UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Speeches

  • Nigel Farage – 2016 Speech to European Parliament

    nigelfarage

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nigel Farage, the Leader of UKIP, to the European Parliament on 28 June 2016.

    Funny, isn’t it? When I came here 17 years ago and I said that I wanted to lead a campaign to get Britain to leave the EU, you all laughed at me. Well I have to say, you’re not laughing now, are you? And the reason you’re so upset, the reason you’re so angry has been perfectly clear form all the angry exchanges this morning – you as a political project are in denial. You’re in denial that your currency is failing, just look at the Mediterranean, as a policy to impose poverty on Greece and the rest of the Mediterranean you’ve done very well and you’re in denial over Mrs Merkel’s call last year for as many people as possible to cross the Mediterranean into the EU has led to massive divisions between countries and within countries.

    But the biggest problem you’ve got and the main reason the UK voted the way that it did is you have, by stealth, by deception, without ever telling the truth to the British or the rest of the people of Europe, you have imposed upon them a political union and when the people in 2005 in the Netherlands and France voted against that political union when they rejected the constitution, you simply ignored them and brought the Lisbon Treaty in through the back door.

    What happened last Thursday was a remarkable result, it was indeed a seismic result, not just for British politics, for European politics but perhaps even for global politics too because what the little people did, what the ordinary people did, what the people who have been oppressed over the last few years and see their living standards go down – they rejected the multinationals, they rejected the merchant banks, they rejected big politics and they said, actually, we want our country back, we want our fishing waters back, we want our borders back, we want to be an independent self-governing, normal nation and that is what we have done and that is what must happen. And in doing so we now offer a beacon of hope to democrats across the rest of the European continent. I’ll make one prediction this morning – the UK will not be the last member state to leave the EU.

    The question is what do we do next – it is up to the British government to invoke Article 50 and I have to say I don’t think we should take too long in doing it. I totally agree, Mr Juncker, that the British people have voted, we need to make sure that it happens.

    But what I would like to see is a grown-up and sensible attitude to how we negotiate a different relationship. I know that virtually none of you have ever done a proper job in your lives or worked in business or worked in trade or, indeed, ever created a job, but listen, just listen.

    You’re quite right Mr Schulz, UKIP used to protest against the establishment and now the establishment protests against UKIP, so something has happened here. Let us listen to some simple, pragmatic economics.

    We between us, between your countries and my country we do an enormous amount of business in goods and services, that trade is mutually beneficial to both of us, that trade matters – if you were to decide to cut off your noses to spite your faces and reject any idea of a sensible trade deal the consequences would be far worse for you than it would be for us. Even no deal is better for the United Kingdom than the current rotten deal we’ve got, but if we were to move to a position where tariffs were reintroduced on products like motor cars then hundreds of thousands of German workers would risk losing their jobs.

    Why don’t we just be pragmatic, sensible, grown-up, realistic and let’s cut between us a sensible, tariff-free deal and thereafter recognise that the UK will be your friend, that we will trade with you, we will co-operate with you, we will be your best friends in the world but do that, do it sensible and allow us to go off and pursue our global ambitions and future. Thank you.

  • George Osborne – 2016 Statement on the UK Economy

    gosborne

    Below is the text of the speech made by George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 27 June 2016.

    Today I want to reassure the British people, and the global community, that Britain is ready to confront what the future holds for us from a position of strength.

    That is because in the last six years the government and the British people have worked hard to rebuild the British economy.

    We have worked systematically through a plan that today means Britain has the strongest major advanced economy in the world.

    Growth has been robust.

    The employment rate is at a record high.

    The capital requirements for banks are ten times what they were.

    And the budget deficit has been brought down from 11% of national income, and was forecast to be below 3% this year.

    I said we had to fix the roof so that we were prepared for whatever the future held.

    Thank goodness we did.

    As a result, our economy is about as strong as it could be to confront the challenge our country now faces.

    That challenge is clear.

    On Thursday, the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union.

    That is not the outcome that I wanted or that I threw everything into campaigning for.

    But Parliament agreed that there are issues of such constitutional significance that they cannot solely be left to politicians, and must be determined by the people in a referendum.

    Now the people have spoken and we, in this democracy, must all accept that result and deliver on their instructions.

    I don’t resile from any of the concerns I expressed during the campaign, but I fully accept the result of the referendum and will do everything I can to make it work for Britain.

    It is inevitable, after Thursday’s vote, that Britain’s economy is going to have to adjust to the new situation we find ourselves in.

    In the analysis that the Treasury and other independent organisations produced, three particular challenges were identified – and I want to say how we meet all three.

    First, there is the volatility we have seen and are likely to continue to see in financial markets.

    Those markets may not have been expecting the referendum result – but the Treasury, the Bank of England, and the Financial Conduct Authority have spent the last few months putting in place robust contingency plans for the immediate financial aftermath in the event of this result.

    We and the PRA have worked systematically with each major financial institution in recent weeks to make sure they were ready to deal with the consequences of a vote to leave.

    Swap lines were arranged in advance so the Bank of England is now able to lend in foreign currency if needed. As part of those plans, the Bank and we agreed that there would be an immediate statement on Friday morning from the Governor, Mark Carney.

    As Mark made clear, the Bank of England stands ready to provide £250 billion of funds, through its normal facilities, to continue to support banks and the smooth functioning of markets.

    And we discussed our co-ordinated response with other major economies in calls on Friday with the Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors of the G7.

    The Governor and I have been in regular touch with each other over the weekend – and I can say this this morning: we have further well-thought-through contingency plans if they are needed.

    In the last 72 hours I have been in contact with fellow European finance ministers, central bank governors, the managing director of the IMF, the US Treasury Secretary and the Speaker of Congress, and the CEOs of some of our major financial institutions so that collectively we keep a close eye on developments.

    It will not be plain sailing in the days ahead.

    But let me be clear. You should not underestimate our resolve.

    We were prepared for the unexpected.

    We are equipped for whatever happens.

    And we are determined that unlike eight years ago, Britain’s financial system will help our country deal with any shocks and dampen them – not contribute to those shocks or make them worse.

    The second challenge our analysis identified in advance was the uncertainty that a vote to leave would bring in the coming months and beyond as Britain worked with its European allies to create a new relationship.

    The Prime Minister has given us time as a country to decide what that relationship should be by delaying the decision to trigger the Article 50 procedure until there is a new Prime Minister in place for the autumn.

    Only the UK can trigger Article 50, and in my judgement we should only do that when there is a clear view about what new arrangement we are seeking with our European neighbours.

    In the meantime, and during the negotiations that will follow, there will be no change to people’s rights to travel and work, and to the way our goods and services are traded, or to the way our economy and financial system is regulated.

    However, it is already evident that as a result of Thursday’s decision, some firms are continuing to pause their decisions to invest, or to hire people.

    As I said before the referendum, this will have an impact on the economy and the public finances – and there will need to be action to address that.

    Given the delay in triggering Article 50 and the Prime Minister’s decision to hand over to a successor, it is sensible that decisions on what that action should consist of should wait for the OBR to assess the economy in the autumn, and for the new Prime Minister to be in place.

    But no one should doubt our resolve to maintain the fiscal stability we have delivered for this country. To all companies large and small I would say this: the British economy is fundamentally strong, we are highly competitive and we are open for business.

    The third and final challenge I spoke of was that of ensuring that Britain was able to agree a long-term economic relationship with the rest of Europe that provided for the best possible terms of trade in goods and services.

    Together, my colleagues in the government, the Conservative Party and in Parliament will have to determine what those terms should be – and we’ll have to negotiate with our European friends to agree them.

    I intend to play an active part in that debate – for I want this great trading nation of ours to put in place the strongest possible economic links with our European neighbours, with our close friends in North America and the Commonwealth, and our important partners like China and India.

    I do not want Britain to turn its back on Europe or the rest of the world.

    We must bring unity of spirit and purpose and condemn hatred and division wherever we see it.

    Britain is an open and tolerant country and I will fight with everything I have to keep it so.

    Today I am completely focussed on the task in hand as Chancellor of the Exchequer to bring stability and reassurance.

    In conclusion, the British people have given us their instructions.

    There is much to do to make it work.

    We start from a position of hard-won strength.

    And whatever the undoubted challenges, my colleagues and I are determined to do the best for Britain.

  • David Cameron – 2016 Resignation Speech

    davidcameron

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, on 24 June 2016 following the referendum result to leave the EU.

    The country has just taken part in a giant democratic exercise – perhaps the biggest in our history. Over 33 million people – from England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Gibraltar – have all had their say.

    We should be proud of the fact that in these islands we trust the people with these big decisions.

    We not only have a parliamentary democracy, but on questions about the arrangements for how we are governed, there are times when it is right to ask the people themselves – and that is what we have done.

    The British people have voted to leave the European Union and their will must be respected.

    I want to thank everyone who took part in the campaign on my side of the argument, including all those who put aside party differences to speak in what they believed was the national interest.

    And let me congratulate all those who took part in the leave campaign – for the spirited and passionate case that they made.

    The will of the British people is an instruction that must be delivered. It was not a decision that was taken lightly, not least because so many things were said by so many different organisations about the significance of this decision.

    So there can be no doubt about the result.

    Across the world people have been watching the choice that Britain has made. I would reassure those markets and investors that Britain’s economy is fundamentally strong.

    And I would also reassure Brits living in European countries and European citizens living here that there will be no immediate changes in your circumstances. There will be no initial change in the way our people can travel, in the way our goods can move or the way our services can be sold.

