze unilaterally mx missile b bomber talk begin announce advance reach agreement soviet important thing world not give away half store sit talk mr mondale matter fact vast range technology weaponry right provide bargaining chip need support air launch cruise missile ground launch cruise missile pershing missile trident submarine d submarine stealth technology midgetman range technology disagree mx sit duck ll draw attack put hairtrigger dangerous destabilizing weapon b similarly oppose year soviet union prepare meet b secretary defense say suicide mission build instead want build midgetman mobile vulnerable contribute stability weapon security contribute incentive arm control s m stealth technology build stealth bomber ve support year penetrate soviet air defense system hope perceive radar system frustrate word president choice make strong final point use money save weapon spend thing need conventional strength europe strength need strengthen order assure western ally presence strong defense diminish reduce likelihood commencement war use nuclear weapon way make wise choice strong enhance chance arm control president able nation world dangerous result nuclear freeze mr kondracke want follow mr kalbs question question verifiability problem extent freeze example testing difficult verify soviet encode telemetry research impossible verify number warhead impossible verify satellite onsite inspection production weapon impossible verify view go freeze mr mondale agree arm control agreement include freeze s verifiable let warhead principle warhead principle count rule year weapon test count number warhead warhead count number warhead number standard rule agree production restriction agreement ability verify agreement not trust russians believe agreement reach verifiable agree tell day word ve get tough order stop arm madness ve get push ahead tough negotiation verifiable know soviet agree live agreement support ally mr kondracke mr president want ask question negotiate friend severely criticize president carter help undermine friendly dictator get trouble people shah iran president somoza nicaragua leader head trouble include president pinochet chile president marcos philippine prevent philippine nicaragua president morton criticize president undercutting stalwart ally shah iran convince far line people want happen shah bidding carry load middle east time think blot record let thing get well shah build lowcost housing take land away mullah distribute peasant landowner thing kind turn maniacal fanatic slaughter thousand thousand people call execution matter somoza defend somoza matter fact previous administration stand position time revolution place promise revolution democracy human right free labor union free press castro cuba sandinista oust party revolution contra exile jail murder instal marxistleninist totalitarian government time philippine know thing philippine look good standpoint right democratic right alternative large communist movement philippine friend inception nation think ve record let guise revolution think little right let person wind totalitarianism pure simple alternative think well example philippine try retain friendship help right wrong throw wolf face communist power pacific mr kondracke mr president united states strategically important basis philippine overthrow president marcos constitute threat vital american interest president look overthrow mean government follow evidence indication government hostile united states severe blow ability pacific mr kondracke mr newman sorry m sorry ve ask followup question mr mondale rebuttal mr mondale area disagree administration policy human right go philippine vice president press human right call release aquino progress stall subic clark airfield basis explain administration cozye argentine dictator take fortunately democracy take nation embarrass current administration adoption policy happen south africa example nobel prize winner day ago say administration see work oppressive government south africa hurt nation need stand human right need clear human liberty national security human right administration time time lose way field mr newman president reagan rebuttal president invasion afghanistan not place watch describe happen iran not not think record human right assail think observe good human right extend world mr mondale recently announce plan democracy work world turn democracy glad hear s ve announce british parliament think human right advanced time stand whoop not know gun load totalitarian power hand mr newman segment pressure time rebuttal followup question mr trewhitt question president reagan mr trewhitt question candidate mr newman question candidate nuclear weapon mr trewhitt mr president say early m misquote correct understand development space military technology successful soviet demonstration sound try gain sort advantage enable dictate term suggest mean scrap generation nuclear strategy call mutual deterrence effect hold hostage intention president not round table sit chief staff say logical step ultimate goal ultimate dream elimination nuclear weapon world adjunct certainly great assist agent get go roll mr mondale suggest turn think interesting proposal find render weapon obsolete incapable mission mr mondale approve mad mad mutual assure destruction mean use nuclear weapon thing kill people ll kill think find destroy weapon human great step forward human right mr trewhitt mr mondale ask address question nuclear strategy formal doctrine arcane m go ask deal believe mad mutual assure destruction mutual deterrence practice generation mr mondale believe sensible arm control approach bring weapon manageable level like elimination meantime strong certain soviet union tempt decide generalized objective reality president say want eliminate reduce number nuclear weapon fact year see weapon build wide vigorous arm race human history say want system nuclear war safe nobodys go hurt maybe someday somebody dream start arm race destabilize relationship threaten space satellite depend pursue strategy delegate computer question start war president defend country arm control master s go accept objective dream hard reality know pursue objective possible time s oppose effort president year administration s fail want tough president use strength arm control draw line heavens vote walter mondale applause mr newman ask audience applaud cheer demonstrate feeling way ve arrive point debate closing statement minute mr mondale closing statement mr mondale want thank league woman voter good citizen kansas city president reagan agree debate evening evening talk national strength believe need strong strong think strength require wisdom smart exercise s key strength nation president know essential fact essential command president vision nation tonight americans choice entitle know country decide elect president press longterm vigorous economic growth s want debt interest rate restore americas export help rural america suffer bring job child want generation well educate american history invest human mind science want nation protect air water land public health america temporary forever americans generation protect wonderful land child want nation fairness deny fullness life discriminate deal compassionately midst trouble want nation s strong debate week ago united states soviet union build warhead kill million americans million soviet citizen not strengthen weaken chance civilization survive remember night vice president give briefing tell time night day call fateful decision earth fire atomic weapon destroy human specie lesson tell thing pick president know know tragic moment come know ll time staff committee adviser president know right pick president fight avoid day godawful decision need s election terribly important america americans decide s happen country strong powerful free society earth judgment decide future nation profound respect decide future world need time america find new leadership join cause confidently sense assurance command build bless future nation mr newman president reagan summation president yes thank league woman voter panelist moderator people kansas city warm hospitality greeting think american people tonight grateful economic recovery expansion freedom peace grateful chance reaffirm commitment reduce nuclear weapon day eliminate entirely question come want america return policy weakness year want forward march nation strength s go continue strong not dwell past present meaning election future go grow provide job opportunity americans need year ago give assignment write letter time capsule read year time capsule open remember drive california coast day mind go letter problem issue confront time not completely neglect beauty pacific highway shine sunlight mountain coast range rise find wonder like wonder year drive highway thing thought realize job letter write letter people know know know know problem know solve solution beneficial year hurt know live world terrible weapon nuclear weapon terrible destructive power aim capable cross ocean matter minute destroy civilization know think go people year go think know weapon year depend rendezvous destiny thing know know day history year thank god people preserve freedom save bless planet call earth grandeur beauty know grateful give opportunity serve year seek reelection want try complete new beginning chart year ago george bush think fine vice president country george bush crisscross country ve month wonderful experience meet young america meet son daughter mr newman mr president m oblige cut rule debate m sorry president right go mr newman point rule agree campaign president know mr newman league know sir president know yes mr newman thank mr president thank mr mondale thank panel finally audience thank league woman voter ask not forget vote november note debate begin pm music hall kansas city convention center follow debate president attend reception host league woman voter little theater return westin crown center hotel remain overnight mr mondale refer early debate george bush geraldine ferarro vicepresidential candidate presidential drive simi valley reaganlibrarynaragov museum hour monsun research room hour monfri appointment require holiday special event hour close thanksgive day christmas day new year day

Speeches, etc. Copyright © Margaret Thatcher Foundation 2024. All Rights Reserved.

right

speech etc copyright margaret thatcher foundation right reserve

Speeches, etc. Copyright © Margaret Thatcher Foundation 2024. All Rights Reserved.

right

speech etc copyright margaret thatcher foundation right reserve

This bill prohibits the rescission of a military decoration after 10 years have passed since it was awarded unless the award was based on fraud or other misinformation or the individual awarded the decoration is prohibited from interment memorialization in the National Cemetery Administration of the Department of Veterans Affairs or Arlington National Cemetery.

right

bill prohibit rescission military decoration year pass award award base fraud misinformation individual award decoration prohibit interment memorialization national cemetery administration department veterans affair arlington national cemetery

Speeches, etc. Copyright © Margaret Thatcher Foundation 2024. All Rights Reserved.