    We must now prepare for a negotiation with the European Union. This will need to involve the full engagement of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Governments, to ensure that the interests of all parts of our United Kingdom are protected and advanced.

    But above all this will require strong, determined and committed leadership.

    I am very proud and very honoured to have been Prime Minister of this country for six years.

    I believe we have made great steps, with more people in work than ever before in our history; with reforms to welfare and education; increasing people’s life chances; building a bigger and stronger society; keeping our promises to the poorest people in the world, and enabling those who love each other to get married whatever their sexuality.

    But above all restoring Britain’s economic strength, and I am grateful to everyone who has helped to make that happen.

    I have also always believed that we have to confront big decisions – not duck them.

    That’s why we delivered the first Coalition government in seventy years to bring our economy back from the brink. It’s why we delivered a fair, legal and decisive referendum in Scotland. And why I made the pledge to renegotiate Britain’s position in the European Union and hold a referendum on our membership, and have carried those things out.

    I fought this campaign in the only way I know how – which is to say directly and passionately what I think and feel – head, heart and soul.

    I held nothing back.

    I was absolutely clear about my belief that Britain is stronger, safer and better off inside the European Union, and I made clear the referendum was about this and this alone – not the future of any single politician, including myself.

    But the British people have made a very clear decision to take a different path, and as such I think the country requires fresh leadership to take it in this direction.

    I will do everything I can as Prime Minister to steady the ship over the coming weeks and months, but I do not think it would be right for me to try to be the captain that steers our country to its next destination.

    This is not a decision I have taken lightly, but I do believe it is in the national interest to have a period of stability and then the new leadership required.

    There is no need for a precise timetable today, but in my view we should aim to have a new Prime Minister in place by the start of the Conservative Party Conference in October.

    Delivering stability will be important and I will continue in post as Prime Minister with my Cabinet for the next three months. The Cabinet will meet on Monday.

    The Governor of the Bank of England is making a statement about the steps that the Bank and the Treasury are taking to reassure financial markets. We will also continue taking forward the important legislation that we set before Parliament in the Queen’s Speech. And I have spoken to Her Majesty the Queen this morning to advise her of the steps that I am taking.

    A negotiation with the European Union will need to begin under a new Prime Minister, and I think it is right that this new Prime Minister takes the decision about when to trigger article 50 and start the formal and legal process of leaving the EU.

    I will attend the European Council next week to explain the decision the British people have taken and my own decision.

    The British people have made a choice. That not only needs to be respected – but those on the losing side of the argument, myself included, should help to make it work.

    Britain is a special country.

    We have so many great advantages.

    A parliamentary democracy where we resolve great issues about our future through peaceful debate; a great trading nation, with our science and arts, our engineering and our creativity respected the world over.

    And while we are not perfect, I do believe we can be a model of a multi-racial, multi-faith democracy, where people can come and make a contribution and rise to the very highest that their talent allows.

    Although leaving Europe was not the path I recommended, I am the first to praise our incredible strengths. I have said before that Britain can survive outside the European Union and indeed that we could find a way.

    Now the decision has been made to leave, we need to find the best way, and I will do everything I can to help.

    I love this country – and I feel honoured to have served it.

    And I will do everything I can in future to help this great country succeed.

  • Michael Wilshaw – 2016 Speech to Festival of Education

    fmichaelwilshaw

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Wilshaw at the Festival of Education held at Wellington College in Berkshire on 23 June 2016.

    It is good to speak on this momentous day in British history when the decision to stay or leave the European Union will have a profound effect on the future of our country.

    I do hope though, when the decision is made and the dust settles, people will see that despite the sound and fury, those on both sides of the argument have spoken with passion for what they truly believe.

    In the same way, I hope that when my term of office ends in a few months’ time, people will understand that what I have said and done has been motivated by a passionate desire to improve the lives of children and young people.

    If I have stirred up emotions from time to time and caused offence by speaking bluntly, then I apologise. But I have been a Chief Inspector in a hurry, impatient to bring about improvement through inspection.

    I leave office knowing that, although our inspection frameworks are now tougher and more demanding than 5 years ago, many more children are in good and outstanding schools than ever before. I do hope that this is recognised by those who have, from time to time, questioned my approach and sometimes taken my words completely out of context.

    Our education system is miles better than it was 20 years ago when Ofsted came into being. And each year since, we’ve seen incremental improvement.

    Our primary schools, in particular, are doing well, although there is much to do in many of our secondary schools. So why is our education system still mediocre and not up there with the best in the world?

    Quite simply, it’s because we have largely failed to address the long-tail of underachievement in our country, containing most of our poorest children.

    This one constituency has not felt the benefits of the improvements I have just mentioned. And the irony is not lost on me saying this to you in a school like this – bedecked with privilege, with the opportunities that are often denied to our poorest children.

    The lot of disadvantaged children in primary schools has improved – a bit. But in secondary schools, the attainment gap between children on free school meals (FSM) and their better-off peers has refused to budge in a decade.

    Despite all the good intentions, the fine words and some imaginative initiatives, we are not making a real difference. The needle has barely moved. In 2005, the attainment gap between FSM and non-FSM pupils in secondary schools was 28 percentage points. It is still 28 percentage points now. Our failure to improve significantly the educational chances of the poor disfigures our school system. It scars our other achievements. It stands as a reproach to us all.

    Not long after I started my tenure at Ofsted, we published a report Unseen Children, which looked at the increasing invisibility of underachieving poor pupils as they progressed through our schools, not just in urban areas but also in isolated rural and coastal communities. We wanted to understand why a majority of disadvantaged children consistently underachieved at school.

    As I approach the end of my tenure, I’m returning to that theme.

    I spoke earlier in the year about the widening gap between the performance of schools in the North and those in the South. But as I stand in these glorious grounds, in this beautiful corner of Berkshire, I wonder how many people realise just how badly the poorest pupils have been let down in some of the wealthiest parts of the country?

    The attainment gap between FSM and non-FSM secondary school children in West Berkshire is 31 percentage points. In Kent it’s 34. In Surrey it’s 36. In Buckinghamshire it’s 39. And, in Reading, it’s a whopping 40 percentage points – all far in excess of the national gap of 28. What an appalling injustice. What an inexcusable waste of potential.

    And yet, alarming as these figures are, they do not reveal the full extent of our failure. They hide the continuing underperformance of the white working-class, for instance, or the dashed hopes of too many of the most able disadvantaged children, whose early promise is so often left to wither.

    As a teacher who has spent his professional life working in some of the most deprived areas of the country, I find our failure perplexing and infuriating. I know individual schools across the country have turned things around, particularly in London, and managed to give children who had been written off a good education. So why have we failed at a system level? Why haven’t we made progress? Why do we keep letting down our poorest children in large parts of our country?

    Guilty parties

    To my mind there are 5 culprits. The first are the political ideologues of both Left and Right.

    The poor have been caught in the crossfire between these two for as long as I can recall. Of course, both claim to be acting in the interests of the disadvantaged. Yet neither accepts the damage they invariably inflict.

    The Left’s brand of snake oil was very pervasive in the 70s and 80s. They infiltrated scores of local authorities, peddling their anti-academic nonsense and undermining the authority and respect of school leaders.

    I know I have talked about this before. But the reason I keep returning to the subject is that their irresponsible, ideological agenda ruined the education of hundreds of thousands of our poorest children − children now in middle-age whose literacy levels are worse than their parents’ and grandparents’.

    I have been criticised for saying that school leaders should be battle-axes and bruisers. But in the 70s and 80s, headteachers who wanted to stand against this destructive tide had to be educational warriors. It was only those who were prepared to stand up to the ideological bullies, masquerading as pastoral reformers, who survived that terrible period.

    Many didn’t. I well remember, for example, an experienced and respected headteacher in Newham who was quite simply broken by his experiences of dealing with endless militancy in his school in the mid 1980s, with insults being thrown at him when he refused to allow staff to join the demonstrations during school time to support the miners’ strike. There were many others who experienced similar intimidation.

    The middle classes, of course, could escape to the remaining grammars and independent sector. The poor had no such option. They had to endure the chaos, the indifferent teaching and threadbare curriculum that passed for education in many state schools of the time.

    They and we are still living with the consequences. Those who are fundamentally opposed to the academy programme should remember why it happened in the first place. Academies were a response to the failure of so many local authorities. They let down the very children they were supposedly supporting.

    The market-based laissez-faire approach of the Right can equally damage the chances of the poor. Schools will wither on the vine as they did 20 or 30 years ago if a more liberal and autonomous system is not subject to strong central and local intervention when early decline sets in.

    The market will not stop the strong getting stronger and the weak getting weaker. Teachers and leaders will always gravitate to the places where it is more attractive, comfortable, more leafy and easier to work.

    The figures for teacher training speak for themselves. The prosperous South East region has over 458 trainee teachers per 100,000 pupils. Yet the East Midlands manages only 362 per 100,000 pupils. The East of England fares even worse, with only 294 per 100,000. No wonder these last two regions are poorly performing. Schools in these areas find it more difficult to get good staff. Teacher supply follows well-resourced demand, not educational need.

    Hastily rebranded schools in deprived areas soon find that the magic of the market hasn’t eradicated underlying problems. But when they fail, as so many do, it is the system, or reactionary leftists, or those old hippies in Ofsted that are to blame.

    Free marketeers forget, or perhaps they never cared to think, that without the semblance of a strategy, without meaningful accountability, or early intervention, the system risks repeating all the mistakes of the worst local authorities. They forget that it’s easy to destroy a school and so much harder to build one up. And once again, it is the poor who ultimately pay the price.

    Structural vandals

    The second group that has helped hobble the poor are the structural vandals, those who argue that children don’t need structure in school.

    In educational establishment circles it was argued in the 70s and 80s, and still is in some quarters, that structure stifles. It kills childhood creativity; it dictates mindless conformity. This argument rears its head most often today in the endless whines about ‘petty’ uniform rules or the insistent shriek that testing is inhumane. And again, it is the poor who have to bear the consequences.

    Many middle-class children, of course, are less reliant on structure in the school and classroom. They get implicit support and direction at home. But many of our poorest children don’t. A rule-based classroom culture helps compensate for a chaotic home life. Take it away and the poorest children rarely swim; they sink.

    Even when home structures are in place, the poor’s expectations and potential are often constrained by limited cultural horizons. Through no fault of their own, many simply aren’t aware of what is possible. Why should they be? Few of them have had access to the life-enhancing opportunities a good education brings.

    Middle-class children always have a head start. Their cultural hinterland is usually rich. Their parents are usually well educated. They tend to do well in school. And when they don’t, their parents can always hire a tutor.

    To those who bleat about the tyranny of testing, let me say this. Testing isn’t a burden; it’s an opportunity. It allows teachers to know where a child stands and what help they need. It gives the poor a passport to the prospect of a better life.

    Weak heads often complain about testing. But in my experience, a good head never tells colleagues to teach to the test. They insist on good teaching, which invariably leads to good results. The tests take care of themselves.

    We can see what happens to progress when there aren’t any tests. It is one of the reasons why there is such a gap in attainment between key stages 2 and 4. It is the reason why I called for a return to testing at key stage 3, so the poor, in particular, can benefit from formal assessment.

    Take testing and exams away and the poor can’t rely on the cultural capital or family connections that middle-class children possess. The irresponsibility of the anti-testing lobby in this regard is breathtaking. It is the disadvantaged who suffer from their thoughtless crusade.

    A constricting curriculum

    The third culprit is our continuing failure to develop a curriculum pathway for those youngsters who want a strong route into an apprenticeship, especially after the age of 14.

    Let me be clear. You will find no stronger supporter of a core curriculum and strong literacy and numeracy programmes than me. I was insisting on the primacy of subject knowledge and the importance of an academic bedrock when many latter-day evangelists were negotiating their way around a Wagon Wheel.

    Nor have I ever made the mistake of thinking that the poor wouldn’t benefit from access to the canon, to that rich corpus of knowledge that underpins all learning. The poor have as much right to – and capacity to appreciate – the works of Shakespeare and Newton and Austen and Macaulay as their better-off peers.

    This I do not dispute. But what about those youngsters who would benefit from a technical education? What about those employers who, year after year, say that school leavers are not equipped with the technical skills that they are crying out for?

    The figures are shocking. In the UK as a whole, there are now 210,000 vacancies as a consequence of skills shortages across the economy – an increase of 43% from 2013. In key sectors such as manufacturing, construction and utilities, over 30% of vacancies exist because there aren’t enough people with the right skills to fill them.

    I have taught in disadvantaged communities for most of my professional life. And I can tell you that there will always be some children who will respond better to a technical curriculum than others.

    The consequences of an inflexible curriculum are plain to see. We see it in the demotivated youngsters who leave school with few relevant qualifications and an antipathy to learning. We see it in the ranks of the unskilled unemployed. We see it in the hundreds of thousands of skilled vacancies that go unfilled and are eventually filled by those from abroad. We see it in the 40% of youngsters who don’t get 5 good GCSEs.

    Poor teaching

    The fourth reason why the poor continue to languish at the bottom of the educational pile is that they are often lumbered with the worst teaching. Despite excellent initiatives such as Teach First, poor communities are still more likely to have less access to good teaching than better-off ones.

    According to the Social Market Foundation, schools in deprived areas are more likely to have fewer experienced teachers, more likely to have teachers without formal teaching qualifications, more likely to have teachers without degrees in relevant subjects, and more likely to have higher teacher turnover than schools elsewhere.

    Unsurprisingly, these problems have been exacerbated as teacher recruitment becomes more difficult. Last year, Ofsted’s own Annual Report acknowledged that recruitment was toughest for schools in deprived areas.

    A recent snapshot survey my inspectors carried out of secondary schools in Kent and Medway has found that the situation is at least as grave now as it was then.

    The problem in Kent is compounded by selection. As you know, the proportion of FSM eligible children attending selective schools nationally is only 3%, way below the national figure of 15%. Yet many of the good and outstanding schools in Kent are grammars and, according to research from Education Datalab, grammar schools in this area are more likely to attract and retain many of the best teachers.

    As a result, secondary schools in Kent with the most disadvantaged children have more unqualified and less experienced teachers. They are also less likely to be judged good or outstanding for teaching, learning and assessment. Kent is an example of what happens to the poor nationally when market forces predominate.

    As heads of non-selective schools told our inspectors: “The few good teachers that there are around prefer to go to the grammars,” and “We end up having to appoint unqualified or less experienced teachers. This places just more and more demands on experienced staff.” While another said: “There are just no incentives for teachers trained in Kent to stay in Kent and teach in more challenging schools.”

    As I said earlier, the lack of a national, strategic approach to teacher training means that there are challenging areas of the country without ready access to the best newly qualified teachers. Outstanding schools train and retain the best candidates, leaving schools where the need is greatest to scramble for the rest.

    In Kent, as in the rest of the country, challenging schools are finding it increasingly difficult to recruit the best teachers. We can roll out as many new shiny, well-intentioned educational initiatives as we like. But if we don’t have the people to carry them out, the disadvantaged will remain where they are – at the bottom of the heap.

    Poor leadership

    The same thing is true of leadership. The final culprit, the final reason why we continue to let down the poor is our inability to deliver strong leadership to those who need it the most. The poor disproportionately attend schools that are strangers to good leadership. Yet we know that good teaching can only thrive when leadership is strong.

    Why have we not given greater priority to developing good leadership in our country, particularly in the most difficult areas? Why has the National College for Teaching and Leadership fallen on such hard times? Is the Talented Leaders programme enough?

    As things stand, only 6% of schools in the most prosperous areas of England have leadership and management that are judged less than good by Ofsted. In the most deprived areas, almost 4 times as many schools – 23% – suffer the same.

    Unless we resolve to get more of our best leaders into the most challenging schools, the poor will continue to be short changed.

    What is to be done?

    We don’t have to dig too deep to understand why we have failed our poorest children.

    We can see it for ourselves in increasing alienation, the bitter resentment as others arrive to do the jobs the badly educated cannot do. “Blame the parents,” say some; “Blame the immigrants,” say others. Well, we should really blame ourselves, because it doesn’t have to be like this.

    We should start by refusing to patronise the poor. There is nothing wrong in insisting on structure in school. We should be tough on feckless parents who allow their children to break the rules. I appreciate that many of them were let down by the education system. But they need to be reminded – through letters, meetings and sanctions – that the way they bring up their children has profound implications for us all.

    We should have a curriculum that not only has a strong core but is flexible enough to meet the needs of those youngsters who want a technical pathway.

    The government should insist that every major multi-academy trust should have a University Technical College. Every multi-academy trust should be inspected to ensure that the University Technical College does not become a dumping ground for the difficult or disaffected and that it delivers high quality pre-apprenticeship programmes to the age of 19.

    Finally, the government must do more to direct good people into the most challenging areas. There have been some laudable initiatives. But they have been late, small and piecemeal.

    Conclusion

    I came into teaching, above all, to make a difference to the lives of our poorest children. As Chief Inspector, I have attempted to show how the educational underperformance that blights the lives of disadvantaged pupils in reality beggars us all. Of course, the poor suffer the worst consequences. But we are all the poorer for their missed opportunities and wasted potential.

    We know that it does not have to be this way. We know that their life chances would be greatly improved if they had the best teachers, the best leaders and a better curriculum.

    As I begin my last few months as Chief Inspector, it saddens me immeasurably to say frankly that we are still letting down our poorest children and that if things do not change fundamentally, we will continue to do so.

    Thank you.

  • Jeremy Corbyn – 2016 Speech Made in South Yorkshire on the EU

    jeremycorbyn

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Corbyn, the Leader of the Opposition, in South Yorkshire on 16 June 2016.

    Thank you for inviting me here to South Yorkshire. I appreciate the time of the workforce and the support from the management to enable this to go ahead.

    Talking of the workers here, I’m guessing you were delighted when you heard you were going to get an extra hour’s break from work. And so I can only imagine the disappointment when you then learned that hour was for listening to a politician talking about Europe.

    But there is no doubt we all face a vital vote just a week away and I want to have a serious conversation about it and set out some of Labour’s ideas about Europe, and how to reform it.

    Not many people are grateful for the work politicians do. I don’t have any difficulty understanding why, the political class has let our country down in so many ways, but today I want to try and restore a bit of faith in politics, and set out how politics done in a different way, can improve our lives and our communities.

    The work you do here in developing the manufacturing base of the future is crucial to our economy. We need many more sites like this, backed up with a proper industrial strategy to use their innovations to build an economy of the future that can deliver for all.

    The Chancellor George Osborne promised “a march of the makers” five years ago, but that has signally failed to materialise. Once again we’ve been given a soundbite, but very little action on the ground.

    What this referendum campaign has shown, more than anything, is that politicians have failed, and are failing, to come up with solutions to the problems that people face across Britain.