right

speech etc copyright margaret thatcher foundation right reserve

Speeches, etc. 10.30 a.m. Question again proposed. Mr. Michael Alison I was in full flight when we were interrupted by the time last Thursday, and I shall now continue with our case for the Amendment. We were arguing the general case that the directions that the Minister may give under the Clause should be reinforced, in the terms of our Amendment, to require that the Regulations should be published, so that the public might have some knowledge about the directions given under the provisions of this Measure to the Commission. My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) made the point that the provisions in the Bill at present are very similar in the terminology used to the words used in the nationalisation Acts, for example of the coal industry and other nationalised industries where the Minister is empowered to give general directions. But she pointed out that in those cases it was necessary for the Minister in question to consult with the Boards of the nationalised industries. That necessity is not imposed in the Bill. We feel that the analogy between the operation of the Commission in its relations with the Minister and the procedure with regard to nationalised industries under earlier legislation is misleading, because the Commission, although it certainly operates on the national scale, is quite different from a nationalised industry. There is a difference about the commodity with which it deals in that, although it may be a common commodity in the sense that it is land, the real issues at stake are of particular proprietary ownerships and types of property on land, [column 54]involving many different relationships between different individuals. This makes it totally different from the commodities in which the nationalised industries deal. We are very anxious, for this reason, that the Minister, in his relations with the Commission, should have a much more direct responsibility to publish and make known to the public the directions which he may give to the Commission. I should draw the attention of the Committee to two Clauses in the Bill which are relevant to the general case we are making. The first is Clause 12, under which general provisions are set out. I draw the Committee's particular attention to subsection (2), which states that the Commission may not undertake building developments on land that it acquires We should like to be certain—I believe that our Amendment would lead to that end—that in any consent which the Commission may obtain from the Minister for the development of building land in its possession, there should be an obligation for the permission so granted to be made public in a regulation to which we have full access and which we have full knowledge. It is intolerable that there should be imposed on the community yet another national body with power to develop and to build houses. It is enough already to have local authorities, private developers, housing associations and so on. Are we now to have under the terms of this Bill yet another body, the Land Commission, with powers to build houses on land which it has acquired, perhaps compulsorily—although, agreed, it has to secure the Minister's consent to act as a housing developer? We want to be absolutely certain that the dialogue between the Minister and the Commission on whether or not housing development should take place on a particular piece of land or part of the land owned by the Commission, should come before the public for scrutiny and comment, and we believe that our Amendment will have this effect. Clause 23 also relates to our Amendment. There again, we find that the Commission may apply, under the Clause, for a general direction from the Minister to the Commission to use the special procedure of the compulsory purchase orders.[column 55]This direction can secure for the Commission the power to act in a situation where it is empowered to buy compulsorily without planning permission already being in existence. It can apply for planning permission simultaneously with the compulsory purchase order. This will have very direct results and very direct and unpleasant bearings on the rights of local citizens. In present circumstances, under normal local authority procedure, there has to be a public inquiry. The local citizens have certain rights with the local authorities, which we believe the local authorities believe in and are proud of. There is a real sense in which there has to be a public dialogue between authorities and those whose property rights are in some sense involved by the compulsory purchase procedure. The public inquiry—the dialogue between the parties in the public context—is valued both by the local authorities and by the public. If this should, in any sense, be overridden by the new power given to the Commission whereby it can get planning permission at the same time as its compulsory purchase order—the two running in harness in order to save time—it will open up a real possibility of demoralising the sense of local rights and the respect in which local authorities are held. It will present a new sort of giant ogre, interfering with and overriding existing rights. It would be intolerable for the Minister to be given powers under the Bill to make a direction of this sort without having to lay the matter before the public by means of Regulation. Our Amendment is moved in the interests of securing a wider public cognisance of what is going on under the auspices of the octopus body which is being set up under the Bill. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources (Mr. Arthur Skeffington) In opening our discussion on Thursday, the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), as the Committee would expect, put her case with her customary charm and with the expertise that one comes to associate with the practitioners of the Revenue Bar. She invited me to follow her down a number of very interesting by-ways. In the ordinary course of events, I should have been only [column 56]too happy to do so. It was a very tempting offer! But I do not think that I need follow her down all the labyrinthine excursions which she made on this Amendment, because a number of the points will be more appropriately dealt with when we discuss other Amendments and other Clauses. The effect of the Amendment would be that when my right hon. Friend gave a direction to the Commission it would have to be in the form of Regulations, and, as hon. Members will see from Clauses 85 and 86, the Regulations would have to be in the form of a Statutory Instrument. This would be subject to lengthy procedure in the House of Commons. Whatever view hon. Members may take of the Amendment, they will realise that this is a formidable constitutional process and would impose on my right hon. Friend a massive constraint. That may, indeed, be the whole purpose of the Amendment. But I draw the attention of the Committee to it for that reason and would suggest a number of reasons why it would make for extreme difficulties and create constitutional novelties which would have consequences far wider merely than the Bill. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that if one were trying to think of a way in which one could make the working relations between the Minister and the Commission as constrained and inflexible as possible, one would adopt this Amendment. It is for this and for many other reasons that I shall hope that the Committee will decide not to accept the Amendment. There is a number of reasons, as I have said, why we believe that the Amendment is not only unnecessary but in some ways absurd. Perhaps I can deal with one or two of the more absurd consequences first. I do not do this in any derisory sense; I mean they are absurd when one comes to translate them into practical applications. We have already decided, on a previous Amendment, that the sort of directions that my right hon. Friend could give would be directions of a general character about broad policy matters. The first point that arises is that many of the general directions would be impossible to translate into a regulationary form, not only because of their broad character, but, indeed, even in the narrow [column 57]concept of complying with the rules of the House. A regulation has to have a certain precision about it; otherwise it cannot be debated—cannot even come before the House. On both grounds—the narrow technical one and the broader one—it is not possible in a number of cases to translate broad policy decisions into a regulationary form. There is an even more important constitutional point. Even if it were possible to comply with the rules of the House in translating broad general policy directions into a regulation that would be acceptable, as the Amendment seeks to have done, the consequence would be that the House of Commons or the House of Lords, or Parliament itself, would, in effect, be determining very largely the policy of the Commission rather than the policy of the Minister. The duty of Parliament has always been generally considered to be that it must examine what Ministers do, it must criticise, if it thinks it right to do so, what Ministers do, but the job of Parliament itself must not be concerned with the direct administrative consequences of their policy. Otherwise Parliament would be very largely assuming the responsibilities of Ministers. This may well be the purpose of the Amendment, but if it is, I must say that it is to some extent novel, it is certainly a complete break with our previous Parliamentary practice, and it would have the consequences that I have described of transforming the general functions of Parliament as the examiner and criticiser of policy, and make it very largely the determinor—if not the initiator—of policy by means of its veto. I would have thought this an exceedingly undesirable consequence. The hon. Lady made a very great point in her speech about the virtues of consultation and the fact that in Clause 1 there is no mention of consultation. She said that there is a general fear that there is no requirement for the Minister to consult the Commission before he issues any directions. The hon. Lady assumed that we had looked at the precedents. Her right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) was rather less generous. I think he doubted that we had, but I can assure him and the hon. Lady that we looked at all the precedents long [column 58]before the Bill got to the Committee stage. I shall have something to say about how the precedents break on this point. The hon. Lady gave only two examples, from rather old Statutes, but we have examined a very large number. 10.45 a.m. Before I say something about precedents, perhaps I could make two general points about consultation. The first one is that it is not really necessary to have the word “consultation” in the Statute. I will not say that it would do any great harm, but it is not really necessary to do so. In the arrangements envisaged in this Bill and similar measures that we were considering at our last sitting, there is an administrative liaison continuously going on between the Minister and the administrative body all the time. The Commission is not some kind of foreign state which has to be visited by an ambassador. Because of this constant administrative liaison between the Minister and the Commission, my right hon. Friend—as any other Minister dealing with an institution of this kind would be—is in touch with it. He appoints the members, he can dismiss the members, the members report to him, and so there is bound to be consultation the whole time. We are advised, on the very highest authority, that a great many Statutes do not require what the Opposition suggest on the part of the Minister because it is unnecessary. I make a second point about consultation. Normally when giving a direction, a Minister does so more often in the interests of the Commissioner than to secure compliance with his policy. As I have already said, he appoints the members of the Commission, and they have to report to him. The fact that the general consultative arrangements are going on the whole time means that he usually has no difficulty in ensuring that his policy, or the policy of the Government, is adopted by the Commission. But there are cases where the Commission—or any other body in such a relationship—feels, if it is being asked to depart from a policy, that it wants to have its interest protected so that it can properly say “We have taken this action and have followed this policy because it is a requirement of the Minister and the Government” . It is often a protection for [column 59]the Commission that such directions should be given. Indeed, in the very large majority of cases this is the only circumstance in which a direction is given. It may well be that the Commission is being asked to follow a policy because it is desirable from the point of view of the Government that such a policy should be followed. It might be less profitable if it followed this policy. Therefore, the Commission will probably require a direction from the Minister so that it can report in its Annual Report why it has taken the action, and then the matter is clear to the public. It is a protection. For both these reasons the significance of “consultation” and the requirement of consultation in relation to the Bill have to be looked at. The hon. Lady mentioned only two precedents but implied that there were others, and I see that she has more volumes about precedents today. While she quoted, quite properly, two Acts which require consultations, the fact is that of the 21 major Statutes dealing with relationships between Ministers and similar bodies over directions about half require consultation—although, as I have explained, it is not legally necessary—and about half do not. Therefore, just to restore the balance, I would put it on record that all the Statutes do not require consultation. The National Health Service Act, 1946, does not require the Minister to consult the hospital boards before giving directions. Nor is it necessary with the Cotton Commission under the Cotton Act, 1947. Almost the nearest analogy with the Land Commission—I referred to it in connection with another Amendment last week—is the Central Land Board, established under the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, where there is no requirement for consultation. The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 has no consultation requirement. I ought to mention, as there are Scottish Members, the Crofters (Scotland) Act, 1955; no consultation is required with the Crofters' Commission. In the New Towns Acts 1959 and 1965, no consultation is required with the New Towns Commission. In relation to new town corporation there is a requirement, but it is really not within the spirit of the point which the hon. Lady was making. It says that the Minister should consult with the chairman and [column 60]vice-chairman on matters unless the urgency of the business prevents that taking place. It is not a sort of formal requirement in the sense that the hon. Lady was suggesting. So there are these very powerful precedents. The best of all—it is almost a model for our purposes apart from the Central Land Board—is the Housing Act, 1964, where we have the Housing Corporation under Section 1(2)—it is a very recent Act, passed by the previous Government—which states that, There is no requirement for consultation. Mrs. Thatcher That has the other limitation to which I referred. Mr. Skeffington Which limitation is that? Mrs. Thatcher The limitation that the directions should be limited to the exercise of the functions. Mr. Skeffington Oh, yes; all of them. The hon. Lady need not fear; we are coming to that point. She has completely misdirected herself on that point as I shall point out. I am dealing, first, with regular arguments in saying that precedents do break almost evenly. There are thousands of precedents which go in the direction in which this Bill has been drafted, and I hope the Committee will take that into account. We think that the very recent precedent of the Housing Act, 1964, is a very good one. I have no doubt that the reason why “consultation” was not put in was that which I have already indicated. Mr. Michael Noble The hon. Gentleman referred to the Crofters' Act and that is right, but the most recent, and, I think, the most comparable, legislation that we have had in Scotland dealing with exactly the same problems of land and compulsory purchases and so on, is the Highlands and Islands Development Act, 1965. It says in Section 2 that the Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Board, give the Board directions of a general character. That is a Measure dealing with very much the same sort of problems, and brought in only a few [column 61]months ago by the present Government. With the acceptance, I think, of all the Scottish Members, that provision was put in. Mr. Skeffington I certainly accept that. I was pointing out that precedents break—both in the more ancient Statutes and in the more up-to-date Statutes—broadly speaking fifty-fifty. We thought that the Housing Act, as far as England and Wales are concerned, was a very good precedent indeed. If one takes the precedents together with the legal reasons on consultation, one has a very strong case. The hon. Lady went on to refer—as her hon. Friend, the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) also went on to refer in a rather blood-curdling way—about the powers under Clause 23. I do not want to traverse the whole of this argument, but the Committee should remember, as I am sure the hon. Lady knows, that there is an Amendment later on the Notice Paper, which my right hon. Friend will move in due course, removing Clause 23. I will come to the reason for this when we get to the Clause, but the argument on that is a little less strong because the Clause will be disappearing from the Bill. The hon. Lady went on to refer to the point which she has just made. In column 46 of the Official Report of our last sitting she said: she was referring to the Transport Act, 1947, and the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946— The hon. Lady has fallen into error. The subsection reads: They only have to comply “in the performance of their functions” . If my right hon. Friend attempted to give them general directions outside their functions he would be ultra vires the Bill, with all the consequences that follow. All that this statute has done is to put the matter round the other way. Sometimes it has put it in the other order, but the legal consequences are actually the same. Mrs. Thatcher This point is only important in relation to Clause 23, which virtually made the functions limitless. If the Arthur SkeffingtonJoint Parliamentary Secretary is not going to put anything in place of Clause 23, I am very happy indeed. If he is only deleting it to put something more devastating or equivalent in its place, I think the argument still prevails. Mr. Skeffington It is a little difficult to deal with arguments when the hon. Lady says, “Well, this is not really significant except in relation to another Clause” , and then one finds that the other Clause is not to be retained. She then says that all arguments are significant. If that is the case, I am quite prepared to accept it, but I emphasise that as far as the significance of subsection (3) is concerned, the directions can only have validity in so far as they relate to the function of the Commission. So it is not true to say—I think this ought to go on the record—that the general directions concerned in this Measure are not limited in any such way. That was the statement of the hon. Lady. I think she realises now that this is not actually so. I hope that I am not taking too much time, but there are a number of constitutional points that arise, and I wanted to deal with the argument which was put so cogently by the hon. Lady. Indeed, it may save us time on subsequent Amendments because we shall see the significance of this Clause in relation to them. Also, it was a very wide-ranging speech that the hon. Lady made. She went on to make some points about the discretion that the Commission can exercise regarding the levy. Although she is not in any sense physically like the fat boy in Pickwick, she did, in other respects, have his characteristic, which made our flesh creep. I am sure that I should be out of order if I attempted to traverse the whole argument at this stage about the difference between a levy or charge on land in relation to the improvement of its value and a tax. It is an error, into which the right hon. Gentleman keeps on falling, to think that one can relate both the principles and the consequences of the tax on whisky with a charge on land. These are two entirely different animals; there are different principles and different consequences involved. [column 63] The hon. Lady said that in tax matters certainty is everything, that it has always been held to be a constitutional requirement, and she gave the impression, I thought, that there was never any discretion within tax matters. There are of course, discretions, in certain tax matters. Inspectors of Taxes have certain discretions, even though under the recent Act in regard to entertainment, they have been further restricted, but there must, of course, be considerable discretion. At this stage, all I think I need say about the hon. Lady's very interesting argument is that the discretions under the Bill are extremely limited. There are only three cases under the Bill where there might be discretion in relation to the levy. It is very unlikely that any Minister would ever issue any general directions about them, but I should like to put the three cases on record for the convenience and assistance of the Committee. Under Clause 59 the Commission can issue a direction if it thinks fit which would avoid levy in Case C where development started within two years of a transaction, in respect of which the Commission would have discretion. This is a limited discretion very much in the interests of the developer, and I hope that hon. Members opposite will not quarrel with the purpose. There is a second discretion in relation to collection of the levy. Once the levy has been assessed, the Commission may at its discretion allow postponement or payment by instalment. This is a discretion which has a very honourable precedent. The Central Land Board has precisely this type of discretion, as the hon. Lady will find in Section 71 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. Thirdly, there is the discretion for the Commission in Clause 61 of the Bill to exempt builders and developers owning land before the date of the White Paper where the Commission is satisfied that the principal purpose of the project is provision of housing accommodation. This follows an almost identical provision in the Act which established the Central Land Board in relation to dead ripe land. [column 64]11.0 a.m These are three extremely limited discretions, and I should have thought it very unlikely that any of them would have been the source of a general direction on policy by my right hon. Friend. My final point to the Committee is that, despite all the parading of precedents with which the hon. Lady regaled us last Thursday, the plain fact is that there is no single precedent anywhere for this Amendment, which would insert “prescribed” into this part of the Clause. This would be an entirely novel principle. The reason why there is no precedent for that is very obvious. If one were to require prescriptions in this way in relation to a direction, one could not have the Clause drafted this way at all. There would be no directions as such. One would be constituting a new relationship between the Minister and the Commission which would be alien to our present constitutional beliefs, in that the relationship between the Minister and the Commission would be governed by prescribed regulations. As no Government has thought it right or proper, or, indeed, practical, to do this, I hope that the Committee will decisively reject the Amendment. Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter No one could accuse the Parliamentary Secretary of having treated the Amendment lightly, or having been other than extremely conscientious in the reply which he has sought to give to it. If in the further stages of the Bill Ministers reply with similar conscientiousness, care and length, we shall at least have no complaint on that score. I am bound to say, however, that as the Parliamentary Secretary went on he seemed to widen the gulf between the two sides of the Committee on this matter. This is not, after all, a question of precedent. I am rather inclined to agree with him. It is a question of what is right to do here. But all the arguments that he produced to show that what we propose is not right seemed to me to point very much the other way. First, the hon. Gentleman said that the directions would be, as a result of our decision on a previous Amendment, of a general character. Those are, of course, precisely the sort of directions which can properly be embodied in regulations. [column 65-66]Secondly, he said if one put them in regulations, they would have to be precise. But surely they ought to be precise. If the Minister is contemplating giving the Commission directions which are not of a precise character, this is most alarming. Finally, the hon. Gentleman said that there would be continuous administrative liaison between the Commission and the Minister. That may be so, but Parliament will not know of it. The public will not know of it. On an earlier Amendment he referred to things being done if directions of a special character were given on the “old boy network” , and said that that was undesirable. He is really saying now that the Minister will be able to give directions by this continuous administrative liaison, but we shall not have the knowledge which will result from prescribing them. The difference between the two sides of the Committee is perfectly clear, and I suggest to my hon. Friends that we press this Amendment. The Minister of Land and Natural Resources (Mr. Frederick Willey) I do not think that we should let it go as easily as that. The right hon. Gentleman is correct in some of the things he says, but he is fundamentally wrong in his approach. This is really a constitutional issue—the division between the exercise of executive and legislative powers. The precedents are against the Amendment because of this. What the right hon. Gentleman wants to do—it is always very dangerous—is to confuse the two things, to confuse the line which divides legislative action, which the word “prescribed” imports, and executive action. Secondly, he will appreciate in the light of his experience that it is wrong to confuse Ministerial responsibility with Parliament. A Minister is accountable to Parliament in the exercise of executive responsibilities, and we have provided for this. This would be blurred if we made the issue of directions subject to prescription. What one can do, very properly, of course—this arises now and will arise later—is to make sure that when we define what has to be subject to legislative action, we define it properly. There may be an argument about whether this or that should be the subject of regulations, but here we have all the precedents to show that where a general direction has been issued, it has been an executive act. We should not convert it into a legislative act. We should make proper provision for legislative action. At the same time we should not blur the responsibility and accountability of a Minister to Parliament. These are the two major arguments which tell against the right hon. Gentleman. There has been some discussion—I do not complain about it, because we are discussing this subject against the background of general directions—about whether there should be consultations or not, whether provision could be made for the issue of general directions. But that is irrelevant to the point that we are on now. The point that we are on now is whether we should deliberately blur the distinction between the two different powers as they are exercised by the Minister. That is the issue here, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. The hon. Lady obviously has some doubt about this. I noticed that she said: There has been no further attention to the argument about the immediacy of providing for regulations, and it will be less immediate in the future. I take this to indicate that the hon. Lady has had some doubt about going so directly against constitutional precedent. Precedent is important, but we should remember the very important principle that if we provide the directions, we ought to do as we have done hitherto—provide that the Minister is accountable for those directions by the ordinary doctrine of Ministerial responsibility. Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:— The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 10. Division No.2.] Alldritt , Walter Dunnett , Jack Fletcher , Ted (Darlignton) Hamling , William (Woolwich, W.) Harrison , Walter (Wakefield) Howie , W. Johnson , James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Manuel , Archie Skeffington , Arthur Willey , Rt. Hn. Frederick Alison , Michael (Barkston Ash) Box , Donald Boyd-Carpenter , Rt. Hn. J. Elliott , R. W. (N'c'stle-upon-Tyne, N.) Eyre , Reginald Farr , John Nobel , Rt. Hn. Michael Smith , John Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret Wells , John (Maidstone) Whereupon The Chairman declared himself with the Ayes. Mrs. Thatcher I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 1, line 19, at the end to insert: I thought that the speeches of the Frederick WilleyMinister and of the Arthur SkeffingtonJoint Parliamentary Secretary on the last Amendment could probably both be turned round to provide very good speeches for this Amendment, because the constitutional argument has gone and the purpose of this Amendment relates to early information and not to Parliamentary control. I would hope that every member of the Committee would think it right that we should have as much early information about direction as it is possible to get. There is a precedent for such an Amendment in connection with the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act. I have not, alas, been able to find a precedent for the acceptance of such an Amendment, but it would be somewhat ironic if hon. Members opposite were to rely solely on precedent for all their replies. It would be an interesting, intellectual situation, but I hope—— Mr. Archie Manuel I dislike intensely relying on precedent, particularly Tory precedent. Mr. Boyd-Carpenter Tell the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that! Mrs. Thatcher I look forward to having the Archie Manuelhon. Member with us for once. That would be a new experience. I notice that in reply to the previous Amendment neither the Joint Parliamentary Secretary nor the Minister gave us any indication of the kind of direction they would give. This, I would have thought, was crucial. It is certainly crucial to this Amendment, and I think we should have some indication of the purpose for which they intend to use this power to [column 68]give a general direction. Perhaps they have not made up their minds. There were one or two rather alarming remarks. I thought, by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary when he said that the directions would be in the interests of the Commission. Most of us would be anxious that there should be a number of directions in the interests of the subject, because the powers in this Commission are so very wide—far wider than in the other Acts which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary cited, which have very narrow powers, and narrow in terms of reference. This is the widest Measure and these are the widest powers that I can ever remember going through this House. Therefore, it is imperative that we should have some indication of the directions that are going to be issued, when someone dictating that some of those directions will act in favour of the subject against the enormous powers of the State. 11.15 a.m. I would also think that those directions—we should soon be able to see what they were if the Minister accepted this Amendment—could give a good deal of protection to foreign investors in this country, because people who put their money into companies in this country, in Development Districts or elsewhere, may well find themselves liable to compulsory acquisition, and certain compensation at market price, until there is no market. Foreign investors are just as liable to the devastating provisions of this Bill as we are, and I would be most interested if the Minister would direct the Commission that where a company comes into a Development District the Commission shall not compulsorily acquire land against the interests of that company. Otherwise we shall have to ask the Chancellor of the James Callaghan Exchequer to draw the attention of every overseas investor in this country to the provisions of this Bill. I would not like to invest money in another country which put up a Bill of this kind against my money, at the same time as asking for my money to be invested in that country. Those are just a few of the matters on which [column 69]I should like the Minister to give us some information. I note that there are already some 14 types of bodies with powers of compulsory purchase, and there are no fewer than between 1,500 and 1,600 particular bodies with powers of compulsory purchase. Would the Minister also give us some indication about the kind of directions that he will give when there are clashes between the bodies. I think that the directions can be given by “the appropriate Minister or Ministers” , but there are large number of different Ministers involved. Mr. Boyd-Carpenter More than ever before. Mrs. Thatcher A very large number of Ministers, and it occurs to me, as it must have occurred to both the Minister and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, that different Ministries may want the same piece of land for different purposes, and that they would simultaneously give to the Commission contradictory directions affecting that particular piece of land. Suppose, for example, a piece of land became free from the railways. Local government might want it for housing; someone else might want it for purposes of water undertakings, and someone else for nuclear power. Who is going to give a general direction to the Land Commission telling it how to adjudicate between different directions of different Ministers given simultaneously? How are we to know what directions are given unless we have the maximum amount of information? This is a very real problem because, as the Minister knows, there are many separate Departments which have powers of compulsory purchase and which would, therefore, have powers to give a direction. I hope that during the discussion of this Amendment, which is designed to provide as much information as possible, we shall have some indication of how these problems will be met. Mr. Skeffington The discussion that we have already had has cleared the way to dealing with this Amendment so that we can concentrate on rather narrower issues. But there is one matter which has apparently overflowed from what I said before, when I referred to the directions of a general character being issued, [column 70]in most cases, in the interests of the Commission. What I meant was not that this would not also be in the interests of the subject, because I suggested that the sort of case where the Commission or a body of this kind would like a direction was where it is directed for social purposes by the Minister, to embark on a course of action which might be less profitable than if it had followed its normal practice. This sort of thing arises from time to time. It arises under the Town and Country Planning Act where there is a discretion in relation to the disposal of land whereby a local authority, if it is for certain social purposes, may dispose of the land for less than the top market price. This, of course, must have Ministerial consent. There are cases of that kind, and, in order to cover itself, in this case the local authority has Ministerial consent. In the case of the Commission where it is embarking upon a matter of social policy at the request of a Minister of the Government, it may like, and probably ought to have, its actions protected so that when it reports and the whole of the operation can be seen, there is a safeguard that it departed from its normal practice, and took what may be a less remunerative course of action in order to comply with the Government request. But this does not mean—and I really must take this point up with the hon. lady—that the whole purpose of the Bill must be in some way anti-subject. The whole of the operation is being done for the people of the country, not against them. [Laughter.] I am only too happy to make this point, and I shall be glad to make it constantly and repeatedly, until it is appreciated significantly by hon. Members opposite. We certainly would not have engaged in this long task if we had felt that there was any other way of seeing to it that the broad objectives of the Bill, and the operation of the Commission, can act in this way for the benefit of the whole of the people of Britain. Therefore it is only in a narrow constitutional sense that I said that the Commission itself for its own protection will sometimes require, and sometimes ought to have, a direction. This Amendment, of course, would invite the immediate scrutiny by Parliament of all directions unless, as the [column 71]Amendment says, these matters were concerned with national security. It would again introduce into Parliament a procedure that has not been considered necessary in any other case. I suppose it may be subject to some comment that in these matters we rely upon precedent. But I must say that where we have in a democratic assembly procedures which are tried which have on the whole proved meritorious and have been accepted by public opinion and by both parties, I do not think one wants lightly to change them. But it certainly would not close my mind. It is again interesting to note that it is suggested that there should be this limitation on operation, this requirement immediately to publish directions and provide for scrutiny in Parliament, when it has not been thought fit to do this in connection with any of the other vast undertakings, all the publicly-owned industries, all the activities of the statutes which I mentioned. I found it somewhat surprising that this should be the requirement of the Oppositition in relation to this Bill. There is one other point that perhaps I ought to clear up. The hon. Lady asked me about Ministers. The Ministers referred to, of course, are the Ministers mentioned in this Bill, not other Ministers. They are the Ministers acting jointly—the Minister of Land and Natural Resources and the Secretary of State for Scotland—not Ministers of other Departments. Mr. Boyd-Carpenter Does it say this in the Bill? Mr. Skeffington I think on reflection that it will be seen that this must inevitably be the case. Indeed, the Ministers concerned are defined, as will be seen in Clause 86, as these two Ministers acting jointly or, of course, in the case of individual directions, acting separately either in Scotland or in England. What the hon. Lady has failed to say in her Amendment in relation to directions is that the Commission will be expected to publish the directions in its Report so that then Parliament, looking at policy over a period, can determine the policy of the Minister. This, we think, is the proper way to do it, the [column 72]way in which it has been thought appropriate in all the other cases. It enables Parliament to review policy over a period. As I said not only on the previous Amendment, but also to some extent on the Amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp), there would be all kinds of undesirable administrative and constitutional consequences if this Amendment were accepted, and I must ask the Committee to reject it. Mr. Alison I still find myself unconvinced by the general trend of the hon. Gentleman's argument. It seems to me that we are dealing with a body here which, although it is national in its scope and in designation, nevertheless in its operations is essentially local; and we are talking here about the national communal benefit of these operations. This is quite deceiving, because some of the operations of the Commission will result in discrimination in the interests of certain local people, for example, Crownholders, or those who are granted freeholdings under the operations of the Commission. It will benefit one segment of the population in the particular locality in quite a different way from the benefits which will accrue to the community as a whole. Therefore, it has a discriminatory effect in its benefits and operations upon particular localities. In a sense, the Commission is surely on a precise level with any other great local authority; and great local authorities, even of the very largest kind, still have to come to the House of Commons very often with general powers Bills, for example, seeking the permission of the House to engage in substantial and widespread activities of a local character. The Commission is, in a sense, on a precise level with local authorities in this way. Its operations will have a discriminating effect in a given locality, and it cannot be argued that its activities on every occasion have a communal and national impact. It has a local and discriminating effect, giving benefits and particular advantages to local people. I should have thought that in this sense it was precisely akin to and competitive with great local authorities which nevertheless have to come to this House, under general powers Bills, for permission to develop in a given locality. Why should not the same necessity be laid [column 73]upon this Commission in its local and regional activities? It seems to me that the case has not been satisfactorily made for this argument. Mr. Manuel The effect of the arguments we have heard from the benches opposite, especially from the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison), would be to cause great delay and frustration. I should be most concerned if the Opposition's view as expressed this morning were accepted and local authorities' powers, intentions and interests in connection with land were impeded, to the detriment of the common weal. However, I do not accept that this would be so. What we are dealing with on this Amendment is largely what was dealt with on the previous one. We are dealing with actual directions of a general character. I thought it rather misleading of the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) to speak about the conflicting views of various Departments and Minister wanting the same piece of land for different purposes. A local authority, through the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, might want a piece of land for housing. The Secretary of State for Defence might want it for a rifle range, perhaps. There would not be much difficulty about that, and a decision could readily be made. It would be very wrong, if by adopting Amendments from either side of the Committee, we inserted principles into the Bill which, while they might be regarded as very good in certain connections, would have the inevitable result of causing delay and frustration in getting on with this job. I take it that if there were the conflict of interest presupposed by the Amendment and the hon. Lady's speech the appropriate Ministers, that is, my right hon. Friend here and his Joint Parliamentary Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland, would know very well what the common interest was in relation to the particular application before them. Mr. Skeffington There is a point here which, perhaps, I ought to have made in my earlier remarks. I did not want to bore the Committee by going on too long. In nearly every one of these cases when land is required, it will be the result of a planning decision already taken. Even the Commission, if it wishes [column 74]to act, must obtain planning permission from the Minister, that is, the Minister of Housing and Local Government or the Secretary of State for Scotland. Therefore, the possibility of conflict is extremely remote. I do not say that it could never happen, but it is extremely remote. Mr. Manuel I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I was about to illustrate the argument by drawing on my own local authority experience. All the major local authorities in Scotland acting as planning authorities have their own planning departments. The County of Ayr, for example, embraces a large landward area comprising many small burghs and two major burghs, Kilmarnock and Ayr. Each of these major authorities has, in accordance with the decision of Parliament, made plans for its own area, deciding where housing, both local authority and privately developed, should go, where industry should go, and so on. The county council, acting for the whole of the landward area of Ayrshire and for the small burghs, has a plan covering each area. Therefore, by the time the land comes to be used, there will be planning decisions already in existence. 11.30 p.m. After my experience as a member of a local authority, having suffered in the past because of conflicting interests wanting land for different purposes and having seen much of it going for what I thought were wrong purposes, I am extremely glad that this Bill is coming along to make the planning proposals and decisions of local authorities really effective. We should not forget that the Minister, who will be asked to decide in the final analysis in Scotland, is the person who has decided whether the planning decision of the local authorities was correct. It cannot be adopted by the local authority until the Secretary of State for Scotland has, by his decision, agreed that the planning was correct. I hope that the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) will agree that in this connection the position is preserved and safe. In my experience, planning officers are the most difficult people to move once they have made up their minds. I agree that they make up their minds [column 75]on substantial evidence and as a result of good training. It is difficult even for a major authority to move a planning officer once he has made up his mind, although on occasion one has to do it. Mr. Boyd-Carpenter Rather like the hon. Member. Mr. Manuel I hope that I am open to persuasion. It is difficult when the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley beams across at me in her delightful way. One of the drawbacks of hon. Members on this side of the Committee is that, today at any rate, we have not a counterpart to the hon. Lady to sway arguments when possibly they should be swayed. We should stick to the thoughtful arguments adduced from Front Benches Members and other hon. Members. The case built up by hon. Members opposite, while good in itself, did not recognise that Ministers, both in Scotland and in England, have made decisions as to whether, the proposed planning was correct. When certain land becomes available, say, from the Railways Board—perhaps a station is to be closed and much land, possibly valuable, becomes available in an area of concentrated housing and industry, possibly in the heart of a town—many people would like it. Speculators would crowd round if the position were not buttressed, as it is, by the previous decision of the planning authority. I hope that the hon. Lady and the right hon. Member and others who have taken an interest in this Amendment will agree that in this connection the local authority planning decision, endorsed by the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Minister of Housing and Local Government, is the decision which the Minister is bound to accept in the final analysis. Mr. Boyd-Carpenter On this Amendment and previous Amendments the Committee has had the rather entertaining experience of considering whether the Joint Parliamentary Secretary or the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) is the more effective in spinning out time while reinforcements are summoned. At the moment, I would award the prize to the hon. Member for Ayrshire; [column 76]I am afraid that the Minister is absolutely unplaced in this competition. Mr. Manuel I would point out that much as I may exude power, I am the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire. There are four more hon. Members representing Ayrshire. The right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends would be very upset if he suggested that I represented the whole of the county. Mr. Boyd-Carpenter The hon. Member must take it as a compliment to his exuberant personality that he seems, as it were, to spread it over the whole of that delectable county. It has been an awkward morning for the Government. The obvious lack of enthusiasm for the Bill, shown by the fact that they were saved on the previous Amendment solely by the Chairman's casting vote, and by the fact that a Minister who ought to be assumed to be trying to get on with the Bill is obviously playing for time while the Whip, who I saw summoned out to a reprimand, returns with reinforcements. Mr. Skeffington That is not so. I could not afford that time. Mr. Boyd-Carpenter So the Member for Central Ayrshire is put up, and he makes a most gallant attempt. He says, as an old Parliamentarian—and I respect him—that our proposal will cause delay. What delay? All that the Amendment requires is that the Minister shall lay a copy of the direction. It is not suggested that he should delay the direction. It is not suggested he should hold it back. He should lay it, either at the time that he makes it or shortly after. What delay is there there? None at all. Of course the hon. Gentleman knows that. What we have not been told—this perhaps gives the Joint Parliamentary Secretary an opportunity for another of his splendid essays in delay—is what character these general directions will have. We know nothing of this. It seems that, whatever the precedents may or may not be—it always amuses me to see how the present bold, progressive Government are always sheltering behind the precedents of other Governments—this is a very simple proposition. It is simply that we should know at the [column 77]time what the general directions contain; that is, that the healthy light of publicity should be directed on what the Minister is doing. We were told on the previous Amendment, by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary—I drew attention to it—of the continuous administrative liaison between the Minister and the Commission. No doubt that is so. That will not help the public, for they will not know what the right hon. Gentleman is up to. It will not be in the Press and on the radio and known to hon. Members. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary says, “Oh, they are general directions; they will be in the Commission's Report” . But that is far too late. The reports of such bodies come many months after the end of the year to which they relate, and any direction which has been given will have long ceased to have very much practical consequence by the time it appears embedded in the report. What the Minister is afraid of is that if he gave a direction which he should not do, he would be liable to be challenged at once in the House if our Amendment were successful. He knows perfectly well that it would be hopeles to challenge it in the House 18 or 24 months after he had given it, when the harm had been done. That is the difference. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary did not argue that the directions should not become known. He argued only that they should become known when it was too late for their becoming known to have any practical effect. This, surely, is the negation of good sense. There might be a case for shielding the whole of the process within the general cover of what goes on in Whitehall; though I do not accept that view, there might be a case for it. There is certainly a case for publishing it at the time. What is surely the weakest of all arguments is to say that there is no objection to publishing it provided that it is too late for anyone to do anything about it. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary says, “This Amendment seems to be based on the idea that the Commission is antisubject, and that the subject would need protecting from the Commission and from the Minister” . That is all very well; no doubt the Joint Parliamentary Secretary thinks that. If he did not think that, he would not continue, presumably, [column 78]as Joint Parliamentary Secretary. He would follow the example of the Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy. But he must realise that a great many people in this country do not think this. Those of us who have studied Clause 8 and the Second Schedule know that the Bill is extremely anti-subject, and when we come to that stage, it will be interesting to see the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, or even the Minister, seek to demonstrate the contrary. There are many people—I put this to the Parliamentary Secretary—who are intensely suspicious of this manoeuvre, who regard this whole Measure as a form of concealed nationalisation, and who want to know what the Minister is doing. Unless the Minister is contemplating doing things of which he is ashamed, why does he object to publishing what he is doing, letting us know what are the general directions which he is giving to the Commission? To some extent the Commission themselves are entitled to this, so that when they do something which may appear to be arbitrary or foolish, it shall be known at the time that they are doing so not on their own judgment but because the Minister has directed them to do so. The Minister is seeking to give these general directions but to conceal the fact that he is giving them. This seems to be a wholly lamentable state of affairs. We have dealt with the one possibility where there might be difficulty, that of national defence and national security. I am bound to say, Mr. Hynd, that when one sees what the Government are doing, one realises that even this is academic, because the one provision which the Government will not make is the provision required for the defence of the country. We know that. Nevertheless, we have covered the point in the Amendment, and should the Government change their policies and do something about national defence, it would not be prejudiced if this provision were adopted. The Parliamentary Secretary, I feel, is complacent about competing demands for different land. The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) is here now, and he will recall how several Departments were recently seeking certain land in Woolwich for their different purposes. It is a fact, particularly in London and the South-East, that where important areas of land become available, there is, [column 79]naturally, competition between different Departments. If the Commission is to be given a direction about this—which Department is to prevail and which not—surely it is essential to good public administration and to the discharge by the House of its duties that we should know what those directions are. I ask the Minister this: if he does not expect to be ashamed of the general directions which he is giving to the Commission, and if there are no reasons for concealing them, what is the objection to laying them before Parliament? As I say, no delay whatever is involved in this process, only publicity. It is true that as a result the right hon. Gentleman may be challenged, but if he is conscious that what he is doing is right, he should welcome that. It would only be if he knew that what he was doing was wrong that he would want to hide behind this concealment. The Amendment seems to us to be of the very greatest importance. We have discussed the previous Amendment, under which the Statutory Instrument procedure would have been proper. The Committee, Sir, with the aid of your casting vote, dismissed that proposal. It may mean that we return to it perhaps at another time, in another part of this building. We are now dealing with the much smaller proposition of publicity. Here there is no such argument as that which the Minister adduced on the previous Amendment—the possibility of lowering the executive and legislative process. Here we are merely asking that proposals which, as the Minister must know, go forward amid much doubt and questioning and unhappiness in many parts of this country—proceedings which, as my hon. Friend pointed out, may well affect the willingnes of people to invest in this country—should at least be conducted so that those who fear the worst should have the opportunity of knowing and of knowing quickly whether those fears are justified. Whatever the precedents, Mr. Hynd, I say this bluntly to the Minister: only a Minister who knows that he intends to do something of which he will be ashamed would refuse to accept this Amendment. [column 80]11.45 p.m. Mr. Willey The right hon. Gentleman has an odd way of expediting our proceedings. Mr. Boyd-Carpenter I am a mere amateur in that compared with the Parliamentary Secretary. Mr. Willey I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will try to retain accuracy when he speaks in our subsequent debates. In spite of all that he said, I think that this is a very thoughtful Amendment. We should constantly keep under review the relationship between these public corporations, the Minister and Parliament. But the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) is on a wrong point. When the local authority brings forward a Private Bill, it is to extend its powers; it seeks legislative approval to the extension of its powers. Here we are dealing with something different: we are concerned with the manner of the exercise of powers which have been given to an authority by Parliament. We are concerned with the manner of the exercise of the powers and the direction which a Minister may give. I said that the earlier Amendment was constitutionally offensive in that it would put into legislative form something which was an executive action. The right hon. Gentleman says, “For the purpose of this Amendment, we are not going so far as that, but we feel that if a Minister makes a general direction, he should call the attention of Parliament to it immediately.” There is obviously something in this. What we have done hitherto and what we are proposing to do here—the precedent is important, because we also have the precedents of experience—is to say, “we will follow precedent. This ought to be brought to the attention of Parliament. But it ought not to be an obligation to bring it immediately to the attention of Parliament, because then one is possibly confusing the division of functions between the legislative and the executive” . That is the issue. Precedent is important, and experience is important, and I have heard no reason why we should not follow the precedent of the last Government, for instance, that of the 1964 Housing Act. If the [column 81]right hon. Gentleman wishes to make out a case, then he ought to bring to the Committee some experience of the disadvantages of that precedent. In fact, we know from experience the matters of import which a Minister would bring to the attention of Parliament, or where he would be rightly criticised for not having done so. It is a different matter to say that this exercise of executive power should automatically be brought to Parliament. We should look at the scope of the Minister's powers and his exercise of them, and deal with the point in that way rather than say that the Minister ought not to do this, that and the other unless he lets Parliament know. This is where the Amendment fails—on the two grounds that we have experience and we have many precedents. This proposal has been repeatedly considered by Parliament and by Governments, but a case has not been made out for it. Moreover, although this Amendment has not the disadvantages of the previous Amendment, it has the concept of those disadvantages. No case has been made out, it seems to me, to breach the constitutional principle, because no precedents have been quoted and no experience has been quoted to show why this Amendment is necessary. What we must do is to recognise that what has worked effectively in this country is the broad doctrine of Ministerial accountability to Parliament. We should rest upon that. Mr. Boyd-Carpenter The right hon. Gentleman emphasises the importance of precedent. I beg him to realise that there is no precedent for the kind of body which he is seeking to set up by this Bill, and that therefore, to rely on precedent in respect of other bodies with quite different functions is not relevant to our argument. After all, this is a Bill which provides for creeping nationalisation and it is a Bill to provide for the imposition of taxation outside the normal taxation system. We are dealing with a matter completely outside the sphere of relevant precedent. We therefore come back to the question whether we should not deal with the Amendment on its merits. The right hon. Gentleman conceded, very fairly, that a Minister ought to give information to Parliament if he gives a general direction [column 82]of an important character. I do not think that I misunderstood him there. Perhaps he will confirm that. I gather that he confirms that. But he does not think that he should do so if it were of a less important character. That is the right hon. Gentleman's argument. The result is to leave to the Minister of the day, rather than to others affected, the decision as to what is or is not an important matter. It is the experience of any of us who have been in Administration that matters which appear at first sight to be very small and insignificant can ultimately show that they have very great significance and importance. And, with the best will in the world, the judgment of a Minister whose action may be subjected to criticism if publicity is given to what he is doing, is not an objective judgment as to what is or is not important. If the right hon. Gentleman had said that in order to deal with his argument about the unimportant directions he would allow some other body—say a Select Committee of this House—to decide whether these things should be published, then I think he would have been putting forward a not unreasonable argument. I am, however, bound to say, Mr. Hynd, that I can see no harm whatever that can be done by a Minister publishing even the unimportant general directions which he gives. If the Minister contemplates giving many general directions, these are directions, as we have been told of a general character. Even if the Minister contemplated making very many directions the very fact that he was making a lot of them would itself be a matter of some public importance and of some significance of which Parliament would wish to be informed. If he is making only a few, and some of them unimportant, what harm is done by the normal procedure of laying before Parliament—which is, I understand, Mr. Hynd, depositing a copy either in the Library or in the Vote Office. There are, I think, precedents for both. But what the right hon. Gentleman has failed to do has been to realise that if there is a case for making a distinction between the treatment of the unimportant and of the important general directions, [column 83]then the decision as to which is important and therefore which is to be published is apparently to be left to himself. With the best will in the world, that is not good enough. No one, however honest or honourable, should be judge in his own cause, and particularly in respect of matters such as these, about which it is very likely that fierce party controversy can arise. Therefore, though no one can complain of the tone of the right hon. Gentleman's words, the substance of them, I suggest to the Committee, is completely unsatisfactory because it leaves to the Minister of the day the decision as to whether publicity should be given to his own act. That does not meet our point. It does not meet the point made by the Amendment. I suggest to the Committee that it does not meet what would be the demand of the public outside—that they should know what the right hon. Gentleman is doing, be it good or be it bad. Mr. Willey We have to be careful about these things. We have an unwritten constitution. One of the most effective parts of the constitution is the doctrine of Ministerial responsibility. This Amendment would make the constitution in part written. One is reluctant to do that. I appreciate all that the right hon. Gentleman said, but what he said would apply, of course, to other fields in which a Minister exercises his executive function. We know exactly what happens under the constitution. We know that there is an initiative with the Minister to bring the matter to the House of Commons and that there is an initiative which rests with the House of Commons. I think that it is better to leave it like that. I say again—I do not want to redeploy my argument—that if one were to make a fundamental change like this, one would need to be convinced by experience of the necessity for it. I refer to precedents only because this is a matter which has been continually considered by Parliament. I cannot see that a case has been made out today. We have had the Central Land Board, which was similar to this body. The right hon. Gentleman talks about “creeping nationalisation” , but we have had real nationalisation. The right hon. Gentleman talks about other [column 84]services. We have had the National Health Service, which was as violently opposed by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends as this Bill is being opposed now. Mr. Boyd-Carpenter The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is quite untrue. Mr. Willey The right hon. Gentleman has probably forgotten that he and his colleagues voted against the National Health Service in several respects. Mr. Boyd-Carpenter If the right hon. Gentleman intends to go on repeating that hoary story, will he look at the reasoned Amendment on which we voted on that occasion, and not repeat the silly story which his right hon. Friends, quite inaccurately, have been repeating for years? Mr. Willey I am sure, Mr. Hynd, that you would not wish me to do so now, but I point out that both in the social field and in industry, where steps have been taken to set up national corporations, experience has shown that it has not been necessary to place this obligation on the Minister. Though to a lesser extent than the previous Amendment, it would impair the principle of the division between executive and legislative functions. It would impair the doctrine of Ministerial responsibility. For these reasons, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, on reflection, will not press the Amendment. Mr. Noble I wanted to pick up one point in the Minister's speech which seems to me to be significant but probably in the opposite way to that in which he asked the Committee to use it. He told the Committee, with some degree of accuracy, that the constitutional responsibility between the Minister in his executive capacity and Parliament and the nationalised industries and other similar bodies is unwritten, and that this to some extent is its strength. This may be so, but it is, I am sure he will agree, also the case that over the last few years there has been a growing resentment by Parliament, and indeed by people outside Parliament, of the increasing use of Ministers of their executive powers in all sorts of fields—and they have been spreading—which affect the subject in a way in which Members of Parliament often have no knowledge until long after the decision has been taken. [column 85] I agree with the Minister that this is a thoughtful Amendment, but I fundamentally disagree with him when he says that that sort of relationship, which has existed in respect of Ministers' executive powers, should not be changed at this moment in a Bill of this sort where the interference with the liberty of the subject—in one form or another—is very clear-cut and very widespread. I cannot see that what we propose is a blurring of the distinction of the Minister's responsibilities. It is clear and simple that in cases of this sort the Minister can lay his general directions before Parliament. I do not believe that there will be more than half-a-dozen a year, probably, and Parliament may ignore them if it wants to or take them up and debate them. There is every reason at this time to consider whether the complaint of Parliament and the complaint of many people outside Parliament should be heard and whether we should not be seen to be curbing, if one likes to regard it as that, or at any rate bringing out into the open, the Minister's acts which affect the subject and affect Parliament and which tend to be more and more concealed. Mr. Alison I take the Minister's correction, which he kindly conveyed to me, about the precise nature of General Powers Bills in granting extensions of powers. May we take it from this definition that where the extension of the Commission's powers is sought, in its negotiations or dialogue with the Minister or Ministers, such extension of powers would be brought before the House in the same way as would the extension of the powers of local authorities under a General Powers Bill? Will the Minister not agree that Clause 12(2), under which the Commission has to obtain the consent of the Minister to the development of land for housing purposes, is a typical case in which it would be appropriate for the Commission or the Minister to come before the House seeking an extension of powers? 12 noon. Mrs. Thatcher It might help if I put one or two more points to the Frederick WilleyMinister, Mr. Hynd, in the hope that he could reply to them while he is replying to certain other points made. He said that we have not made out a case for departing in the [column 86]Bill from precedent and he cited other Acts which have followed precedent. One of those Acts which he cited with great force was the Housing Act, 1964. I submit that this is not a good precedent, because the purpose of that Act is very different from the purpose of the Bill. May I read out Section 1 of the Housing Act, 1964, to show how narrow is its purpose. Fortunately I happen to have the Act with me. Section 1 reads: That is a very limited purpose, and the Minister cannot rely on a Bill which has that as its main purpose as a precedent for the Land Commission Bill, which imposes upon the subject an annual liability for money—I will not say whether it is a levy or a tax—of some £80 million and which also renders the subject liable to have his land acquired compulsorily on a scale the like of which we have not known before. If the Ministers says that he will delete Clause 6(3) and also the second appointed day, then my argument will have to be different, but as long as that is in the Bill, the powers of compulsory acquisition are very wide. The nature of the Bill alone is sufficient to make us depart from precedent. Not only hon. Members on this side of the Committee but every hon. Member may well have to bring forward cases concerning individual constituents, and every hon. Member, whether on that side of the Committee or this, would fight the case for an individual constituent with tenacity. Thus, it is the nature of the Bill itself which is sufficient to require the Minister to depart from precedent. Secondly, what kind of direction has he in mind to give? So far he has studiously avoided answering that question and so has Arthur Skeffingtonhis Parliamentary Secretary. If we are to give this power, we must know what kind of direction he has it in mind to give. Many decisions of development have to be taken many years in advance. It may well be that had a person making such a decision known of the existence of a direction at the time [column 87]it was given, he would have acted in a different way from the way in which he acted when in ignorance of that direction. His financial position would probably be changed considerably according to whether he knew of the direction at the time or not. What directions has the Minister in mind to give? Along which garden paths is the Minister leading us? May we know now and not after he has taken us there? The Minister probably realises from what I said last time that I come from a family which invests not only in foreign countries such as Scotland but in foreign countries a good deal further away. Among the points which one has to consider in putting investment in other countries are the laws of that country. Certainly if we were considering investing in another country, one of the things which we should have to consider would be a Bill of this kind. Will the Minister not, therefore, consider publishing a general direction that the Bill shall not affect certain foreign investors, because if he does not, he may well find that the Chancellor of the James CallaghanExchequer suffers an adverse effect on the balance of payments. Mr. Willey The point about consent does not arise here. This is the limitation of the Commission in the exercise of its powers, because in this instance it has to obtain consent before it can exercise them. I accept that the 1964 Act is not a parallel. I would prefer to go back to the Central Land Board as closer to the Bill. But I emphasise to the hon. Lady that what one is concerned with here is not so much the nature of the provisions but the nature and scope of the exercise of the power of general direction. I should have thought, from what she said, that there is a wider scope for the exercise of such powers in the 1964 Act than in the Bill. One is concerned with the scope of the exercise of these powers rather than with the nature of the legislative provisions. I know that the hon. Lady and the right hon. Gentleman do not like the Bill, but we are now dealing with a constitutional point affecting the exercise of the powers under the Bill. We are concerned not with the purposes of the Bill [column 88]but with the question of general directions. There is not—I repeat again—an exact parallel with the present instance. We have been dealing with all sorts of instances. The lesson which I have drawn from these different instances—and the significance of the 1964 Act was that it was recent—is that the point which is being taken in Committee now was not successfully deployed on those occasions, that this is a matter of the relations between Parliament and the Executive and that we can draw lessons from experience. I was asked what directions the Minister was likely to issue. I cannot at the moment help the Committee. The hon. Lady can raise this question when she has the opportunity. If she wishes, she can raise this by Amendment to the Bill. The purpose of general directions is to affect the exercise of powers by the Commission in the light of current circumstances. She raised the point whether the exercise of such powers should be known if they affected the citizens at large. Of course they should. Certainly they should. Any Minister would be subject to the most serious criticisms if he did not so do, and if he made directions which affected the position of citizens without letting them know. But, of course, he would let them know. Mrs. Thatcher Would the Minister give the Committee some indication whether he would answer Parliamentary Questions on this subject—I mean a proper answer—as soon as a direction was given? If we were to put down a Parliamentary Question regularly, every month, say, would he give us full details of the directions which had been given. Mr. Willey It does not lie with me to give the hon. Lady an answer to that question, except for the part which I might play. I can assure her that I should give a most proper and sensible reply. Mrs. Thatcher That was not the question which I asked. I did not ask whether the Minister would give a proper or sensible reply. I asked whether he would, in fact, answer the Question and give the information, telling the questioner the details of the directions which had been given. Mr. Willey As the hon. Lady will appreciate, this is a matter, as I said, out with myself. This is a matter for the authorities of the House. If the Question were on the Paper, I can assure the hon. Lady that she would get a sensible and proper reply. Mr. Boyd-Carpenter By that, of course, the right hon. Gentleman means that he is well aware of the practice of the House in not permitting regular repetition of the same Question. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware of that. Therefore, I am afraid, there is no help to be found for us in this suggestion. I quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman when he says that this raises a constitutional point. This was an arguable proposition, I agree, Mr. Hynd, on the previous Amendment. With respect, it is not arguable on this Amendment. There is nothing in this Amendment which affects the exercise by the Minister of the power given, or proposed to be given, to him by the Clause. All the Amendment does is to make sure that it is known what he is doing, and if there be a constitutional point in that, it is surely the point that Parliament cannot properly discharge its duties if it does not know what is happening. It cannot call Ministers to account if it does not know what they are doing. Despite the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has built it up, the question simply boils down to this: if the Amendment is accepted, we shall know what he is doing in this respect, but if it is not accepted, then it will depend upon him whether we know. That, I suggest, is not a satisfactory position in which to leave it. It is made much less satisfactory, Mr. Hynd, by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has declined to tell us for what purpose he proposes to use this power. He has declined, as I understand it, to exclude any possible exercise of it; he has declined to exclude the exercise which my hon. Friend asked in the case of foreign investment in this country; he has declined to give us any positive indication of what he has in mind, if he has anything in mind. Mr. Noble In this, the Minister is following very closely the precedent of [column 90]the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). In 16 or 17 sessions on a similar Bill on the Highlands, he did not give one single example of what the Minister had in mind, or indeed what he thought the Highland Development Board might have in mind. This is a precedent which is becoming very common. Mr. Boyd-Carpenter I am obliged to my right hon. Friend at least for demonstrating that the Government is consistent in one thing, in a refusal to tell us for what purpose they propose to exercise these powers. I say again, with all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, that I cannot see any sensible reason why he should wish to deny to Parliament, to the Press, to the radio and to the country, knowledge of what he is doing in this respect. Mr. Manuel Surely the right hon. Gentleman will agree that his contribution is like innocence personified. There are numerous ways in which the Opposition can get information if they so desire. It is up to their initiative and will to try and find out. The Scottish Parliamentary Labour Group never had any difficulty with the previous Secretary of State for Scotland in staging opportunities to find out what he was doing. Quite apart from Questions there are Adjournment debates and other opportunities which an Opposition can make if they want to find out. Mr. Boyd-Carpenter I am very much obliged to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), not least for his tribute to the frankness and openness about what he was doing which my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Scotland always showed in office. What we are trying to do is to impose similar high standards of Ministerial conduct on the Minister of Land and Natural Resources. When the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire says that an Opposition can always find out, by various methods, what is the objection to disclosing the information right away? What is the point of leaving it to be burrowed out, if it is accepted that no public harm will come from disclosing it? I am afraid that we come back to the point which caused offence when I made it before, [column 91-92]but I repeat it: if the Minister is confident that he will do only that which is right, why on earth should he object to letting it be known at the time? There is something, Mr. Hynd, in the Good Book about the good loving the light that their deeds be known. The converse was that the evil love it not lest their deeds be known. We shall certainly press this Amendment. Question put, That those words be there inserted:— The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 10. Division No.3.] Alison , Michael (Barkston Ash) Boyd-Carpenter , Rt. Hn. J. Elliott , R. W. (N'c'stle-upon-Tyne, N.) Eyre , Reginald Farr , John Nobel , Rt. Hn. Michael Smith , John Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret Wells , John (Maidstone) Alldritt , Walter Dunnett , Jack Fletcher , Ted (Darlington) Hamling , William (Woolwich, W.) Harrison , Walter (Wakefield) Howie , W. Johnson , James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Manuel , Archie Skeffington , Arthur Willey , Rt. Hn. Frederick 12.15 p.m. Mr. Boyd-Carpenter I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page, 1, line 20, to leave out subsection (4). With due respect to the Minister and his assistants, it is a pity that we do not have the advantage of the attendance of the Law Officers this morning, since it is clear that the point raised on this Amendment must raise questions of law on which it would certainly have been an advantage for the Committee to have the assistance of the Law Officers of the Crown. As one knows from long experience, Law Officers of any party or Government advise Committees of this House with complete impartiality as to the law governing the matter concerned, and, quite plainly, this matter raises very considerable questions of law. In the absence of the Law Officers we shall have to attempt to elicit from Ministers why it is thought necessary to provide that the functions of the Commission and of their officers and servants shall be performed on behalf of the Crown and, secondly, what is the effect of this in practical terms. We have heard a good deal—perhaps, if I may respectfully say so, too much—about precedent, but certainly the precedents of the nationalisation statutes to which reference was made do not support this provision. The nationalised industries are not, as I understand it, for legal purposes servants of the Crown. They are corporations set up under statute but without the advantages and powers of being bodies operating on behalf of the Crown. I should like to know, Mr. Hynd, a number of things about, first of all, why this provision is made for a body which is supposed to be a statutory corporation, subject only to general directions by the Minister, but which none the less is to be equipped with this appellation of a Government Department. I gather that this is a body which is likely to be involved in very heavy litigation. It has been said that whoever else benefits, or does not benefit, from this Measure, if it ever becomes law, the legal profession will be enormous beneficiaries. When the Land Commission is engaged in litigation, will it be able to claim Crown privilege for non-disclosure of its documents? Is that so? On the face of it, it would appear so, but I put this question purely tentatively because this is a question, and quite a difficult question, of law. On the hypothesis that it is, then this is a very unfortunate provision indeed. The use of Crown privilege in the Courts has been very much criticised by the judges and, as the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) will be aware, in a recent case the Court of Session in Edinburgh, with admirable determination, overruled the claim of Crown privilege put in by a Government Department. Is this Clause intended to give Crown privilege in litigation? What is its effect upon the personal liability of members of the Commission and of their officers in respect of acts performed in accordance with their duties? Will this seek to give to them the protection in general given to Crown servants acting [column 93]within the scope of their duties? Is it intended to give this cover? What will be the effect on taxation? Does this subsection take the Land Commission out of the normal provisions of taxation? The nationalised industries are, of course, liable to tax. In the somewhat improbable event, for most of them, of their making a profit, they are liable to be taxed on it. Is the Land Commission to be immune from taxation as a result of this provision, or is it to be exposed to taxation? And, indeed, if this is to be treated as an emanation or appendage