    The insecurity of work the lack of good well-paid jobs, the high cost of housing, whether to rent or to buy, how we adjust to, and pay for, an ageing society, the failure to ensure decent economic growth in all parts of the country and in which we all share.

    That is the failure of politicians, not of the EU or of EU migrants for that matter.

    Too many voices in this debate are only playing that old trick the blame game. And when politicians play the blame game, it’s usually because they have nothing serious to offer themselves.

    Those pushing us to leave the EU, Conservative MPs like Iain Duncan Smith, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, say that more money could be spent on the NHS if we left, they’ve also promised more money for farming, for fishing, for university research, for tax cuts. They’ve promised our EU contribution over and over again.

    But does anyone really believe they’re the saviours of our NHS? Hardly. They really are wolves in sheep’s clothing:

    These are the same Tory Ministers and MPs who voted to:

    – cut mental health budgets

    – scrap nurses’ and midwives’ bursaries

    – slash social care for the elderly and disabled

    – open up ever more of the NHS to private companies and private patients

    – pick damaging and unnecessary fights with junior doctors.

    Now they want to use people’s real concerns about the impact of EU migration to turn the campaign into a referendum on immigration.

    It’s easy to blame people who come to this country, to blame the outsider, to blame bureaucrats in Brussels. It’s also very convenient for politicians too. If you’re blaming a scapegoat you’re not blaming the people with the real power, the corporate elite and the politicians in government who do its bidding.

    Politicians certainly need to take responsibility, so let me make a start.

    I mentioned the banking crash yes, that was the fault of bankers but the Conservative governments of Thatcher and Major scrapped financial regulations that would have prevented that crash and Labour failed to re-regulate. So blame our own governments, don’t blame the EU or immigrants.

    It was those same governments of the 1980s and early 90s that deregulated the labour market so that zero hours contracts could flourish and the share of wealth going to workers fell off a cliff. It is unscrupulous employers and politicians who have allowed temporary contracts, agency and enforced part-time working, and bogus self-employment to mushroom. So blame the politicians who opened the door to rampant job insecurity.

    When people migrated here from the Caribbean in the 1950s and 1960s there was very little debate about migrants driving down wages and undercutting because then we had powerful employment protection and strong trade union rights.

    The veteran Labour MP Dennis Skinner talked yesterday in Parliament about Shirebrook. For many years that site was a coal mine where Eastern European miners working alongside English colleagues doing the same job, earning the same pay and in the same union.

    Today that same site is owned by Mike Ashley’s Sports Direct where he employs 200 full-time employees and 3,000 people, mainly east Europeans, on zero-hours contracts.

    Today we have a deregulated labour market that allows unscrupulous employers to undercut local pay by exploiting migrant workers and undercut good businesses by forcing a race to the bottom. So migrants aren’t driving down wages. Unscrupulous employers are because the government allows them.

    Actually by working with the European Union, Labour governments brought in the agency workers’ directive the working time directive and a whole package of legislation that helped to protect workers across Europe.

    Migrants that come here, work here, earn here and pay their taxes here.

    But, do you know what? There are other forms of free movement that really anger me. The free movement of money abroad to dodge the taxes that fund our public services, the free movement of our country’s wealth and corporate profits into tax havens.

    Does anyone here own an offshore trust? Do any of your family or friends own an offshore trust? So who was David Cameron standing up for when he wrote to the EU in November 2013 opposing proposals transparency into who owns these shady offshore trusts?

    From cuts to disability benefits and cuts tax credits, to tax breaks for the super-rich and corporations. We have a Government making the wrong choices and sticking up for the wrong people.

    Or take another example, a couple of years ago, the EU also came forward with a proposal to restrict bankers’ bonuses and what did George Osborne do? Again he rushed to Brussels within an army of taxpayer-funded lawyers to oppose it and he lost.

    But what about the positive solutions? I won the leadership of the Labour Party by a landslide because our campaign stood for something different, straight-talking, honest politics.

    If there’s a problem we will work to find a solution – not someone to blame.

    Start with immigration the biggest issue for many people in this referendum campaign.

    EU migrants pay in more in taxes than they take out in benefits. They contribute to our society and 52,000 of them work in our NHS saving our lives, caring for our loved ones.

    But large increases in migration in particular areas can put a strain on our stretched public services, already hammered by government spending cuts – local schools, GPs surgeries and housing.

    So we are calling for a Migrant Impact Fund to pump extra cash into local areas where large scale migration puts a strain on public services – on schools, GPs surgeries and housing.

    Such a fund used to exist, Gordon Brown established it in 2008 but David Cameron abolished it two years later. He was also the guy who pledged he would cut net migration below 100,000, if you remember. But today it’s well over 300,000 far higher than at any point under Labour governments and local authorities and public services have had their budgets slashed at the same time.

    And, as I raised with David Cameron yesterday in parliament, we can and we must act now to end the scandal of jobs here in Britain that are only advertised abroad.

    As I said before, if you want someone to blame, blame politicians and some of the appalling employers they protect.

    And if we want to stop insecurity at work and the exploitation of zero hours contracts that are being used to drive down pay and conditions, why don’t we do what other European countries have done and simply ban them?

    Zero hours contracts are not allowed in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Poland and Spain. It seems we’re the odd one out. Our politicians now in power are choosing not to tackle exploitation, but we will.

    We have to clamp down on exploitation as we’ve seen at Sports Direct in Shirebrook and hire many more workplace inspectors to enforce the minimum wage. I don’t want to see workers here being exploited and driving down wages and conditions. We can stop this, and we must.

    Many of you from this part of South Yorkshire will remember that miners used to get free coal. In Denmark, Portugal and Germany today communities are setting up energy companies which sell electricity back to them at discounted rates. But ridiculously, it’s illegal to do that here.

    We need to learn from the best in Europe.

    Just down the road in Nottingham, Robin Hood Energy – a community energy scheme – has been established by the Labour council, no private shareholders, no director bonuses. Just low and competitive energy tariffs, but they could be lower still, and more councils would be doing the same if we had the same rules as elsewhere in Europe.

    Labour is calling for a vote to remain in Europe at next week’s referendum because we believe staying in the European Union offers our people a better future in terms of jobs, investment, rights at work and environmental protection.

    But we are also campaigning for reform of the European Union because we are convinced Europe needs to change to work for all, to become more democratic, strengthen workers’ rights, ditch austerity and end the pressure to privatise.

    So we have a vision for Europe, and an agenda for change, I have been discussing with leaders and governments across Europe.

    Because in our globalised world we cannot live in isolation, we achieve far more by cooperating and working together with other countries.

    Think about pollution, we could have the best environmental protection in the world, but if our neighbours are pumping poisonous chemicals into the air, or dumping waste into the sea, that will damage us regardless. Pollution doesn’t respect national borders.

    Next year the UK will have the presidency of the European Union, if we vote to remain. That means Britain can lead, can push our agenda for change, our vision for Europe.

    On tax avoidance, our Revenue and Customs estimates that there is a £34 billion tax gap. Little infuriates people more than the super-rich class and big business acting as if paying taxes is optional only for the little people.

    There are proposals now in Europe for country-by-country tax reporting, which means that companies pay their taxes in the countries where they make their profits.

    Labour members of the European parliament have backed this plan every time, while Conservatives ones oppose it, time and time again.

    We also have a special obligation to tackle tax havens, since so many of Britain’s overseas territories and crown dependencies are tax havens. So we must support an EU-wide blacklist of tax havens, to sanction them and back measures to eradicate them.

    On workers’ rights, we need far stronger action across Europe. There is a little known EU directive, for example, called the Posting of Workers Directive. It allows companies that win contracts in another part of Europe to take workers to other countries. They can post their workers abroad temporarily, rather than go through new recruitment processes.

    But legal judgements have opened up loopholes meaning that these companies are able to undercut the going rate in one country by paying the going rate in another.

    In extreme cases it has meant workers not being paid the minimum wage of the country they’re working in because it is above the rate of their home nation.

    This loophole can and must be closed and there is a proposal on the table to do so. Labour would work to secure agreement from other countries to back it.

    I mentioned the scandal of zero hours contracts earlier too. As well as outlawing these exploitative contracts in Britain, we should go further and work with our allies to establish a European minimum standard of rights at work to stop undercutting and give people the job security they need.

    And now that Germany has introduced a minimum wage there is an opportunity to move towards a European-wide minimum wage – linked to average pay and the cost of living in each country to halt the race to the bottom in pay and conditions, and increase wages across Europe.

    On the refugee crisis, Europe has had to respond to a crisis on our borders on an unprecedented scale. It is the biggest refugee crisis in global history. We – as a continent, all of us – have made mistakes but now we have to learn the lessons.

    If our union means anything, it means coming up with an agreed and united response that shares the responsibility.

    On energy and the environment, under the Tories, the UK has slipped from 3rd to 13th in the world as the best place to invest in renewables.

    Subsidies for renewables have been cut by this government, yet the European Investment Bank has invested nearly £1.5 billion since 2007 – a quarter of all its renewable funding. The European Investment Bank has been bailing out this government’s failure to invest.

    Across Europe, investment in renewable energy is coming from government and being supported properly, renewable energy is increasingly being owned by local communities, schools or workplaces. These decentralised energy grids are more efficient, less polluting and give us all more control.

    So we need to learn from the best practice across Europe, and find a mechanism to promote and encourage socially-owned clean energy across our continent.

    Our government has watered down our commitments under the EU energy efficiency directive, we would recommit to that because the technology is there to make every new building a near-zero energy building.