of the Crown, why on earth set it up at all? Why not administer the whole thing through the right hon. Gentleman and his Department? The right hon. Gentleman and his Department are officers of the Crown; they act on behalf of the Crown. Similar status is apparently to be given to the partially-independent statutory body with which they are related. I am quite sure that a number of my hon. Friends, more learned in these matters than I, will have other questions to ask about this. But the status of being of acting on behalf of the Crown, performing duties on behalf of the Crown, has very wide implications indeed in English law. Even the fairly recent Crown Proceedings Act has very far from minimised these. Therefore before the Committee can possibly pass this provision we must hear very fully from the Government the answer to the question as to the purpose of making this body generally a body acting on behalf of the Crown; and secondly, apart from that purpose, what the legal effects will be in respect of the matters which I mentioned; such as taxation, litigation, disclosure of documents, liability of members of the Commission and officers for acts committed in the course of their duties to harm other people, and more generally, the legal consequences which would follow from this, on the face of it, rather startling provision. Mr. Manuel One wonders why the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have moved this Amendment. I had always gathered that the loyalties of the party opposite through the years had been in support of the Crown. I would abhor it if it went out from the Committee this morning, to be emblazoned in [column 94]the newspapers, that the Tory Party no longer believed in supporting the Crown and that hon. Gentlemen opposite agreed with that substantial number of hon. Members who had demonstrated in the House, in connection with Rhodesia, their belief that the Crown should not come into these matters. It would be a very bad thing, because it might, especially if hon. Members opposite voted for the Amendment, mistakenly seem to weaken their regard for the prestige of and their support for the Crown. Hon. Members opposite have always demonstrated their affinity with these loyalties by bedecking their political platforms with the Union Jack and so on. While in law they may have a good case for wanting to elicit information about the matters which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, there might be a side effect which he would regard as unfortunate. The Press seizes these things, which are topical and bright and colourful, just the things the Press wants. They should be careful before going too far. Mr. Boyd-Carpenter Does not the hon. Gentleman underrate the intelligence of the Press which knows perfectly well that the Crown is not likely to gain anything by association with this enterprise? The reply would be in language which the hon. Gentleman would understand—non tali auxilio nec defensoribus istiis. Mr. Manuel I am afraid that that is complete Greek to me. Mr. Boyd-Carpenter It is Gaelic. Mr. Manuel I have made this short contribution to show that there is this possibility. No matter what reply the right hon. Gentleman might make, there is a Crown connection with the Bill. In the Gracious Speech, Her Majesty indicated that this was the programme and her support for this Measure. Mr. Boyd-Carpenter On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to attribute particular political opinions to the Sovereign? I respectfully submit that under the rules of the House that is completely out of order. The Chairman It is strictly out of order. On second thoughts, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) will probably agree with me. Mr. Manuel I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I did not mean it in that sense. I mean that the proposal was in the Gracious Speech. It is in our programme and there is therefore a Crown connection, loose as it may be, with this part of our programme. I want it to go on record that we are proceeding on rather dangerous ground if we say too much in this connection. Mr. Boyd-Carpenter The hon. Gentleman is. Mrs. Thatcher I could not agree with the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) and I rather wondered at times whether we were talking about the same Amendment. The Amendment would enhance the Crown by seeing that ordinary people do not claim the same privileges by very remote relation with the Crown. The Frederick WilleyMinister and the Arthur SkeffingtonParliamentary Secretary have quoted a number of precedents this morning. They have quoted the Housing Act, 1964, and I think it relevant to note that by Clause 1(3) the Housing Corporation If the Minister is following precedent, this might be quite a good precedent for him to follow. There are, of course, other precedents in the contrary direction; for example, the National Assistance Board can claim to be acting as the servant of the Crown, and again, the Livestock Commission can similarly claim. I am not sure whether the Land Commission would like to be classified with either of those two other bodies, and I would also point out to the Minister that public bodies such as the National Coal Board and public corporations are likewise not servants of the Crown. One has to examine very carefully why there are so many bodies the actions of which are not deemed to be actions of the Crown, whereas the Land Commission has been selected as a body whose servants are acting under the protection of being servants of the Crown. My Right hon. John Boyd-CarpenterFriend has pointed out a number of consequences which follow [column 96]from the existence of this subsection. It would, of course, perhaps make for greater accuracy, Mr. Hynd, if I were to read out all the relevant provisions and all the relevant commentary in Halsbury, Vol. XI, 3rd edition, which takes from p. 3 to p. 154 to deal with it. It would no doubt make for greater accuracy but not for greater illumination, because they are rather complicated provisions. But there are a number of points on which I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would give us his view. Will he explain how those points impinge on this Bill? First, if a servant is deemed to be a servant of the Crown, there are very severe limitations on the right to sue in contract. Indeed, S.1 of the Crown Proceedings Act gave no new right at all to sue the Crown in contract. It made only a procedural change. 12.30 p.m. The second point, which occurs under Section 2 of the Crown Proceedings Act is this. The servants of the Crown and the Crown are liable in tort only in very limited circumstances. The circumstances are set out in Section 2. I note that in the third edition of “Constitutional and Administrative Law” by Hood Phillips, it is stated on page 658 that Section 2 So there are a number of cases where the servant of an ordinary employer would be liable but the servant of the Land Commission would not be liable. These cases, of course, act to the disadvantage of the subject. I think that some of the kinds of cases where one could sue the Crown would be where the servant himself would be liable as an individual, not in his capacity as a servant of the Land Commission, but liable in negligence as an individual. These cases would be very few and far between. What one would be trying to get at would be the servant in his representative capacity as a servant of the Land Commission. This is what the presence of this subsection precludes—the ordinary subject getting at the servant in his representative capacity. There are considerable privileges, with regard to the proceeding of discovery [column 97]and interrogatories to which my right hon. Friend has referred. There also are very considerable differences in the way in which the subject can enforce proceedings against a servant of the Crown. For example, he used not to be able to go by way of indictment. I am not quite sure whether that is still the case. He also cannot go for a decree of specific performance. This is very important, because whereas an ordinary person can compel another person to perform what he has agreed to do, he cannot go against a servant of the Crown in this way. All the court can do is to make an order declaratory of the rights of the parties. That may not, of course, be very much satisfaction to a person who wants a decree of specific performance. I would be very grateful, therefore, if the Parliamentary Secretary could say why this provision has been inserted, and would give in rather simpler language than Halsbury does the practical effect of this subsection. Mr. Skeffington I think I can best serve the Committee by explaining the reasons why the Government wished this body to be a Crown body, and then by dealing, as far as I can, with the legal consequences which have been raised by hon. Members. The effect of the Amendment would be to deprive the Commissioners of the status of a Crown body, which would be to preclude, in the first place, the Commission from appointing civil servants. This has tremendous implications, for reasons which I think will be readily understood by the Committee and, indeed, I think, on reflection probably agreed to by members of the Opposition. One of the main functions of the Commission is the assessment and collection of betterment levy. It is pretty obvious that in a matter of this kind, this is the sort of executive function which really ought to be done by public servants, answerable in effect to the equivalent of a Government Department which is subject to all the normal arrangements for check and audit which exist in relation to expenditure. In other connections the Opposition have advocated that all the betterment provisions should or could be carried out by the Inland Revenue, and they have taken as valid the point that the [column 98]Revenue is a body of people who are public servants, who are accustomed to doing this work, for which there are well-known procedures, with constitutional checks and arrangements for scrutiny which are understood by everybody. For reasons which I do not think I need detail at this stage—because it is rather wider than the Amendment—I can very briefly say that the collection and assessment of betterment is, in the view, of the Government, new, additional work and would require additional staff. As the Commission has to be set up in any case to deal with the acquisition, disposal and management of land, these two functions will be discharged by the one body. Consequently, the collection of the betterment levy is something which the Commission will also discharge. But there is no difference between us that the standard, the status, the traditions, the procedural arrangements and the constitutional checks which are necessary in a matter of this kind require that those administering this very important new revenue shall be public servants. If the Amendments were carried, it would deprive the Commission of the services of civil servants in the ordinary course of events. It would make impossible the transfer to the Commission of staff from other Departments. It would also mean that if public servants are to be transferred from a Department to this new body, of course their superannuation rights are to be safeguarded. Then the constitutional requirements are that they must be paid wholly and directly out of moneys provided by Parliament—that is to say, their salary must be under a subhead of the Vote and not grant in aid. This would be quite impossible, if the Commission were not a Crown body. A requirement for this purpose is that the Commission itself must be stated in the Act, if the legislation is clear cut, to be exercising its functions on behalf of the Crown. For both these reasons, if we desire to have public servants doing this work—I would have thought there would probably be party agreement on this—then one has to see that this is a Crown body; otherwise one could not transfer them; they could not be paid, and certainly their pensions position could not be safeguarded. [column 99] Furthermore, as I have already indicated, if there is a Civil Service tradition here, with all the usual Departmental arrangements for accountability, the usual Civil Service management can apply to the Commission just as it applies to any other Government Department. This is a very great safeguard to the public and, indeed, to the Parliament itself. This is a positive reason for wanting the Commission to be a body of the Crown, discharging these functions in this way with public servants. I think that the betterment levy alone determines this, and makes it almost impossible to do—this extremely difficult work with all kinds of hazards, unless the Commission is a Crown body. Those are the positive reasons. Now, what about some of the legal consequences of this? First of all, on taxation: as I think the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Commission, as a Crown body, is not subject to normal taxation. Mr. Boyd-Carpenter When the hon. Member says “not subject to normal taxation” , is he saying that it is not subject to any taxation? What about local rates, for example? Mr. Skeffington It is for that reason that I would prefer to say that there may be some circumstances in which they would become liable for taxation. In the normal way they will not be liable. I can expand on that at length if the right hon. Gentleman would like. Action, of course, can be brought against the Commission—as I think the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady thought, though they thought the procedure was limited—under the Crown Proceedings Act. It certainly can be brought against the Commission, though, of course, it cannot be brought under that Act against individual members, unless it be that they have themselves committed some illegal act. But most of this difficulty disappears if the Committee would remember that the Commission itself is subject, under Clause 13, to planning consents and to planning controls. Once it is made subject to planning control, the appropriate part of the Planning Acts would apply against the Commission as though it were not the Crown. This is the simple result of this Clause. Mr. Boyd-Carpenter Which Clause? Mr. Skeffington Clause 13. Mr. Wells Surely this is one of the most valuable safeguards. At every turn in planning we come up against the unpleasant truth that the Minister is both judge and member of the executive. Every complaint that comes to a private Member of Parliament about planning is that the Minister is judge and jury, as it were, in his own cause. This gives great dissatisfaction to the man in the street. If it were possible for the man in the street to go for this Commission without Crown privilege, it would help him, I should have thought, very considerably. Mr. Skeffington I think perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not following what I am saying. The fact is that the Commission is subject, under Clause 13, to the application of the laws in relation to planning controls, and is not a body acting on its own. Before it can act, there either has to be a planning decision by the appropriate planning authority, or it itself has to apply for planning permission—the very fact that Clause 13 is inserted in this Bill has this legal consequence in planning matters: any interested subject who is aggrieved by the action of the Commission can proceed against the Commission as if it were not a Crown body. Therefore, I think possibly the hon. Gentleman did not understand the point that I was making. This enormously simplifies the position. It simplifies the length of my answer, and removes a great many of the fears that have been expressed by Members opposite. My right hon. Friend will consider the whole of this matter, so that he can be absolutely certain that what I have said is absolutely correct and that the citizen will not be under any disadvantage in relation to any action which he feels should be taken as against the Commission. This is a very considerable safeguard which I am sure will be greatly welcomed by all those concerned. On the other hand, the very fact that the Commission's operations are within the context of planning decisions, which already have procedures for representation both to the local planning authority and the Minister, with the inquiries that are made on planning appeals, and so on, [column 101]will in a very large number of cases almost certainly result in there being very little litigation. This may not be a great joy to members of our own profession, but I am sure it will be a very great joy to the public as a whole. Mr. Wells Did I understand the Parliamentary Secretary to say that a vast new body of civil servants was going to give great joy to the public? I think that is a most extraordinary remark. Mr. Skeffington I think the hon. Gentleman is either deaf or not really following with his usual attention. What I said—although I make no excuse at all for the fact—was that at long last we now have a body that will secure to the public the enhanced value of land, which has been due to the activity of the whole of the public, and see to it that, indeed, land is available for public purposes well in time. I do not make any defence of that. What I was saying on this point was that the whole of the Commission is subject to the normal planning procedure and planning consents, and, therefore, there are obvious legal remedies open to any citizen. I thought that hon. Members opposite would be very glad to know this. 12.45 p.m. Mr. Wells I am grateful to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for clarifying this point. I apologise. I must be a little deaf sitting at the far end of the Committee. The fact remains that the man in the street is not satisfied with planning procedures as they operate today. I think it true to say that in the six and a half years that I have been a Member of this House I have had more letters of complaint about planning matters than anything else. I do not wish to bring down the wrath of the Chair on my head for going too far into planning, but as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has said that the Commission will be subject under Clause 13 to the normal planning procedures, I think this will give no comfort to anybody. What the people want is a radical change in planning matters. They are completely dissatisfied with the situation as it now exists. This very unsatisfactory Bill might have provided one way in which it could have been altered. Our [column 102]Amendment seeks to leave out subsection (4). I am no lawyer and would not seek to get involved in the legal details. But I have had certain personal experience in the past of buying land from the Crown, and, it so happens of selling it back to the Crown. One of the curious anomalies that I learnt in this exercise concerned Stamp Duty. I do not know what the Commission's position will be with regard to Stamp Duty. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary, replying to our last debate, said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) seemed to be under the misapprehension that the levy involved here was not a tax. He said that my right hon. Friend kept on saying it was. But it seems to me that it is remarkably like a tax. Again, he said that it was not like a tax on whisky. Maybe it is not like a tax on whisky, in so far as the levy is something of a voluntary tax in that if one does not develop one does not pay—— Mr. Boyd-Carpenter If one does not drink whisky, one does not pay whisky tax. Mr. Wells So it is exactly like a tax on whisky. But the point I am seeking to make is that if we are to have a Commission with all the privileges of the Crown, we would like to know a great deal more about the taxation position. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary, in what he gave as his positive reasons when replying to the debate, made the point that the main function is the assessment and collection of betterment levy. Mr. Skeffington It is one of the main functions. Mr. Wells The Joint Parliamentary Secretary specifically emphasised this function. If the main function of the members of the Commission is to be tax gatherers, if they are to be full-blooded civil servants—perhaps one ought to say thin-blooded civil servants—why have the Bill at all? Why not let them operate through the ordinary mechanism of the Inland Revenue? It seems to me that subsection (4) means the creation of yet another department. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that in the view of Government this was the best way to do it. I suggest that, far [column 103]from its being the view of Government, it is the view of the gentleman who sit behind the Government. This is a pure example of Parkinson at its nastiest. Mr. Hamling Come off it! Mr. Wells I believe that this is purely Parkinson at its nastiest. It is no good the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) muttering “come off it” . He knows a great deal about industrial and other civil servants in his own part of the world, and I do not want to get into trouble with the Chair. The fact remains that the people are dissatisfied that there should be a further increase in the Civil Service and are dissatisfied with our present planning mechanisms, and I am extremely disappointed that the Government are not prepared to accept this extremely cogent Amendment. Mr. Hamling After listening to the speech by the hon. Gentleman, I wonder whether he has any friends left in the Civil Service at all. Talking about “thin-blooded civil servants” , attacking the intentions of civil servants, ought not to endear civil servants to him. I forecast that he will receive in future far more letters of protest from civil servants about his speeches than he has ever received about applications for planning permission. I am very surprised that the Amendment has been tabled. It seems to me entirely to contradict previous Opposition Amendments. The Opposition are saying here that we should take something out of the purview of the House of Commons. Mr. Boyd-Carpenter No, that has nothing to do with it. Mr. Hamling The Opposition have made such suggestions. They are now suggesting that the Land Commission should be an extra-Parliamentary body rather like the National Coal Board, which is not directly answerable to Parliament. As the right hon. Gentleman knows only too well from his long experience in Parliament, if one wants to put down a Question on the day-to-day working of the Transport Commission one cannot do so. Yet while he complains that the work of the Commission ought to be completely open to inspection by hon. Members, he moves an Amendment designed to prevent that happening. Mrs. Thatcher No. Mr. Hamling This is what we object to. It would be impossible, if this Amendment were carried, to question the day-to-day working of the Land Commission. Mrs. Thatcher We did not move an Amendment to turn the Land Commission into a separate corporation. Perhaps the William HamlingGentleman is confused. Mr. Hamling The hon. Lady suggests that it would become a body somewhere twixt Heaven and hell with no fixed means of abode, with no fixed constitutional position. That is the significance of her intervention. She says that it would not be under the Crown. So goodness knows where, in her opinion, it would be from the constitutional point of view. I listened carefully to the very clear and lucid explanation of my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. I thought his case was unanswerable. We should need civil servants to be appointed to this Commission. I cannot understand the Opposition's objection to having civil servants, or indeed, to having more of them. Under their administration the number of civil servants increased, and from time to time they appoint new Government bodies employing more civil servants. I am sure that they would not refuse to recognise that civil servants are people whom it is useful to employ to do jobs that the community needs. After all, they employed many hundreds of thousands of thin-blooded ones and thick-blooded ones—— Mr. Manuel Blue-blooded ones. Mr. Hamling More blue-blooded ones than perhaps were necessary. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) would probably be more of an expert on that than I am, despite the similarity of our names—to such an extent that I sometimes get his rude letters. One of the main functions of the Land Commission would be assessment and collection of betterment levy. I cannot understand why hon. and right hon. Members opposite want this function to be performed by people who are not civil servants. Mrs. Thatcher We do not. Mr. Hamling In other words, they do not want them done at all. What would be the status of the servants of this Commission from a constitutional point of view if they were not Crown servants? We have not been told what their constitutional status would be. Mr. Wells I thought I had made it plain that if we had to have this done at all, which I deplore, it should be done by the Inland Revenue. Mr. Hamling They are servants of the Crown. What we are now having from the opposition is the suggestion simply that the Land Commission should be a sub-office of the Crown. What is the significance of all the talk about not being able to sue servants of the Crown if the employees of the Commission are to be members of the Board of Inland Revenue. They would be in exactly the same position as the people about whom the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) was talking. Hon. Members opposite should go outside and sort out their differences, and then we might be able to make a little more progress with the Bill. What is certain is that the collection of this sum of taxation—and it is a form of taxation—is of a very specialist nature, but that would not be the only function of these servants. I suggest that the work in connection with the levy requires specialist people. I can imagine what the right hon. Gentleman opposite would say if some of the non-specialist taxation people walked in to deal with this specialist business. He would be the first to say “What we need is people who know their job” . Mr. Boyd-Carpenter Would the hon. Gentleman, therefore, recommend to his right hon. Friend that when we continue with the debate on Thursday we have the [column 106]Law Officers of the Crown present to advise us on the law? Mr. Hamling Not at all. It is the right hon. Gentleman who wants a little advice about the Law. Mr. Boyd-Carpenter From the Law Officers, not the hon. Member. Mr. Hamling The right hon. Gentleman cannot see the significance of the conflict between the two Amendments that we have been discussing this morning. We on this side can. It is the right hon. Gentleman who needs a little brushing up on the Law. We ought to open a correspondence course for the right hon. Gentleman and charge very modest fees. We on this side have no difficulty whatever with this part of the Bill. We are clear what its purpose is. My hon. Friend was right to draw attention to the effect of Clause 13. Here is a very clear indication of the goodwill of my right hon. Friend and the Government as a whole. They want to put into the Bill the very safeguards about which the hon. Lady was talking. We want to simplify matters. We want a situation in which the ordinary members of the public know what their legal position is and what their rights are. This is precisely what the Government are doing. The Amendment would not improve matters at all. It would make the constitutional position of the Commission quite untenable. I was going to say “quite unknowable” , because we have not yet had in speeches from the Opposition any suggestion about what would be the constitutional position of the Commission if the Amendment was carried— It being One o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. Committee adjourned till Thursday, 24th February, 1966, at half-past Ten o'clock. [column 107-108]The following Members attended the Committee: Mr. H. Hynd (Chairman) Alison, Mr. Alldritt, Mr. Box, Mr. Boyd-Carpenter, Mr. Dunnett, Mr. Elliott, Mr. R. W. Eyre, Mr. Farr, Mr. Fletcher, Mr. Ted Hamling, Mr. Harrison, Mr. Walter Howie, Mr. Johnson, Mr. James Manuel, Mr. Mott-Radclyffe, Sir C. Noble, Mr. Skeffington, Mr. Smith, Mr. John Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret Wells, Mr. John Willey, Mr. Frederick Copyright © Margaret Thatcher Foundation 2024. All Rights Reserved.

right

speech etc question propose mr michael alison flight interrupt time thursday shall continue case amendment argue general case direction minister clause reinforce term amendment require regulation publish public knowledge direction give provision measure commission hon friend member finchley mrs thatcher point provision bill present similar terminology word nationalisation act example coal industry nationalise industry minister empower general direction point case necessary minister question consult board nationalise industry necessity impose bill feel analogy operation commission relation minister procedure regard nationalise industry early legislation misleading commission certainly operate national scale different nationalise industry difference commodity deal common commodity sense land real issue stake particular proprietary ownership type property land column different relationship different individual make totally different commodity nationalise industry deal anxious reason minister relation commission direct responsibility publish known public direction commission draw attention committee clause bill relevant general case make clause general provision set draw committee particular attention subsection state commission undertake build development land acquire like certain believe amendment lead end consent commission obtain minister development build land possession obligation permission grant public regulation access knowledge intolerable impose community national body power develop build house local authority private developer housing association term bill body land commission power build house land acquire compulsorily agree secure minister consent act housing developer want absolutely certain dialogue minister commission housing development place particular piece land land own commission come public scrutiny comment believe amendment effect clause relate amendment find commission apply clause general direction minister commission use special procedure compulsory purchase orderscolumn direction secure commission power act situation empower buy compulsorily plan permission existence apply plan permission simultaneously compulsory purchase order direct result direct unpleasant bearing right local citizen present circumstance normal local authority procedure public inquiry local citizen certain right local authority believe local authority believe proud real sense public dialogue authority property right sense involve compulsory purchase procedure public inquiry dialogue party public context value local authority public sense overridden new power give commission plan permission time compulsory purchase order run harness order save time open real possibility demoralise sense local right respect local authority hold present new sort giant ogre interfere override exist right intolerable minister give power bill direction sort have lay matter public mean regulation amendment move interest secure wide public cognisance go auspex octopus body set bill joint parliamentary secretary ministry land natural resource mr arthur skeffington open discussion thursday hon lady member finchley mrs thatcher committee expect case customary charm expertise come associate practitioner revenue bar invite follow number interesting byway ordinary course event column happy tempting offer think need follow labyrinthine excursion amendment number point appropriately deal discuss amendment clause effect amendment right hon friend give direction commission form regulation hon member clause regulation form statutory instrument subject lengthy procedure house common view hon member amendment realise formidable constitutional process impose right hon friend massive constraint purpose amendment draw attention committee reason suggest number reason extreme difficulty create constitutional novelty consequence far wider merely bill far try think way working relation minister commission constrained inflexible possible adopt amendment reason shall hope committee decide accept amendment number reason say believe amendment unnecessary way absurd deal absurd consequence derisory sense mean absurd come translate practical application decide previous amendment sort direction right hon friend direction general character broad policy matter point arise general direction impossible translate regulationary form broad character narrow column comply rule house regulation certain precision debate come house ground narrow technical broad possible number case translate broad policy decision regulationary form important constitutional point possible comply rule house translate broad general policy direction regulation acceptable amendment seek consequence house common house lord parliament effect determine largely policy commission policy minister duty parliament generally consider examine minister criticise think right minister job parliament concern direct administrative consequence policy parliament largely assume responsibility minister purpose amendment extent novel certainly complete break previous parliamentary practice consequence describe transform general function parliament examiner criticiser policy largely determinor initiator policy mean veto think exceedingly undesirable consequence hon lady great point speech virtue consultation fact clause mention consultation say general fear requirement minister consult commission issue direction hon lady assume look precedent right hon friend member kingstonuponthame mr boydcarpenter generous think doubt assure hon lady look precedent long column bill get committee stage shall precedent break point hon lady give example old statute examine large number precedent general point consultation necessary word consultation statute great harm necessary arrangement envisage bill similar measure consider sitting administrative liaison continuously go minister administrative body time commission kind foreign state visit ambassador constant administrative liaison minister commission right hon friend minister deal institution kind touch appoint member dismiss member member report bind consultation time advise high authority great statute require opposition suggest minister unnecessary second point consultation normally give direction minister interest commissioner secure compliance policy say appoint member commission report fact general consultative arrangement go time mean usually difficulty ensure policy policy government adopt commission case commission body relationship feel ask depart policy want interest protect properly take action follow policy requirement minister government protection column commission direction give large majority case circumstance direction give commission ask follow policy desirable point view government policy follow profitable follow policy commission probably require direction minister report annual report take action matter clear public protection reason significance consultation requirement consultation relation bill look hon lady mention precedent imply volume precedent today quote properly act require consultation fact major statute deal relationship minister similar body direction half require consultation explain legally necessary half restore balance record statute require consultation national health service act require minister consult hospital board give direction necessary cotton commission cotton act near analogy land commission refer connection amendment week central land board establish town country planning act requirement consultation national park access countryside act consultation requirement ought mention scottish member crofter scotland act consultation require crofters commission new town act consultation require new town commission relation new town corporation requirement spirit point hon lady make say minister consult chairman column matter urgency business prevent take place sort formal requirement sense hon lady suggest powerful precedent good model purpose apart central land board housing act housing corporation section recent act pass previous government state requirement consultation mrs thatcher limitation refer mr skeffington limitation mrs thatcher limitation direction limit exercise function mr skeffington oh yes hon lady need fear come point completely misdirect point shall point deal regular argument say precedent break evenly thousand precedent direction bill draft hope committee account think recent precedent housing act good doubt reason consultation indicate mr michael noble hon gentleman refer crofter act right recent think comparable legislation scotland deal exactly problem land compulsory purchase highland islands development act say section secretary state consultation board board direction general character measure deal sort problem bring column ago present government acceptance think scottish member provision mr skeffington certainly accept point precedent break ancient statute uptodate statute broadly speak fiftyfifty think housing act far england wale concern good precedent take precedent legal reason consultation strong case hon lady go refer hon friend member barkston ash mr alison go refer bloodcurdling way power clause want traverse argument committee remember sure hon lady know amendment later notice paper right hon friend course remove clause come reason clause argument little strong clause disappear bill hon lady go refer point column official report sitting say refer transport act coal industry nationalisation act hon lady fall error subsection read comply performance function right hon friend attempt general direction outside function ultra vire bill consequence follow statute matter round way order legal consequence actually mrs thatcher point important relation clause virtually function limitless arthur skeffingtonjoint parliamentary secretary go place clause happy delete devastating equivalent place think argument prevail mr skeffington little difficult deal argument hon lady say significant relation clause find clause retain say argument significant case prepared accept emphasise far significance subsection concern direction validity far relate function commission true think ought record general direction concern measure limit way statement hon lady think realise actually hope take time number constitutional point arise want deal argument cogently hon lady save time subsequent amendment shall significance clause relation wideranging speech hon lady go point discretion commission exercise levy sense physically like fat boy pickwick respect characteristic flesh creep sure order attempt traverse argument stage difference levy charge land relation improvement value tax error right hon gentleman keep fall think relate principle consequence tax whisky charge land entirely different animal different principle different consequence involve column hon lady say tax matter certainty hold constitutional requirement give impression think discretion tax matter course discretion certain tax matter inspector taxis certain discretion recent act regard entertainment restrict course considerable discretion stage think need hon ladys interesting argument discretion bill extremely limited case bill discretion relation levy unlikely minister issue general direction like case record convenience assistance committee clause commission issue direction think fit avoid levy case c development start year transaction respect commission discretion limited discretion interest developer hope hon member opposite quarrel purpose second discretion relation collection levy levy assess commission discretion allow postponement payment instalment discretion honourable precedent central land board precisely type discretion hon lady find section town country planning act thirdly discretion commission clause bill exempt builder developer own land date white paper commission satisfied principal purpose project provision housing accommodation follow identical provision act establish central land board relation dead ripe land column extremely limited discretion think unlikely source general direction policy right hon friend final point committee despite parading precedent hon lady regale thursday plain fact single precedent amendment insert prescribed clause entirely novel principle reason precedent obvious require prescription way relation direction clause draft way direction constitute new relationship minister commission alien present constitutional belief relationship minister commission govern prescribe regulation government think right proper practical hope committee decisively reject amendment mr john boydcarpenter accuse parliamentary secretary having treat amendment lightly having extremely conscientious reply seek stage bill minister reply similar conscientiousness care length shall complaint score bind parliamentary secretary go widen gulf side committee matter question precedent inclined agree question right argument produce propose right point way hon gentleman say direction result decision previous amendment general character course precisely sort direction properly embody regulation column say regulation precise surely ought precise minister contemplate give commission direction precise character alarming finally hon gentleman say continuous administrative liaison commission minister parliament know public know early amendment refer thing direction special character give old boy network say undesirable say minister able direction continuous administrative liaison shall knowledge result prescribe difference side committee perfectly clear suggest hon friend press amendment minister land natural resource mr frederick willey think let easily right hon gentleman correct thing say fundamentally wrong approach constitutional issue division exercise executive legislative power precedent amendment right hon gentleman want dangerous confuse thing confuse line divide legislative action word prescribed import executive action secondly appreciate light experience wrong confuse ministerial responsibility parliament minister accountable parliament exercise executive responsibility provide blur issue direction subject prescription properly course arise arise later sure define subject legislative action define properly argument subject regulation precedent general direction issue executive act convert legislative act proper provision legislative action time blur responsibility accountability minister parliament major argument tell right hon gentleman discussion complain discuss subject background general direction consultation provision issue general direction irrelevant point point deliberately blur distinction different power exercise minister issue think right hon gentleman wrong hon lady obviously doubt notice say attention argument immediacy provide regulation immediate future indicate hon lady doubt go directly constitutional precedent precedent important remember important principle provide direction ought hitherto provide minister accountable direction ordinary doctrine ministerial responsibility question word propose leave stand clause committee divide ayes no division alldritt walter dunnett jack fletcher te darlignton hamle william woolwich w harrison walter wakefield howie w johnson james kstononhull w manuel archie skeffington arthur willey rt hn frederick alison michael barkston ash box donald boydcarpenter rt hn j elliott r w ncstleupontyne n eyre reginald farr john nobel rt hn michael smith john thatcher mrs margaret wells john maidstone chairman declare aye mrs thatcher beg amendment page line end insert think speech frederick willeyminister arthur skeffingtonjoint parliamentary secretary amendment probably turn round provide good speech amendment constitutional argument go purpose amendment relate early information parliamentary control hope member committee think right early information direction possible precedent amendment connection coal industry nationalisation act alas able find precedent acceptance amendment somewhat ironic hon member opposite rely solely precedent reply interesting intellectual situation hope mr archie manuel dislike intensely rely precedent particularly tory precedent mr boydcarpenter tell joint parliamentary secretary mrs thatcher look forward have archie manuelhon member new experience notice reply previous amendment joint parliamentary secretary minister give indication kind direction think crucial certainly crucial amendment think indication purpose intend use power column general direction mind alarming remark think joint parliamentary secretary say direction interest commission anxious number direction interest subject power commission wide far wide act joint parliamentary secretary cite narrow power narrow term reference wide measure wide power remember go house imperative indication direction go issue dictate direction act favour subject enormous power state think direction soon able minister accept amendment good deal protection foreign investor country people money company country development district find liable compulsory acquisition certain compensation market price market foreign investor liable devastating provision bill interested minister direct commission company come development district commission shall compulsorily acquire land interest company shall ask chancellor james callaghan exchequer draw attention overseas investor country provision bill like invest money country bill kind money time ask money invest country matter column like minister information note type body power compulsory purchase few particular body power compulsory purchase minister indication kind direction clash body think direction give appropriate minister minister large number different minister involve mr boydcarpenter mrs thatcher large number minister occur occur minister joint parliamentary secretary different ministry want piece land different purpose simultaneously commission contradictory direction affect particular piece land suppose example piece land free railway local government want housing want purpose water undertaking nuclear power go general direction land commission tell adjudicate different direction different minister give simultaneously know direction give maximum information real problem minister know separate department power compulsory purchase power direction hope discussion amendment design provide information possible shall indication problem meet mr skeffington discussion clear way deal amendment concentrate narrow issue matter apparently overflow say refer direction general character issue column case interest commission mean interest subject suggest sort case commission body kind like direction direct social purpose minister embark course action profitable follow normal practice sort thing arise time time arise town country planning act discretion relation disposal land local authority certain social purpose dispose land market price course ministerial consent case kind order cover case local authority ministerial consent case commission embark matter social policy request minister government like probably ought action protect report operation see safeguard depart normal practice take remunerative course action order comply government request mean point hon lady purpose bill way antisubject operation people country laughter happy point shall glad constantly repeatedly appreciate significantly hon member opposite certainly engage long task feel way see broad objective bill operation commission act way benefit people britain narrow constitutional sense say commission protection require ought direction amendment course invite immediate scrutiny parliament direction column say matter concern national security introduce parliament procedure consider necessary case suppose subject comment matter rely precedent democratic assembly procedure try prove meritorious accept public opinion party think want lightly change certainly close mind interesting note suggest limitation operation requirement immediately publish direction provide scrutiny parliament think fit connection vast undertaking publiclyowne industry activity statute mention find somewhat surprising requirement oppositition relation bill point ought clear hon lady ask minister minister refer course minister mention bill minister minister act jointly minister land natural resource secretary state scotland minister department mr boydcarpenter bill mr skeffington think reflection see inevitably case minister concern define see clause minister act jointly course case individual direction act separately scotland england hon lady fail amendment relation direction commission expect publish direction report parliament look policy period determine policy minister think proper way column think appropriate case enable parliament review policy period say previous amendment extent amendment table hon friend member oldham east mr mapp kind undesirable administrative constitutional consequence amendment accept ask committee reject mr alison find unconvinced general trend hon gentleman argument deal body national scope designation operation essentially local talk national communal benefit operation deceive operation commission result discrimination interest certain local people example crownholder grant freeholding operation commission benefit segment population particular locality different way benefit accrue community discriminatory effect benefit operation particular locality sense commission surely precise level great local authority great local authority large kind come house common general power bill example seek permission house engage substantial widespread activity local character commission sense precise level local authority way operation discriminate effect give locality argue activity occasion communal national impact local discriminate effect give benefit particular advantage local people think sense precisely akin competitive great local authority come house general power bill permission develop give locality necessity lay column commission local regional activity case satisfactorily argument mr manuel effect argument hear bench opposite especially hon member barkston ash mr alison cause great delay frustration concerned opposition view express morning accept local authority power intention interest connection land impede detriment common weal accept deal amendment largely deal previous deal actual direction general character think misleading hon lady member finchley mrs thatcher speak conflict view department minister want piece land different purpose local authority ministry housing local government want piece land housing secretary state defence want rifle range difficulty decision readily wrong adopt amendment committee insert principle bill regard good certain connection inevitable result cause delay frustration get job conflict interest presuppose amendment hon ladys speech appropriate minister right hon friend joint parliamentary secretary secretary state scotland know common interest relation particular application mr skeffington point ought early remark want bore committee go long nearly case land require result planning decision take commission wish column act obtain planning permission minister minister housing local government secretary state scotland possibility conflict extremely remote happen extremely remote mr manuel oblige hon friend intervention illustrate argument draw local authority experience major local authority scotland act planning authority planning department county ayr example embrace large landward area comprise small burgh major burgh kilmarnock ayr major authority accordance decision parliament plan area decide housing local authority privately develop industry county council act landward area ayrshire small burgh plan cover area time land come plan decision existence pm experience member local authority having suffer past conflict interest want land different purpose having see go think wrong purpose extremely glad bill come planning proposal decision local authority effective forget minister ask decide final analysis scotland person decide planning decision local authority correct adopt local authority secretary state scotland decision agree planning correct hope right hon member kingstonuponthame mr boydcarpenter agree connection position preserve safe experience planning officer difficult people mind agree mind column substantial evidence result good training difficult major authority planning officer mind occasion mr boydcarpenter like hon member mr manuel hope open persuasion difficult hon lady member finchley beam delightful way drawback hon member committee today rate counterpart hon lady sway argument possibly sway stick thoughtful argument adduce bench member hon member case build hon member opposite good recognise minister scotland england decision propose planning correct certain land available railway board station close land possibly valuable available area concentrated housing industry possibly heart town people like speculator crowd round position buttress previous decision planning authority hope hon lady right hon member take interest amendment agree connection local authority planning decision endorse secretary state scotland minister housing local government decision minister bind accept final analysis mr boydcarpenter amendment previous amendment committee entertaining experience consider joint parliamentary secretary hon member central ayrshire mr manuel effective spin time reinforcement summon moment award prize hon member ayrshire column afraid minister absolutely unplaced competition mr manuel point exude power hon member central ayrshire hon member represent ayrshire right hon gentleman hon friend upset suggest represent county mr boydcarpenter hon member compliment exuberant personality spread delectable county awkward morning government obvious lack enthusiasm bill show fact save previous amendment solely chairman cast vote fact minister ought assume try bill obviously play time whip see summon reprimand return reinforcement mr skeffington afford time mr boydcarpenter member central ayrshire make gallant attempt say old parliamentarian respect proposal cause delay delay amendment require minister shall lay copy direction suggest delay direction suggest hold lay time make shortly delay course hon gentleman know tell give joint parliamentary secretary opportunity splendid essay delay character general direction know precedent amuse present bold progressive government shelter precedent government simple proposition simply know column general direction contain healthy light publicity direct minister tell previous amendment joint parliamentary secretary draw attention continuous administrative liaison minister commission doubt help public know right hon gentleman press radio know hon member joint parliamentary secretary say oh general direction commission report far late report body come month end year relate direction give long cease practical consequence time appear embed report minister afraid give direction liable challenge house amendment successful know perfectly hopele challenge house month give harm difference joint parliamentary secretary argue direction know argue know late know practical effect surely negation good sense case shield process general cover go whitehall accept view case certainly case publish time surely weak argument objection publish provide late joint parliamentary secretary say amendment base idea commission antisubject subject need protect commission minister doubt joint parliamentary secretary think think continue presumably column joint parliamentary secretary follow example minister defence royal navy realise great people country think study clause second schedule know bill extremely antisubject come stage interesting joint parliamentary secretary minister seek demonstrate contrary people parliamentary secretary intensely suspicious manoeuvre regard measure form conceal nationalisation want know minister minister contemplate thing ashamed object publish let know general direction give commission extent commission entitle appear arbitrary foolish shall know time judgment minister direct minister seek general direction conceal fact give wholly lamentable state affair deal possibility difficulty national defence national security bind mr hynd see government realise academic provision government provision require defence country know cover point amendment government change policy national defence prejudice provision adopt parliamentary secretary feel complacent compete demand different land hon member woolwich west mr hamle recall department recently seek certain land woolwich different purpose fact particularly london southeast important area land available column competition different department commission give direction department prevail surely essential good public administration discharge house duty know direction ask minister expect ashamed general direction give commission reason conceal objection lay parliament delay involve process publicity true result right hon gentleman challenge conscious right welcome know wrong want hide concealment amendment great importance discuss previous amendment statutory instrument procedure proper committee sir aid casting vote dismiss proposal mean return time building deal small proposition publicity argument minister adduce previous amendment possibility lower executive legislative process merely ask proposal minister know forward amid doubt questioning unhappiness part country proceeding hon friend point affect willingne people invest country conduct fear bad opportunity know know quickly fear justify precedent mr hynd bluntly minister