    We must have the vision and the strategy to create a sustainable economy, both in Britain and across our continent.

    On banking regulation, we need to throw our weight behind a Financial Transaction Tax, sometimes known as the Robin Hood Tax.

    There are currently 10 countries in Europe working together to secure a financial transactions tax across the European Union. This is a small tax on specific financial transactions to help prevent the sort of banking crash we saw a few years back, that led to the deepest economic crisis since the 1930s.

    What was the British Government’s response to this proposal? To rush to Europe to oppose it, threatening legal action.

    Labour wants to help drive this reform, to build support for an EU-wide tax as a step towards a global tax. We must reform our banking sector and discourage the dangerous practices that undermined the banks across Europe and globally.

    The process is currently in a fragile state, despite the support of France and Germany, but imagine the impetus Britain’s support could give to the campaign, both in Europe and among major economies around the world.

    On migration, we should press at European level for a Migration Relief Fund available to local authorities all over Europe to assist in supporting and upgrading schools, hospitals and public services in areas of high migration within the EU.

    On trade, we know that core purpose of the European single market scrapping trade tariffs and barriers between countries not just in Europe but dozens more has helped bring us jobs, investment and growth.

    But EU legislation that pressures governments to privatise or deregulate public services, such as rail and communications, or restrict public ownership, needs to be reformed.

    And we will not sign up to trade deals that are about privatising our public services weakening consumer protections, environmental standards or food safety standards.

    That’s why – like France – Labour would veto the TTIP transatlantic EU-US trade deal as it stands.

    By taking this approach, setting out a positive vision of hope and progress, and a clear agenda of reform for Britain’s EU presidency in 2017, I believe we can demonstrate that politics can make a difference. That we can improve lives and communities and show not only what the European Union is, but what it can become.

    There is a warning for Europe here, whatever the outcome of next week’s referendum, that the EU must demonstrate its continued relevance to its people or it will be rejected. But it’s up to British politicians too, to lead that change.

    I have tried to set out today some of Labour vision for Remain and Reform in the European Union.

    More importantly I hope I’ve been able to restore a bit of faith in what politics can do. If you have a decent government committed to making our country and our world a better place.

    I encourage you all to vote Remain on 23 June and then to support our campaign for the changes we want to see here in Britain and across Europe.

    Things can and, with your help, they will change.

  • Rosena Allin-Khan – 2016 Statement on Becoming Labour MP for Tooting

    Below is the text of the speech made by Rosena Allin-Khan after she was elected as the Labour for Tooting at a by-election on 16 June 2016.

    Given the horrific events of today and the shocking death of Jo Cox, I do not intend to make a speech. Instead, I would like to make a short statement.

    First of all, I would like to give my profound thanks to the people of Tooting for electing me as their MP.

    But my thoughts and prayers are with Jo’s husband and her children. She was a proud and passionate campaigner who will be desperately missed.

    Jo’s death reminds us that our democracy is precious but fragile – we must never forget to cherish it. Thousands of people voted today and we are all here in recognition of our democratic values.

    I would like to thank the police for all the hard work they have done today, not just here but across the country.

    I would like to thank the returning officer and staff for their efficient and smooth running of this by-election, and I would also like to thank my agent and his campaign staff.

    I would like to thank the other candidates for the respectful way in which this by-election has been fought.

    And lastly, I would like to thank my family and friends for their love and support.

    Thank you very much.

  • Jeremy Corbyn – 2016 Speech at People’s History Museum

    jeremycorbyn

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Corbyn, the Leader of the Opposition, at the People’s History Museum in Manchester on 21 June 2016.

    Thank you for being here today and for that introduction, Diane.

    Thank you to Alan Johnson for all of your hard work and mileage you’ve put into the campaign, and to all colleagues: MPs, MEPs, councillors and activists who are determined to make our remain and reform position clear.

    Kate Green is the shadow secretary of state for Women & Equalities and an excellent advocate for that cause.

    But, as you will all know a few days ago we lost one of the great fighters for women and equalities in this country so I would ask you all to reflect for a moment on the life of Jo Cox.

    It’s a pleasure to be here today at the People’s History Museum which chronicles the struggles of working people over generations.

    There are now under 48 hours until polls open in the European referendum I am very clear, and Labour is very clear we are for staying in.

    One of the major reasons for that is about jobs and workers’ rights.

    So it is fitting that we are here today in this building which reflects the gains that working people, trade unions and the Labour Party have won.

    Today we live in a globalised world. The battles we fight today as a labour movement are not confined by national borders.

    Workers, capital, and corporations move across borders. That is a reality whether we vote to leave or remain.

    But only by remaining and working together with our allies across Europe can we regulate those flows and improve things for working people here in Britain.

    It was a Labour government that introduced the Equal Pay Act in 1970 following a courageous campaign by women trade unionists.

    By it was only in 1984 that law was strengthened and extended in Europe to mean equal pay for equal work of equal value in line with the EU Directive.

    There was no limit on working time for workers in Britain until the Working Time Directive, which also provided for rest breaks.

    Our rights to annual leave were underpinned by the EU too we would not have a right to 28 days leave without that membership.

    But for too many people in Britain today – work is still not secure.

    So we cannot be content with the status quo.

    If we want to stop insecurity at work and the exploitation of zero hours contracts why don’t we do what other European countries have done and ban them?

    Zero hours contracts are not permitted in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Poland and Spain. It seems we’re the odd one out. This Tory government is choosing not to tackle exploitation Labour would.

    As well as outlawing these exploitative contracts in Britain we should go further and work with our allies to establish a European minimum standard of rights at work to stop undercutting and give people the job security they need.

    And now that Germany has introduced a minimum wage is there an opportunity to establish a European-wide minimum wage – based on the cost of living in different nations to increase workers’ pay across our continent?

    There is a little known directive called the Posting of Workers Directive nothing to do with postal workers, Alan although I do hope they get overtime for all of the referendum leaflets they are about to deliver! The Posting of Workers Directive enables companies that win contracts in another part of Europe to take their workers to work in other countries they can post their workers abroad temporarily rather than go through new recruitment processes.

    However, some legal judgements have opened up loopholes meaning that these companies are able to undermine the going rate in one country by paying the going rate in another.

    In extreme cases it has meant workers not being paid the minimum wage of the country they’re working in because it is above the rate of their home nation.

    This loophole can be closed and there is a proposal on the table to do so Labour would secure agreement from other countries and back it.

    The European Union is neither inherently good nor inherently bad. It is what we make of it and it can be an ally in our campaigning for better rights at work across Europe.

    Because, in this day and age we can only strengthen rights at work here in Britain by strengthening them across Europe.

    The only way to stop the race to the bottom on jobs and wages is to work together across our continent to raise standards for all. That’s what we did with rights for agency workers for part-time workers and on so many other issues.

    Through the social chapter and other directives we have achieved a situation in which:

    Over 26 million workers in Britain benefit from being entitled to 28 days of paid leave and a limit to how many hours they can be forced to work

    Over 8 million part-time workers (over six million of whom are women) have equal rights with full-time colleagues

    Over 1 million temporary workers have the same rights as permanent workers

    340,000 women every year have guaranteed rights to take maternity leave

    And it’s important to understand the benefit of these gains it means workers throughout Europe have decent rights at work meaning it’s harder to undercut terms and conditions across Europe.

    Several Leave supporters have stated clearly they want to leave Europe to water down workers’ rights to rip up the protections that protect work-life balance that prevent discrimination and prevent exploitation and injustice.

    That is why we say the threat to the British people is not the European Union it is a Tory-led Brexit

    So remain and fight; don’t walk away in despair.

    Today three million jobs in Britain are linked to our trade with Europe that is why our major manufacturers and our major trade unions are for remaining within Europe.

    But it is not only jobs with a direct link with Europe that are at risk our whole economy is threatened by any potential downturn caused by Brexit.

    Whatever you feel about the European Union we should not lightly be prepared to put at risk the jobs and rights of people in this country.

    Our economy is fragile and insecure hit by six years of Tory austerity that have weakened wages weakened rights at work and weakened job security.

    We know who gets laid off when there is a downturn: it is young workers, insecure workers; those most recently hired are often first out.

    We know who gets hit hardest by any downturn, it is working class communities.

    A vote to leave risks more Tory austerity and more wrong choices because those would lead the Brexit negotiations would be the Tory right cheered on by UKIP.

    They won’t pay for any downturn with tax increases on the wealthy or big corporations but with cuts to the public services of those who can least afford to lose them.

    Those running the Vote Leave campaign have supported every cut to public services every privatisation and every tax break for the richest.

    And frankly their divisive campaign deserves to lose. A vote to leave will embolden the likes of Nigel Farage and embolden them to be more xenophobic and more divisive.

    Migrants that come here, they work here, earn here and pay their taxes here.

    Many EU migrants – 52,000 of them – work in our National Health Service; they are 10% of all our doctors and 5% of our nurses.

    Many more work in other public services educating our children caring for our elderly and helping to run our public transport.

    They also come here and establish businesses providing jobs for people here in Britain and paying taxes.

    Parties like UKIP whip up division and emphasise the problems but they don’t offer any solutions.

    Identifying problems is not enough. As politicians we have to resolve them.

    Housing is in short supply because governments have not built enough in the 1980s council housing was sold off without replacement and today the Tories have let housebuilding fall to the lowest level since the 1920s.