minister know intend ashamed refuse accept amendment column pm mr willey right hon gentleman odd way expedite proceeding mr boydcarpenter mere amateur compare parliamentary secretary mr willey hope right hon gentleman try retain accuracy speak subsequent debate spite say think thoughtful amendment constantly review relationship public corporation minister parliament hon member barkston ash mr alison wrong point local authority bring forward private bill extend power seek legislative approval extension power deal different concerned manner exercise power give authority parliament concerned manner exercise power direction minister say early amendment constitutionally offensive legislative form executive action right hon gentleman say purpose amendment go far feel minister make general direction attention parliament immediately obviously hitherto propose precedent important precedent experience follow precedent ought bring attention parliament ought obligation bring immediately attention parliament possibly confuse division function legislative executive issue precedent important experience important hear reason follow precedent government instance housing act column hon gentleman wish case ought bring committee experience disadvantage precedent fact know experience matter import minister bring attention parliament rightly criticise having different matter exercise executive power automatically bring parliament look scope minister power exercise deal point way minister ought let parliament know amendment fail ground experience precedent proposal repeatedly consider parliament government case amendment disadvantage previous amendment concept disadvantage case breach constitutional principle precedent quote experience quote amendment necessary recognise work effectively country broad doctrine ministerial accountability parliament rest mr boydcarpenter right hon gentleman emphasise importance precedent beg realise precedent kind body seek set bill rely precedent respect body different function relevant argument bill provide creep nationalisation bill provide imposition taxation outside normal taxation system deal matter completely outside sphere relevant precedent come question deal amendment merit right hon gentleman concede fairly minister ought information parliament give general direction column important character think misunderstood confirm gather confirm think important character right hon gentleman argument result leave minister day affect decision important matter experience administration matter appear sight small insignificant ultimately great significance importance good world judgment minister action subject criticism publicity give objective judgment important right hon gentleman say order deal argument unimportant direction allow body select committee house decide thing publish think put forward unreasonable argument bind mr hynd harm minister publish unimportant general direction give minister contemplate give general direction direction tell general character minister contemplate make direction fact make lot matter public importance significance parliament wish inform make unimportant harm normal procedure lay parliament understand mr hynd deposit copy library vote office think precedent right hon gentleman fail realise case make distinction treatment unimportant important general direction column decision important publish apparently leave good world good honest honourable judge cause particularly respect matter likely fierce party controversy arise complain tone right hon gentleman word substance suggest committee completely unsatisfactory leave minister day decision publicity give act meet point meet point amendment suggest committee meet demand public outside know right hon gentleman good bad mr willey careful thing unwritten constitution effective part constitution doctrine ministerial responsibility amendment constitution write reluctant appreciate right hon gentleman say say apply course field minister exercise executive function know exactly happen constitution know initiative minister bring matter house common initiative rest house common think well leave like want redeploy argument fundamental change like need convince experience necessity refer precedent matter continually consider parliament case today central land board similar body right hon gentleman talk creep nationalisation real nationalisation right hon gentleman talk column national health service violently oppose right hon gentleman hon friend bill oppose mr boydcarpenter right hon gentleman know untrue mr willey right hon gentleman probably forget colleague vote national health service respect mr boydcarpenter right hon gentleman intend repeat hoary story look reason amendment vote occasion repeat silly story right hon friend inaccurately repeat year mr willey sure mr hynd wish point social field industry step take set national corporation experience show necessary place obligation minister less extent previous amendment impair principle division executive legislative function impair doctrine ministerial responsibility reason hope right hon gentleman reflection press amendment mr noble want pick point minister speech significant probably opposite way ask committee use tell committee degree accuracy constitutional responsibility minister executive capacity parliament nationalise industry similar body unwritten extent strength sure agree case year grow resentment parliament people outside parliament increase use minister executive power sort field spread affect subject way member parliament knowledge long decision take column agree minister thoughtful amendment fundamentally disagree say sort relationship exist respect minister executive power change moment bill sort interference liberty subject form clearcut widespread propose blurring distinction minister responsibilitie clear simple case sort minister lay general direction parliament believe halfadozen year probably parliament ignore want debate reason time consider complaint parliament complaint people outside parliament hear see curb like regard rate bring open minister act affect subject affect parliament tend conceal mr alison minister correction kindly convey precise nature general power bill grant extension power definition extension commission power seek negotiation dialogue minister minister extension power bring house way extension power local authority general power bill minister agree clause commission obtain consent minister development land housing purpose typical case appropriate commission minister come house seek extension power noon mrs thatcher help point frederick willeyminister mr hynd hope reply reply certain point say case depart column precedent cite act follow precedent act cite great force housing act submit good precedent purpose act different purpose bill read section housing act narrow purpose fortunately happen act section read limited purpose minister rely bill main purpose precedent land commission bill impose subject annual liability money levy tax million render subject liable land acquire compulsorily scale like know minister say delete clause second appoint day argument different long bill power compulsory acquisition wide nature bill sufficient depart precedent hon member committee hon member bring forward case concern individual constituent hon member committee fight case individual constituent tenacity nature bill sufficient require minister depart precedent secondly kind direction mind far studiously avoid answer question arthur skeffingtonhis parliamentary secretary power know kind direction mind decision development take year advance person make decision know existence direction time column give act different way way act ignorance direction financial position probably change considerably accord know direction time direction minister mind garden path minister lead know take minister probably realise say time come family invest foreign country scotland foreign country good deal away point consider put investment country law country certainly consider invest country thing consider bill kind minister consider publish general direction bill shall affect certain foreign investor find chancellor james callaghanexchequer suffer adverse effect balance payment mr willey point consent arise limitation commission exercise power instance obtain consent exercise accept act parallel prefer central land board close bill emphasise hon lady concern nature provision nature scope exercise power general direction think say wide scope exercise power act bill concern scope exercise power nature legislative provision know hon lady right hon gentleman like bill deal constitutional point affect exercise power bill concerned purpose bill column question general direction repeat exact parallel present instance deal sort instance lesson draw different instance significance act recent point take committee successfully deploy occasion matter relation parliament executive draw lesson experience ask direction minister likely issue moment help committee hon lady raise question opportunity wish raise amendment bill purpose general direction affect exercise power commission light current circumstance raise point exercise power know affect citizen large course certainly minister subject criticism direction affect position citizen let know course let know mrs thatcher minister committee indication answer parliamentary question subject mean proper answer soon direction give parliamentary question regularly month detail direction give mr willey lie hon lady answer question play assure proper sensible reply mrs thatcher question ask ask minister proper sensible reply ask fact answer question information tell questioner detail direction give mr willey hon lady appreciate matter say matter authority house question paper assure hon lady sensible proper reply mr boydcarpenter course right hon gentleman mean aware practice house permit regular repetition question right hon gentleman aware afraid help find suggestion quarrel right hon gentleman say raise constitutional point arguable proposition agree mr hynd previous amendment respect arguable amendment amendment affect exercise minister power give propose give clause amendment sure know constitutional point surely point parliament properly discharge duty know happen minister account know despite way right hon gentleman build question simply boil amendment accept shall know respect accept depend know suggest satisfactory position leave satisfactory mr hynd fact right hon gentleman decline tell purpose propose use power decline understand exclude possible exercise decline exclude exercise hon friend ask case foreign investment country decline positive indication mind mind mr noble minister follow closely precedent column hon member edinburgh east mr willis session similar bill highland single example minister mind think highland development board mind precedent common mr boydcarpenter oblige right hon friend demonstrating government consistent thing refusal tell purpose propose exercise power respect right hon gentleman sensible reason wish deny parliament press radio country knowledge respect mr manuel surely right hon gentleman agree contribution like innocence personify numerous way opposition information desire initiative try find scottish parliamentary labour group difficulty previous secretary state scotland stage opportunity find apart question adjournment debate opportunity opposition want find mr boydcarpenter oblige hon member central ayrshire mr manuel tribute frankness openness right hon friend secretary state scotland show office try impose similar high standard ministerial conduct minister land natural resource hon member central ayrshire say opposition find method objection disclose information right away point leave burrow accept public harm come disclose afraid come point cause offence column repeat minister confident right earth object let know time mr hynd good book good love light deed know converse evil love lest deed know shall certainly press amendment question word insert committee divide aye no division alison michael barkston ash boydcarpenter rt hn j elliott r w ncstleupontyne n eyre reginald farr john nobel rt hn michael smith john thatcher mrs margaret wells john maidstone alldritt walter dunnett jack fletcher te darlington hamle william woolwich w harrison walter wakefield howie w johnson james kstononhull w manuel archie skeffington arthur willey rt hn frederick pm mr boydcarpenter beg amendment page line leave subsection respect minister assistant pity advantage attendance law officer morning clear point raise amendment raise question law certainly advantage committee assistance law officer crown know long experience law officer party government advise committee house complete impartiality law govern matter concerned plainly matter raise considerable question law absence law officer shall attempt elicit minister think necessary provide function commission officer servant shall perform behalf crown secondly effect practical term hear good deal respectfully precedent certainly precedent nationalisation statute reference support provision nationalise industry understand legal purpose servant crown corporation set statute advantage power body operate behalf crown like know mr hynd number thing provision body suppose statutory corporation subject general direction minister equip appellation government department gather body likely involve heavy litigation say benefit benefit measure law legal profession enormous beneficiary land commission engage litigation able claim crown privilege nondisclosure document face appear question purely tentatively question difficult question law hypothesis unfortunate provision use crown privilege court criticise judge hon member central ayrshire mr manuel aware recent case court session edinburgh admirable determination overrule claim crown privilege government department clause intend crown privilege litigation effect personal liability member commission officer respect act perform accordance duty seek protection general give crown servant acting column scope duty intend cover effect taxation subsection land commission normal provision taxation nationalise industry course liable tax somewhat improbable event make profit liable tax land commission immune taxation result provision expose taxation treat emanation appendage crown earth set administer thing right hon gentleman department right hon gentleman department officer crown act behalf crown similar status apparently give partiallyindependent statutory body relate sure number hon friend learn matter question ask status act behalf crown perform duty behalf crown wide implication english law fairly recent crown proceeding act far minimised committee possibly pass provision hear fully government answer question purpose make body generally body act behalf crown secondly apart purpose legal effect respect matter mention taxation litigation disclosure document liability member commission officer act commit course duty harm people generally legal consequence follow face startling provision mr manuel wonder right hon gentleman hon friend move amendment gather loyalty party opposite year support crown abhor go committee morning emblazon column newspaper tory party long believe support crown hon gentleman opposite agree substantial number hon member demonstrate house connection rhodesia belief crown come matter bad thing especially hon member opposite vote amendment mistakenly weaken regard prestige support crown hon member opposite demonstrate affinity loyalty bedeck political platform union jack law good case want elicit information matter right hon gentleman mention effect regard unfortunate press seize thing topical bright colourful thing press want careful go far mr boydcarpenter hon gentleman underrate intelligence press know perfectly crown likely gain association enterprise reply language hon gentleman understand non tali auxilio nec defensoribus istiis mr manuel afraid complete greek mr boydcarpenter gaelic mr manuel short contribution possibility matter reply right hon gentleman crown connection bill gracious speech majesty indicate programme support measure mr boydcarpenter point order order hon gentleman attribute particular political opinion sovereign respectfully submit rule house completely order chairman strictly order second thought hon member central ayrshire mr manuel probably agree mr manuel entirely agree right hon gentleman mean sense mean proposal gracious speech programme crown connection loose programme want record proceed dangerous ground connection mr boydcarpenter hon gentleman mrs thatcher agree hon member central ayrshire mr manuel wonder time talk amendment amendment enhance crown see ordinary people claim privilege remote relation crown frederick willeyminister arthur skeffingtonparliamentary secretary quote number precedent morning quote housing act think relevant note clause housing corporation minister follow precedent good precedent follow course precedent contrary direction example national assistance board claim act servant crown livestock commission similarly claim sure land commission like classify body point minister public body national coal board public corporation likewise servant crown examine carefully body action deem action crown land commission select body servant act protection servant crown right hon john boydcarpenterfriend point number consequence follow column existence subsection course great accuracy mr hynd read relevant provision relevant commentary halsbury vol xi edition take p p deal doubt great accuracy great illumination complicated provision number point grateful parliamentary secretary view explain point impinge bill servant deem servant crown severe limitation right sue contract crown proceeding act give new right sue crown contract procedural change pm second point occur section crown proceeding act servant crown crown liable tort limited circumstance circumstance set section note edition constitutional administrative law hood phillip state page section number case servant ordinary employer liable servant land commission liable case course act disadvantage subject think kind case sue crown servant liable individual capacity servant land commission liable negligence individual case far try servant representative capacity servant land commission presence subsection preclude ordinary subject get servant representative capacity considerable privilege regard proceeding discovery column interrogatory right hon friend refer considerable difference way subject enforce proceeding servant crown example able way indictment sure case decree specific performance important ordinary person compel person perform agree servant crown way court order declaratory right party course satisfaction person want decree specific performance grateful parliamentary secretary provision insert simple language halsbury practical effect subsection mr skeffington think well serve committee explain reason government wish body crown body deal far legal consequence raise hon member effect amendment deprive commissioner status crown body preclude place commission appoint civil servant tremendous implication reason think readily understand committee think reflection probably agree member opposition main function commission assessment collection betterment levy pretty obvious matter kind sort executive function ought public servant answerable effect equivalent government department subject normal arrangement check audit exist relation expenditure connection opposition advocate betterment provision carry inland revenue take valid point column body people public servant accustomed work wellknown procedure constitutional check arrangement scrutiny understand everybody reason think need detail stage wide amendment briefly collection assessment betterment view government new additional work require additional staff commission set case deal acquisition disposal management land function discharge body consequently collection betterment levy commission discharge difference standard status tradition procedural arrangement constitutional check necessary matter kind require administer important new revenue shall public servant amendment carry deprive commission service civil servant ordinary course event impossible transfer commission staff department mean public servant transfer department new body course superannuation right safeguard constitutional requirement pay wholly directly money provide parliament salary subhead vote grant aid impossible commission crown body requirement purpose commission state act legislation clear cut exercise function behalf crown reason desire public servant work think probably party agreement crown body transfer pay certainly pension position safeguard column furthermore indicate civil service tradition usual departmental arrangement accountability usual civil service management apply commission apply government department great safeguard public parliament positive reason want commission body crown discharge function way public servant think betterment levy determine make impossible extremely difficult work kind hazard commission crown body positive reason legal consequence taxation think right hon gentleman know commission crown body subject normal taxation mr boydcarpenter hon member say subject normal taxation say subject taxation local rate example mr skeffington reason prefer circumstance liable taxation normal way liable expand length right hon gentleman like action course bring commission think right hon gentleman hon lady think think procedure limit crown proceeding act certainly bring commission course bring act individual member commit illegal act difficulty disappear committee remember commission subject clause plan consent plan control subject plan control appropriate planning act apply commission crown simple result clause mr boydcarpenter clause mr skeffington clause mr wells surely valuable safeguard turn planning come unpleasant truth minister judge member executive complaint come private member parliament planning minister judge jury cause give great dissatisfaction man street possible man street commission crown privilege help think considerably mr skeffington think hon gentleman follow say fact commission subject clause application law relation planning control body act act planning decision appropriate planning authority apply planning permission fact clause insert bill legal consequence plan matter interested subject aggrieve action commission proceed commission crown body think possibly hon gentleman understand point make enormously simplify position simplify length answer remove great fear express member opposite right hon friend consider matter absolutely certain say absolutely correct citizen disadvantage relation action feel take commission considerable safeguard sure greatly welcome concern hand fact commission operation context planning decision procedure representation local planning authority minister inquiry planning appeal column large number case certainly result little litigation great joy member profession sure great joy public mr well understand parliamentary secretary vast new body civil servant go great joy public think extraordinary remark mr skeffington think hon gentleman deaf follow usual attention say excuse fact long body secure public enhance value land activity public land available public purpose time defence say point commission subject normal planning procedure planning consent obvious legal remedy open citizen think hon member opposite glad know pm mr wells grateful joint parliamentary secretary clarify point apologise little deaf sitting far end committee fact remain man street satisfied planning procedure operate today think true half year member house letter complaint plan matter wish bring wrath chair head go far planning joint parliamentary secretary say commission subject clause normal planning procedure think comfort anybody people want radical change plan matter completely dissatisfied situation exist unsatisfactory bill provide way alter column seek leave subsection lawyer seek involve legal detail certain personal experience past buy land crown happen sell crown curious anomaly learn exercise concern stamp duty know commission position regard stamp duty joint parliamentary secretary reply debate say right hon friend member kingstonuponthame mr boydcarpenter misapprehension levy involve tax say right hon friend keep say remarkably like tax say like tax whisky maybe like tax whisky far levy voluntary tax develop pay mr boydcarpenter drink whisky pay whisky tax mr well exactly like tax whisky point seek commission privilege crown like know great deal taxation position joint parliamentary secretary give positive reason reply debate point main function assessment collection betterment levy mr skeffington main function mr wells joint parliamentary secretary specifically emphasise function main function member commission tax gatherer fullbloode civil servant ought thinbloode civil servant bill let operate ordinary mechanism inland revenue subsection mean creation department joint parliamentary secretary say view government good way suggest far column view government view gentleman sit government pure example parkinson nasty mr hamle come mr wells believe purely parkinson nasty good hon member woolwich west mr hamle mutter come know great deal industrial civil servant world want trouble chair fact remain people dissatisfied increase civil service dissatisfied present planning mechanism extremely disappointed government prepared accept extremely cogent amendment mr hamle listen speech hon gentleman wonder friend leave civil service talk thinbloode civil servant attack intention civil servant ought endear civil servant forecast receive future far letter protest civil servant speech receive application planning permission surprised amendment table entirely contradict previous opposition amendment opposition say purview house commons mr boydcarpenter mr hamle opposition suggestion suggest land commission extraparliamentary body like national coal board directly answerable parliament right hon gentleman know long experience parliament want question daytoday working transport commission complain work commission ought completely open inspection hon member move amendment design prevent happen mrs thatcher mr hamle object impossible amendment carry question daytoday working land commission mrs thatcher amendment turn land commission separate corporation william hamlinggentleman confuse mr hamle hon lady suggest body twixt heaven hell fixed mean abode fix constitutional position significance intervention say crown goodness know opinion constitutional point view listen carefully clear lucid explanation hon friend joint parliamentary secretary think case unanswerable need civil servant appoint commission understand opposition objection have civil servant have administration number civil servant increase time time appoint new government body employ civil servant sure refuse recognise civil servant people useful employ job community need employ hundred thousand thinbloode one thickblooded one mr manuel bluebloode one mr hamle blueblooded one necessary hon friend member fife west mr william hamilton probably expert despite similarity name extent rude letter main function land commission assessment collection betterment levy understand hon right hon member opposite want function perform people civil servant mrs thatcher mr hamle word want status servant commission constitutional point view crown servant tell constitutional status mr wells think plain deplore inland revenue mr hamle servant crown have opposition suggestion simply land commission suboffice crown significance talk able sue servant crown employee commission member board inland revenue exactly position people hon lady member finchley mrs thatcher talk hon member opposite outside sort difference able little progress bill certain collection sum taxation form taxation specialist nature function servant suggest work connection levy require specialist people imagine right hon gentleman opposite nonspecialist taxation people walk deal specialist business need people know job mr boydcarpenter hon gentleman recommend right hon friend continue debate thursday column officer crown present advise law mr hamle right hon gentleman want little advice law mr boydcarpenter law officer hon member mr hamle right hon gentleman significance conflict amendment discuss morning right hon gentleman need little brushing law ought open correspondence course right hon gentleman charge modest fee difficulty bill clear purpose hon friend right draw attention effect clause clear indication goodwill right hon friend government want bill safeguard hon lady talk want simplify matter want situation ordinary member public know legal position right precisely government amendment improve matter constitutional position commission untenable go unknowable speech opposition suggestion constitutional position commission amendment carry oclock chairman adjourn committee question pursuant standing order committee adjourn till thursday february halfpast oclock column follow member attend committee mr h hynd chairman alison mr alldritt mr box mr boydcarpenter mr dunnett mr elliott mr r w eyre mr farr mr fletcher mr ted hamle mr harrison mr walter howie mr johnson mr james manuel mr mottradclyffe sir c noble mr skeffington mr smith mr john thatcher mrs margaret wells mr john willey mr frederick copyright margaret thatcher foundation right reserve

This bill requires actions to support Taiwan's participation in the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The U.S. Governor of the IMF must advocate for (1) Taiwan's admission into the IMF as a member, (2) Taiwan's participation in the IMF's regular surveillance activities relating to Taiwan's economic and financial policies, (3) employment opportunities at the IMF for Taiwan nationals, and (4) Taiwan's ability to receive IMF technical assistance and training.

right

bill require action support taiwan participation international monetary fund imf governor imf advocate taiwan admission imf member taiwan participation imfs regular surveillance activity relate taiwan economic financial policy employment opportunity imf taiwan national taiwan ability receive imf technical assistance training

Speeches, etc. Copyright © Margaret Thatcher Foundation 2024. All Rights Reserved.

right

speech etc copyright margaret thatcher foundation right reserve

Speeches, etc. Local rates must go on however much we talk about having some other method, said Mrs. Margaret Thatcher, M.P. for the Finchley Division, summing up a discussion on the reorganisation of local government at the Conservative annual local government conference in London on Saturday. “Don't talk about abolishing anything until you have got an idea of what you are going to put in its place,” she declared. “That applies to rates and local government. However much we talk the rates must go on.” Mrs. Thatcher, who is an Opposition front bench spokesman on housing and land, said it was always easy to make out a case for larger units of local government. But the danger in these larger units was that they got more committees, more paper work, and fewer decisions. “Local government is a place for big-minded people who can take decisions. There is no place in it for the pernickety.” Copyright © Margaret Thatcher Foundation 2024. All Rights Reserved.

right

speech etc local rate talk have method say mrs margaret thatcher mp finchley division sum discussion reorganisation local government conservative annual local government conference london saturday not talk abolish get idea go place declare apply rate local government talk rate mrs thatcher opposition bench spokesman housing land say easy case large unit local government danger large unit get committee paper work few decision local government place bigminded people decision place pernickety copyright margaret thatcher foundation right reserve

This bill prohibits certain Chinese citizens from receiving visas to participate in graduate or post-graduate studies in science, technology, engineering, or math (STEM) and contains other related provisions. This prohibition applies to F (academic student) and J (exchange visitor) visas and does not apply to citizens or permanent residents of Taiwan or Hong Kong. (China considers Taiwan a Chinese province. Hong Kong is a special administrative region within China, and most of its permanent inhabitants are Chinese citizens.) The Department of State may waive this prohibition on a case-by-case basis for national security purposes or if the applicant is a member of a religious or ethnic group that is systematically oppressed by the Chinese Communist Party. Institutions of higher education in the federal Student and Exchange Visitor Program must annually certify that no prohibited Chinese citizens are permitted to participate in the institution's graduate or post-graduate STEM programs. A recipient of a federal STEM research grant must certify that the recipient (1) is not a Chinese citizen or a participant in a Chinese government foreign researcher recruitment program (a program that compensates individuals to conduct STEM-related research and development), and (2) will not knowingly use grant funds to employ such an individual. Entities that receive certain federal research or education assistance shall not knowingly employ any individual participating in a Chinese government foreign researcher recruitment program. An individual who recruits or performs research for such a program must register as an agent of a foreign principal.

right

bill prohibit certain chinese citizen receive visa participate graduate postgraduate study science technology engineering math stem contain related provision prohibition apply f academic student j exchange visitor visa apply citizen permanent resident taiwan hong kong china consider taiwan chinese province hong kong special administrative region china permanent inhabitant chinese citizen department state waive prohibition casebycase basis national security purpose applicant member religious ethnic group systematically oppress chinese communist party institution high education federal student exchange visitor program annually certify prohibit chinese citizen permit participate institution graduate postgraduate stem program recipient federal stem research grant certify recipient chinese citizen participant chinese government foreign researcher recruitment program program compensate individual conduct stemrelate research development knowingly use grant fund employ individual entity receive certain federal research education assistance shall knowingly employ individual participate chinese government foreign researcher recruitment program individual recruit perform research program register agent foreign principal

Speeches, etc. Copyright © Margaret Thatcher Foundation 2024. All Rights Reserved.

right

speech etc copyright margaret thatcher foundation right reserve

Speeches, etc. Copyright © Margaret Thatcher Foundation 2024. All Rights Reserved.

right

speech etc copyright margaret thatcher foundation right reserve

Speeches, etc. We have had a succession of great leaders of our Party and it has been my privilege to serve with three of them—Harold Macmillan, Alec Douglas-Home and Edward Heath. I am, therefore, very deeply aware and properly fearful of the great responsibility which you have placed upon me. And I know it will need all the courage, the thoughtfulness and decisiveness that I can bring to that task. It will need too all the loyalty, support and determination of which you, the Party, have so generously given. I have been very grateful in the past few days—and it seems so much longer than ten days—for the kindness and support of my Shadow Cabinet colleagues, and Willie Whitelaw in particular, and the Parliamentary Party through the 1922 Committee. You, Lord Hailsham, have always pointed the way of a Conservative Party. Somehow I feel there have been times when we have lost our vision for the future, and we know that where there is no vision the people will surely perish. To live merely from day to day, or from hour to hour is not enough for a great society. Had that been sufficient for Britain we should never have built a great Commonwealth of nations; we should never have set out on those great adventures in Elizabethan times to discover unknown lands; we should never had annunciated or practised some of the great legal principles which recognised the fundamental rights of man and their equality before the law. [end p1] We should never have founded a Parliamentary democracy, and we should never have fought to keep those ideals a reality for all, or to see that freedom and liberty did not perish. In all of these things, we'have had a vision. And in all of them that vision has been outward looking towards the world. Now we have turned inwards and we seem to be fragmenting our society and concentrating on differences between us as factions pursue their separate aims relentlessly. But I believe our people are aware of these squabbles. They are aware that all is not well. They do not like living beyond their means as a nation. They don't like, when they travel abroad, being treated as a poor nation whose only greatness lies in her past. They don't like the bureaucratic society that socialism is fast creating. They are aware that equity is a better principle on which to found decisions than might. They are aware that it is not the size of a nation that counts but its spirit. The many letters that I have received in the last ten days have shown two particular requirements. They demand a forthright style of leadership, and that I believe we have always had in the Conservative Party. We have certainly had it with the leaders under whom I have been privileged to serve. Secondly, they have demanded more emphasis on principle. These letters have come from people in all walks of life, from all over the British Isles, feeling, sensing, needing, requiring, asking for the same thing. The vision is still there. They desire to clothe it in reality and we must be the instrument to enable them to achieve that. In elections in which I have taken part we have thought it was the most important election of all times. But I think the next one really will be a crucial one because if by any chance the Socialists were to win again we would be set irretrievably on the path to the Socialist State. And we would have gone too far towards that State ever to turn it back in our lifetime. But that is not the kind of Britain that gave us a great past and it's not the kind of Britain which will give us a great future. [end p2] I believe that every time the people are faced with the choice—the choice between a free society or a socialist/communist state—when they are faced with it and they recognise it, they totally reject it. But I believe that perhaps too few of them are aware that while our opponents retain their objectives, they pursue them by more obscure means. Now if we can show the people what is happening I believe that once and for all they will reject socialism. I have spoken of the need for vision or purpose. I believe that is paramount, but alone it is not enough. One must translate that vision into policies. We know full well that there are complex issues that we face now, some of them new, some of them being experienced to a degree, like inflation, as we have never experienced before, some of them making great demands upon world resources, some of them requiring changes in world institutions. We must consider all of these things, and find policies to deal with the complex nature of society before us, both its complex nature nationally and internationally. It must, therefore, be part of our duty to set up the policy groups so that we have the policies for the future—the policies we shall need when we take over. We must be properly equipped for the task. We must know how we are going to tackle militancy. Maybe it is not right to face a great objective in your path by trying to go through it. It might be better to try to find a way round it. But if we need purpose and vision and if we need policies, we also need the third thing and that is presentation. It is no good having a first class product unless people know about it. And they won't know about it unless we tell them about it. [end p3] As the old politicians learnt to use oratory—and some of our present politicians, I turn to Lord HailshamQuintin, still know how to use oratory—so we must use the instruments now at our disposal. Perhaps a different style, a different technique, but once mastered it is one which enables us to bring the message into every home in a more intimate way then ever before. We must become adept at all of these techniques of communication. The price of failure is heavy. The heritage which our forefathers bequeathed us must be renewed and passed on to future generations. To the fulfilment of that task and in honour of all our previous leaders I pledge my strength, loyalty and determination. Copyright © Margaret Thatcher Foundation 2024. All Rights Reserved.

right

speech etc succession great leader party privilege serve harold macmillan alec douglashome edward heath deeply aware properly fearful great responsibility place know need courage thoughtfulness decisiveness bring task need loyalty support determination party generously give grateful past day long day kindness support shadow cabinet colleague willie whitelaw particular parliamentary party committee lord hailsham point way conservative party feel time lose vision future know vision people surely perish live merely day day hour hour great society sufficient britain build great commonwealth nation set great adventure elizabethan times discover unknown land annunciate practise great legal principle recognise fundamental right man equality law end found parliamentary democracy fight ideal reality freedom liberty perish thing wehave vision vision outward look world turn inward fragment society concentrate difference faction pursue separate aim relentlessly believe people aware squabble aware like live mean nation not like travel abroad treat poor nation greatness lie past not like bureaucratic society socialism fast create aware equity well principle find decision aware size nation count spirit letter receive day show particular requirement demand forthright style leadership believe conservative party certainly leader privilege serve secondly demand emphasis principle letter come people walk life british isle feel sense need require ask thing vision desire clothe reality instrument enable achieve election take think important election time think crucial chance socialist win set irretrievably path socialist state go far state turn lifetime kind britain give great past kind britain great future end believe time people face choice choice free society socialistcommunist state face recognise totally reject believe aware opponent retain objective pursue obscure mean people happen believe reject socialism speak need vision purpose believe paramount translate vision policy know complex issue face new experience degree like inflation experience make great demand world resource require change world institution consider thing find policy deal complex nature society complex nature nationally internationally duty set policy group policy future policy shall need properly equip task know go tackle militancy maybe right face great objective path try well try find way round need purpose vision need policy need thing presentation good have class product people know will not know tell end old politician learn use oratory present politician turn lord hailshamquintin know use oratory use instrument disposal different style different technique master enable bring message home intimate way adept technique communication price failure heavy heritage forefather bequeath renew pass future generation fulfilment task honour previous leader pledge strength loyalty determination copyright margaret thatcher foundation right reserve

Speeches, etc. Copyright © Margaret Thatcher Foundation 2024. All Rights Reserved.

right

speech etc copyright margaret thatcher foundation right reserve

This bill establishes a point of order that, when the annualized rate of inflation exceeds 4.5%, prohibits the House and Senate from considering legislation that provides new budget authority and is estimated to result in an increase to the rate of inflation. The prohibition may be waived in the Senate by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Senate.

right

bill establish point order annualize rate inflation exceed prohibit house senate consider legislation provide new budget authority estimate result increase rate inflation prohibition waive senate affirmative vote threefifth senate

This bill establishes programs for research on and deployment of advanced materials and technologies applicable to pipelines and associated infrastructure (e.g., liquified natural gas facilities and liquid fuel storage facilities).

right

bill establish program research deployment advanced material technology applicable pipeline associate infrastructure eg liquify natural gas facility liquid fuel storage facility

This bill requires states, as a condition of federal payment under Medicaid for family planning services, to report certain abortion data to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (Currently, reporting is voluntary.) The CDC must develop standardized questions for states with respect to specified variables (e.g., maternal demographics and methods of abortion).

right

bill require state condition federal payment medicaid family planning service report certain abortion datum center disease control prevention cdc currently report voluntary cdc develop standardized question state respect specify variable eg maternal demographic method abortion

This bill establishes new federal criminal offenses for conduct involving the obstruction of interstate highways.

right

bill establish new federal criminal offense conduct involve obstruction interstate highway

This bill prohibits giving assistance, such as various types of economic support or military training, to countries that opposed U.S. positions on more than 50% of the recorded votes in the most recent United Nations session. A country may be exempted if there has been a fundamental change in the country's leadership and policies and the Department of State determines that the country will no longer oppose the U.S. position. The President may also exempt a country for U.S. national security interests.

right

bill prohibit give assistance type economic support military training country oppose position record vote recent united nations session country exempt fundamental change countrys leadership policy department state determine country long oppose position president exempt country national security interest

This bill requires the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to issue guidance for states on coverage of prescription digital therapeutics (i.e., software applications that are used to prevent, manage, or treat medical conditions) under Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP).

right

bill require center medicare medicaid service issue guidance state coverage prescription digital therapeutic ie software application prevent manage treat medical condition medicaid children health insurance program chip

This bill extends U.S. support and use of the International Space Station through FY2030.

right

bill extend support use international space station

This bill makes it a violation of federal law for a recipient of federal funds who operates, sponsors, or facilitates athletic programs or activities to permit a person whose sex is male to participate in an athletic program or activity that is designated for women or girls. The bill specifies that sex shall be recognized based solely on a person's reproductive biology and genetics at birth.

right

bill make violation federal law recipient federal fund operate sponsor facilitate athletic program activity permit person sex male participate athletic program activity designate woman girl bill specify sex shall recognize base solely person reproductive biology genetic birth

This bill authorizes the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers to establish a human trafficking awareness training program for state, local, tribal, territorial, and educational institution law enforcement personnel.

right

bill authorize federal law enforcement training center establish human trafficking awareness training program state local tribal territorial educational institution law enforcement personnel