    This year our NHS is in record deficit due to the Tories’ top-down reorganisation and their underfunding. They’ve cut social care for the elderly and disabled cut bursaries for nursed and midwives and cut mental health budgets.

    They’ve allowed NHS Trusts to dedicate more resources to be used to treat private patients and have failed to train enough nurses and doctors. Now we rely on 52,000 doctors, nurses and other staff from the EU to work in our NHS.

    Far from being a burden on our health service, migrants are saving it and saving lives here in Britain every day. You’re more likely to be treated by an EU migrant than be laying in the next bed down.

    Our schools are about to suffer the largest budget cut since the 1970s yet there is a teacher shortage and class sizes are rising. Instead of finding the money to solve this the Tory government gave a tax break that benefits the richest 5% (capital gains tax).

    Wrong government making the wrong choices and too often trying to blame someone else for the problems.

    But large increases in migration in particular areas sometimes can put a strain on our stretched public services local schools, GPs surgeries and housing.

    Some communities can change dramatically and rapidly and that can be disconcerting for some people. But that doesn’t make them Little Englanders, xenophobes or racists.

    This isn’t the fault of migrants it’s a failure of government. We propose re-establishing a Migrant Impact Fund to distribute extra money to local areas where large scale migration puts a strain on public services on schools, GPs surgeries and on housing.

    Such a fund used to exist Gordon Brown established a £50 million a year fund 2008 but David Cameron abolished it in 2010 we would reinstate it.

    It could be funded through a combination of using EU underspend and reprioritising money from outdated existing EU schemes.

    But if you want to find the main reason that our public services are struggling then it’s because of the cuts that this Tory government has made

    And we mustn’t let them get away with playing that old game: divide and rule.

    For all the arguments of recent weeks this Thursday’s decision can be boiled down to one crucial question. “What’s best for jobs in Britain, rights at work and our future prosperity?”

    On 23rd June we are faced with a choice: Do we remain to protect jobs and prosperity in Britain. Or do we step into an unknown future with Leave where a Tory-negotiated Brexit risks economic recovery and threatens a bonfire of employment rights?

    A vote for remain is a vote to put our economy and your future first. On Thursday please join me and join the overwhelming majority of the Labour movement in voting remain to protect jobs and rights at work.

    But just as importantly join with us the day after to fight for a better society to campaign for reform and to strengthen jobs and workers’ rights across Europe.

    We achieve more by working together we will achieve very little if we stand alone.

    So let’s unite to make this country better to make the EU better and to make the world a better place.

    Thank you.

  • Sir John Major – 2016 Speech at Peterborough Cathedral

    johnmajor

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sir John Major in Peterborough Cathedral on 10 June 2016.

    It is extraordinary that this is the 900th Anniversary of this great Cathedral.

    Its foundations were laid over 50 years before the martyrdom of Thomas Beckett, and 100 years before Magna Carta opened a small chink towards democracy. In those days, one third of England was forest – and the Cathedral would have dominated the landscape.

    Today, it sits in the middle of a city, and the forest has long gone: although part of its wood survives in the great ceiling above us in this Nave.

    Nine hundred years ago our dinner – on a Friday – would, of course, have been fish: probably sole or eels. We would have shared a communal soup bowl and eaten from common plates of food, helping ourselves with – hopefully clean – fingers.

    We would have had knives but no forks. We would have been discouraged from licking our fingers clean (very bad table manners), or taking too much food, or using bread to mop up morsels from the communal plate. And if we were wise, we would not have drunk the water. We would certainly have never imagined the future.

    So much has happened since then and – today – events are moving faster than ever before. For many, it is a bewildering world, throwing up choices and decisions perhaps more complex than anything we have known in all our long history.

    The role of the Cathedral has evolved over the centuries. Faith is more liberal now, more user-friendly, more open to accept different cultures – and more tolerant of those who have no faith at all.

    Yet it remains massively important to its community. As part of the celebrations of this anniversary Peterborough 900 is raising funds for community purposes: a heritage and education centre, and a Music School, are projects that will benefit many people.

    So will re pitching the Organ to enable the Cathedral to function as a concert venue with a new sound system. Some may say – is this the purpose of a Cathedral?

    I would say, “Yes, it is”: in a secular – often too materialist – world, in a multi-cultural and multi-faith City, it must reach out and be seen as a relevant part of our way of living: if it were to become a mausoleum for only the committed to visit on Sunday it would surely wither.

    Our country was once a collection of small towns and cities and tiny villages, and the Church was the heart and soul of the community: today, when so many are elderly, some lonely, and others possibly a little frightened at the pace and change of modern life, this role is as important as it has ever been.

    For the sick at heart, it is a sanctuary: open to the good and the bad alike: a comfort zone for some when none other may exist. That is why in my view – though this is not shared by everyone in public life – it should use its pulpit to speak out more clearly on issues that affect the lives of everyday people.

    Today, around the world, intolerance of minorities is on the rise. In country after country we see them scape-goated. Extreme politicians reach for power. Even in our own backyard of Europe, intolerant voices influence opinion. Here, in this bastion of faith, I invite the Church, and all faith groups, to speak out whilst intolerance can still be beaten back. It is important that they do – without fear and without reservation.

    * * * * *

    Some problems are eternal. Twenty five years ago, at the door of Downing Street, I set out my ambition for “a nation at ease with itself”. At the heart of this was my wish to tackle inequality.

    That day I had the power, but the economy was failing and there was no money. By the time the economy was mended and I had the money, I lost the power. I made some progress – but not enough. Overall, I failed in my own objective.

    With age comes reflection and, these days, I am more and more concerned about inequality. Sixty-five years ago, my family’s circumstances were not easy. And for many – in a country now immensely more wealthy – life is still not easy.

    The global market is driving inequality – and the uncomfortable truth is that there is a gap between what our nation needs in social provision, and what the taxpayer is willing to pay.

    For a long time, civil society has bridged much of this gap – helped, in recent years, by tax reliefs to encourage giving, and State funding to carry out statutory social work. The National Lottery, too, has now disbursed over £33 billion to good causes – mostly to provide facilities the State could not afford. Indeed, this Cathedral has benefited from some of them.

    But, inevitably, there are gaps: as a country, we are one of the richest in the world – and yet some of our communities are amongst the poorest in all Northern Europe.

    Even in areas that are recognised as wealthy, there are families or individuals who have fallen behind.

    In communities where traditional jobs have gone, too many are on low incomes – or no income at all. A minority move elsewhere to find work. But the majority can’t: not through disinclination, but because – even if they have sufficient savings to do so – it is tough to uproot to find a job and a home. For the penniless, or for those with families or who act as carers, it can – literally – be impossible. They are effectively trapped.

    And let us cast aside a common misconception. Everyone out of work is not an idler. Everyone in receipt of benefits is not a scrounger. Of course idlers and scroungers exist – and Governments are right to root out the cheats who rip off the taxpayer. But the focus must not only be on those who abuse the system; we need equal concentration on those who are failed by the system.

    We have made progress. We can raise living standards: we have been doing so for a long time. At the turn of the 20th Century, millions struggled to eat. In London, one in three lived below the poverty line; in York, one in four ate less well than the unfortunate wretches in the poor house.

    Over the decades, mass poverty has shrunk back. The quality of life has risen across all income groups – but much less evenly than is healthy. Politicians, and charities, and churches, and the free market, can all take a mini-bow for what has been achieved. But there is no cause for complacency: a hard core of relative poverty still remains.

    A nation at ease with itself requires fairness.

    370 years ago, in the Putney Debates, Colonel Rainsborough observed: “… the poorest he that is in England has a life to live, as [has] the greatest he…”. So had he, or she, then, and so has he, or she, now. We may never achieve a perfect society, but we can surely create a fairer one.

    Of course we’re not all born equal: the raw ingredients of an impoverished life often start in childhood. As a boy, my family lived in two rooms in Brixton. Life was hard but for others it was worse. I saw poverty all around me – and have never forgotten that.

    There is no security. No peace of mind. The pain of every day is the fear of what might happen tomorrow. It is terrifying – and the memory of it never leaves you.

    We see poverty as a social evil – which, of course, it is: but it is far more than that. It is an economic evil. It wastes talent. It destroys ambition. It lowers national output. It cuts competitiveness. It creates dependency. It leaves families in despair and communities in decline.

    And inequality – poverty amid plenty – is corrosive. It alienates and breeds resentment. It undermines national cohesion. The human spirit can endure great hardship: but inequality gives it a bitter edge.

    Some think the solution is easy. Penalise the rich. Cut defence. End overseas aid to people who are far poorer than us – and living in conditions of squalor that we cannot even imagine. Then, borrow more and spend more. But this doesn’t work.

    The arguments against such an approach are so comprehensive, so compelling, I won’t waste any time on them, except to note they have failed before and would do so again. Easy promises, with no practical policy to bring them about, are simply posturing.

    And that is of no help to the poor. Good intentions don’t fill empty bellies, or provide shelter for the homeless, or jobs for the unemployed.

    What does help is national wealth accompanied by national conscience. The richer we are as a nation, the more we can do. If the Good Samaritan is in debt, he can be of no help to others. That is why the health of our national economy is an essential preliminary to a nation at ease with itself.

    * * * * * *

    And that brings me to my final point. Ahead of us in a few days is a pivotal choice – to stay in the European Union or leave it. This arouses strong emotions among some people – and no doubt both sides of the argument are represented here tonight. I am no starry-eyed European. I was, after all, the Prime Minister who kept us out of the Euro and declined to join the Schengen zone on free movement of people.

    But I am a realist. And unlike many in the present debate, I sat for seven years at Europe’s top table and saw it from the inside. I learned its intentions. I know its virtues, its faults and its frustrations at first hand, yet I have not a shred of doubt that it is in our present and long-term interest to remain in the EU. Inside we will be richer. We will be more influential. We can do more.

    Our world has changed. We Britons are 65 million people in a world of 7,000 million. And it is a world that is drawing together in trade, in politics, in travel, and in facing common threats. It would be an extraordinary moment to suddenly cut ourselves adrift from the largest and richest free market in history.

    I am a Briton, and an Englishman, and I believe our country is a benevolent influence in the world. I don’t want us to isolate ourselves. Overall, we are a force for good, for reason, for moderation. We have much to offer.

    I hope everyone will think of that – and of the future, and the next generation – before they make up their minds. The decision we take is, quite literally, more relevant to our future then any General Election has or will be.

  • Robert Hudson – 1948 Speech on Oil Supplies

    Below is the text of the speech made by Robert Hudson, the then Conservative MP for Southport, in the House of Commons on 11 May 1948.

    As I said in the Second Reading Debate on the Petrol Bill last week, we thought that as discussion on the Bill was bound to be very narrow it would be for the convenience of hon. Members on all sides if we put down the Vote of the Ministry of Fuel and Power on as early a Supply Day as convenient; to enable us to discuss both the questions of policy connected with petroleum and petroleum products and also the administration of the Department. I will cover certain aspects and other points will be illustrated by my hon. Friends.

    I will deal first with the record of the Ministry regarding fuel oil and, in particular, the conversion from coal to oil. Their record in this respect is typical. It is a history of panic, followed by order, counter order and disorder. The Committee will remember that in August, 1946, industrialists were asked to convert from coal firing to oil firing. As an inducement a rebate of 1d. per gallon on fuel oil was offered. This rebate was confirmed in the Finance Bill, 1947. The pressure by the Government on industrialists increased during 1946 and 1947 and was accentuated during the panic which arose out of what we always regarded as the unnecessary fuel crisis of 1947. The conversion involved the firms concerned in heavy capital outlay which was bound to increase costs of production. It also involved considerable quantities of steel and considerable engineering manpower, both of which we have been told on numerous occasions are short and constitute bottlenecks. The Government were warned by practical persons of experience of the difficulties ahead. They were told that there was a shortage of tankage and oil storage in the country and that other similar shortages were bound to cause difficulties and result in delay.

    It is quite clear—and it should have been clear at the time—that a policy of this kind was justified only if it was certain that adequate supplies of oil would be available for running those oil firing installations after conversion had taken pace. The pressure to convert continued until the middle of 1947, but difficulties in the supply of oil began to multiply and industries failed entirely to get any adequate guidance from the Government. They could get no assurance that, if they converted, supplies of fuel would be made available. No definite guidance was given to industries, even in the speech of the Minister shortly before Christmas 1947; yet, as the Committee will remember, by that time the basic ration had already been abolished for several weeks on the plea of the shortage of dollars. Apparently what was done by the Government was to order a survey, but we have had no indication, of course, of the instructions given to the Government officials who conducted that survey. What is quite clear is that in more than one case the impression was given to the industrial concern that the difficulties in the supply of oil were likely to prove only temporary.

    No clear lead has even yet been given by the Government, and the situation today is that some firms have installed conversion machinery and have no fuel, others have installed conversion machinery and can get fuel, some are still going ahead with conversions and others are now reconverting back to coal with the approval of the Ministry. No one has any idea what the Government’s policy is on this matter, and it is quite clear that uncertainty of this nature is bound to do industrial harm and hamper our efforts to increase the export trade. I hope, therefore, that the Government will give us a clear statement in the reply to be given to this Debate. What we should like to know, and what the country is entitled to know, is what is the estimate of the availability of fuel oil today, next year and the following year.

    As illustrating the lack of certainty which prevails, I would only remind the Committee that the original estimate was 2 million tons of fuel oil to 3 million tons of coal, that the figure rose to 2½ million tons when the Government panicked in the winter of 1947, and that since then estimates as high as 5 million tons or even 6 million tons have gained currency. Which of these figures is correct, and is there any prospect of any firm commitment to supply oil? What policy do the Government recommend should be followed in the case of the three classes of firms concerned—that is the firm which has already completed conversion, the firm which is still engaged in conversion and the firm which is planning to convert? We should be glad of some information from the Government on that.

    What is the excuse put forward by the Government for the shortage of oil in this country? It is that there has been a great increase in world consumption, and more particularly in consumption in the United States. It is quite true that the increase in consumption in the United States in the two recent years was equivalent to the total consumption in this country. It is equally true today that the total consumption in the United States is at least as great today as the total world consumption before the war. We admit that, but the question we are entitled to ask, and it is the question which the Government have never really attempted to answer, is why was this increase not foreseen. The Parliamentary Secretary, in answer to a Question on 6th April, said that despite the big increase per head in the United States the percentage increase in this country was even greater. That did not happen from one day to another. The Government must have seen that an increased percentage of consumption was taking place in this country, and it was only reasonable to presume therefore that a similar condition would prevail in the United States. What is the use of planning in these circumstances?

    We are told that the increased consumption in the United States could not have been foreseen, but if rumour is to be believed many Ministers today have attached to them personal economists, and if rumour is again to be believed the unfortunate civil servants of many Departments spend a great deal of their time trying to pursuade the economic “boyfriends” of Ministers that their information and views are not as well-founded as they think. Assuming that there is some reason for the existence of these “boy friends,” surely it is to foresee the type of increase which has, in fact, taken place in the United States? Two deductions can inevitably be drawn from the history of the last two months. Firstly, that in oil, as in so many other cases, the Government are far more concerned in trying to explain what are their difficulties than in devising solutions to these difficulties. Secondly, that in pre-war days people in private enterprise who made such a gross error in calculating and forecasting, as has obviously been made by this present Government, would have lost their jobs in a very short time.

    At the risk of introducing some old controversies, I should now like to say a word or two about the basic petrol ration. We on this side have never believed that the abolition of the basic ration was necessary. We believe that the decision was taken in a panic, and we believe that as a result of what has happened since the Government now realise they made a serious mistake. We regret, that while trying somewhat to relieve that mistake by the institution of a standard ration, they have accompanied it with a scheme which inflicts gross injustices on holders of E and S coupons. The abolition of the basic ration was justified by the Government at the time on the grounds that we were short of dollars.

    We all agree that dollar expenditure, in the circumstances in which we find ourselves, has to be reduced as far as possible, but, having said that, it still remains true that within the global figure of dollar expenditure we have to decide how many dollars should be allocated to this that and the other import, and in deciding what is the amount of dollars to be allocated to any particular import we have to balance the advantages and the disadvantages, both to the individual and to the national economy as a whole. We believe that if such factors are taken into account as loss of tourist trade, damage to the hotel industry, the inflationary effect of the loss of revenue, the expense involved in setting up the machinery for supplementary rationing, the inconvenience to the public and the unfair discrimination which has resulted as between the one user and the other, the balance lies rather towards disadvantage than to advantage.

    The Government have made a great deal of play about the black market and the influence of the black market on the consumption of petrol in this country. I believe, in view of such figures as have been published, that that argument is nothing more nor less than a smokescreen. Because taking the figures of the Russell Vick Report, if I interpret them aright, the result is as follows: it was estimated that when the basic ration was in existence about 160,000 tons of petrol a year went into the black market, and it is now estimated that in spite of the abolition of basic petrol there is still a leakage in the order of 100,000 tons.

    That would appear to mean that people who had basic petrol were using something of the order of 60,000 tons of petrol from the black market. The total basic ration was 800,000 tons. I suggest that 60,000 in relation to 800,000 tons was not such a figure as to justify the abolition of the basic ration and the inconvenience to which the community has consequently been put. What the Government ought to have done, if they believed that the black market was really serious, was to introduce measures such as we have been discussing during the past week; not now and not last January, but 18 months ago. Then they would have secured, if the figures are correct, a considerable reduction of dollar expenditure.

    Our complaint is that the administration of the issue of supplementary coupons is rigid and unimaginative. I do not wish to delay the Committee by quoting a number of incidents, particularly as I have no doubt that hon. Members on every side of the House will be able to give instances which have come to their notice in their constituencies. I should like, however, to cite two cases. The first is that of a war widow with a semi-invalid mother, a father who is ill and not likely to recover, and a small child. In order to try, in the reduced family circumstances, to eke out her widow’s pension this lady decided to start again in the profession of architect in which she had been employed before the war. She began to practice from her own home. She could not afford to buy a car herself. Her mother has a car and a microscopic allowance of petrol. The lady asked for a small allowance in order that she might save time in the journeys she had to take in her professional capacity. She was told that there were adequate public services and that there was no ground for granting her application. Hon. Members will readily realise that she is able to devote only three hours a day on the average to her profession. The rest of her time is naturally fully taken up looking after her mother, father, and child. If she had to rely upon the public services her journeys would take two hours per day out of the three that she can devote to her profession, leaving her one hour a day. In fairness to the Minister I am bound to say that in a large proportion of the cases which I have brought to his personal attention he has been able, after having the cases investigated, to see his way to some extent to meet the request, and that this is a case in point.

    I wanted to cite this case and I wanted to be sure of my facts, but the actual letters had been sent to the Ministry. I sent my secretary round to the Ministry yesterday to ask whether I might have the letters back because I wanted to use the case in my speech today. My secretary was told that if she waited a short while she could have them back. She waited, and eventually she received the letters together with a further letter signed by the right hon. Gentleman, granting the lady a small allowance, for which I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Not having a “police state” mind I am quite sure that this was purely a coincidence, and a happy conjuncture which caused the letter from the right hon. Gentleman to be just ready to be signed by him so that it might be delivered with such promptitude to my secretary. The only reflection which has occurred to me has been that when the Bill which we were discussing yesterday becomes law, and if ever the right hon. Gentleman is accused of having red petrol in his car, that defence may not be the sort that would be accepted by a hardhearted magistrate.

    The other case is that of the assistant to a county architect. He has to travel about the country, as will be readily understood. He has to travel to see about maternity homes, hospitals and similar institutions. One of his disabled colleagues has a small car. The county authorities authorised the architect to apply for a small allowance of petrol to enable him to run his friend’s car upon official business. The application was turned down. So important were the duties of this architect regarded by the county authorities that they gave the architect permission to hire a taxi for the use of him and his assistant on their necessary journeys.

    I will give the House particulars of what has happened. A typical journey I am told is about 64 miles a day. If the architect had been given petrol the total cost to the county would have been 13s. 5d. per day. The total charges for the taxi for the same day amounted to £2 0s. 11d. The car that the architect would have used is an 8-horsepower and would have used very little petrol. The taxi is 12-horsepower, using much more petrol. We have been told of the need for conserving manpower. If the architect had been given a modest allowance of petrol he would have left the car wherever he was and there would have been no waste of manpower. In fact, the taxi man has had to wait, and has in fact waited for 4¾ hours a day. The net result of this admirable administration by the right hon. Gentleman’s Department, is that the county has had to pay at least twice as much, much more petrol has been used, and the taxi man’s time has been wasted hanging about all day. That is the sort of administration which the right hon. Gentleman has produced and to which we object.

    I will turn now to the new scheme announced by the right hon. Gentleman in April. As we understand the matter, owners of E and S coupons will have no ration in future for their unfettered use, or rather the amount will be deducted from the total of their E and S coupons. The right hon. Gentleman is in a dilemma. He either assumes that the holders of E and S coupons have been breaking the law up to now and have been using their petrol for their own purposes, in which case his action encourages them, ex post facto; or else he assumes that they have not been breaking the law and have used their petrol for proper purposes, in which case he is inflicting grave injustice upon them by reducing their E and S coupons. No wonder they are angry.

    The same thing applies to members of public bodies like rural district and county councils, hospital committees and so on. They all find that because they have been patriotic in the past by licensing their cars and using them on public business with their E and S coupons, they are to be deprived of the amount of petrol for their own unfettered use which their neighbours are to get. The right hon. Gentleman made a plaintive complaint the other day that nobody loved him. Surely the right hon. Gentleman can realise that practically every motorist—a large number of the public are motorists—believes that these regulations, restrictions and rationings are neither necessary nor reasonable and that the administration of them is unduly harsh. It is only reasonable that the right hon. Gentleman is not as popular as he apparently thinks he ought to be.

    What about the future? What is to be the position in three or four years time, because that is equally as important as is the position today, and what are the Government doing about the future? Are we to have panic measures such as we have seen in each of the last three years during each of the years of the remainder of the Government’s life. In a speech on 8th April the right hon. Gentleman prophesied that there was to be a world shortage of petroleum, which he attributed to three factors. He said firstly, that the United States demand is growing; secondly, that there is and is going to be a shortage of tankers; and thirdly, that there is a shortage of refining capacity. What are the Government doing about each of these three factors? I am bound to say that their record so far on each of them is pretty lamentable.

    It is often asked, in this connection, why, when we produce so much oil from sterling sources, we have to go to dollar sources; why do we have to buy American or dollar oil when production from companies under British control is far greater than our annual consumption in this country? The Lord Chancellor gave some figures the other day. He said that petrol production from British controlled companies amounted to 8 million tons a year. He gave the consumption for the United Kingdom as being 3,800,000 tons, that of the sterling area 5,600,000 tons, and foreign trade consumption as 2,900,000 tons, making a consumption of 12,300,000 tons, as against a production of 8 million tons, and he said that we had to provide the balance from dollar sources.

    Those figures are very impressive. We should like to know this afternoon, as I am sure the British public would like to know, whether they are justified. Is the present scale of supplies which we make available to sterling countries and others outside the sterling area justified today? Is it right that so much petrol should go to other countries at our expense, when in England the basic ration has been abolished to the ordinary everyday motorist. Take the the item of 2,900,000 tons for foreign trade. I understand that it is made up as follows: for hard currency countries, 1,600,000, to soft currency countries, such as France, 450,000 tons; and to semi-hard countries—perhaps the Minister or Under-Secretary, in replying, will be able to explain what this rather nice phrase “semi-hard currency countries” means—850,000 tons.

    The fact remains that there are very few countries, so far as I can discover, to which petrol is going at our expense, where restrictions are anything like severe as they are here. In Australia the basic ration is from six to 14 gallons a month, in Eire from eight to 12 gallons. In Denmark, one of the countries concerned, I believe that no rationing system exists, nor is there a rationing system in Belgium and Luxembourg. One certainly does not exist in Egypt and Ceylon. It is quite true that it is desirable in our present circumstances to export as much as we possibly can, and to reduce the dollar expenditure to the maximum possible extent. But we in this Committee are entitled to question the desirability of continuing, at a time when British motorists are so drastically restricted, to provide suplies of petrol to countries who pay for them very largely merely by running down their sterling balances. I query very much indeed whether the Government have adequately investigated this problem, and have done all that they can to see that if we are to provide petrol at our expense, the consumers in the country to which the petrol is provided should be subjected to something like the same restrictions as those to which we are subject in this country.

    I turn to the Middle East. Can we have any estimate from the Government—I presume that they have made one—of the effect of the recent troubles in Palestine on Haifa, for example? I understand that the Haifa refinery was turning out something of the order of 4 million tons a year—a quantity equal to five times the basic ration in England—and that it is being closed down. What is to happen to that refinery, and to the new pipe line? We shall also be glad to know, and I think we are entitled to the information, what is the forecast by the Government of the effect of E.R.P. and the Marshall Plan? Are the American Government to continue to provide us in this country with petrol and oil products in order to enable us to continue to export those products to other countries?

    Finally, I come to the question of refineries. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the shortage of refinery capacity as one of the limiting factors in the next few years. What are the Government doing about refineries? There are two main developments. There is the big refinery at Abadan, the biggest in the world, which requires continual enlargement. There are plans on foot for the erection of some four new refineries in this country. Oil, and especially refined oil, is one of the best methods of obtaining dollars in hard currency that this country can possibly have. Therefore, we on this side of the House believe that the increase of refinery capacity in this country and in Abadan should be given top priority. We should like to know whether there is truth in the rumours we hear that both the planning and the construction of these new refineries and the extension at Abadan are being held up by shortages of steel. If that be the case, as I believe, we should like to know what quantities of steel are involved, and by how much does the present allocation of steel to these items fall short of what the oil companies regard as reasonable in order to make good our position over the next three or four years?

    The Government have hitherto refused to issue any figures of our steel allocation. The Ministry of Fuel and Power gave us a coal budget with estimates of the allocation of coal to different industries, the domestic demand, etc. This was extremely valuable and not only helped us in this House to get a better idea of the matter but also helped the country at large. Will the Government do the same thing in regard to steel, and if not why not? We are told that steel is the main bottleneck and yet we are refused any information. We believe that refinery priority should be right at the top of the steel allocation list. When we look around we see not far from here Government buildings being erected which must take appreciable quantities of steel. The country cannot in those circumstances believe the Government’s views about steel shortages.

    I have said enough to show that the Government record to date so far as oil and oil products are concerned is one of failure. I do not blame the present Minister for the whole of that. After all, he inherited a pretty mess from his predecessor. There is no doubt that coal under nationalisation has a heavy load of responsibility to bear for our present difficulties in regard to oil. By its failure to produce plentiful supplies of coal for domestic industry in the winter of 1946 and the spring of 1947 it intensified at the most inopportune moment possible the home and industrial demand for oil supplies, and by its failure to expand our export trade on anything like an adequate scale, it seriously aggravated a difficult foreign exchange situation. Too late now the man mainly responsible has publicly confessed the failure of his plans. The present Minister, however, must bear a large share of the responsibility for the fumblings and failures of his own term of office. In the light of that miserable record he need not be surprised that he is not loved by all.

  • George Thomas – 1947 Speech on the Loyal Address

    Below is the text of the speech made by George Thomas, the then Labour MP for Cardiff Central, in the House of Commons on 22 October 1947.

    I hope the hon. Lady the Member for South Aberdeen (Lady Grant) will not mind if I do not follow the course she has taken. During the Debate yesterday, the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) made certain comments to which I would like to make reference. He said that the international situation at the present time is indeed a sombre one. He bemoaned—and I agree entirely with him—that the relationships between Eastern Europe and the West are not so good as they were. But then he went on to refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Mr. Zilliacus) and hon. Friends who accompanied us on a visit to Eastern Europe during the past month. We have heard from time to time in this House a great deal about the “iron curtain,” and it astonished me that the right hon. Gentleman, who is usually so fair and courteous in his statements, should be so anxious to seek to discredit hon. Members before their stories could be heard. Apparently, to travel to America is quite all right; to travel to France is quite all right, but merely to visit Eastern Europe is in the eyes of the right hon. Gentleman an offence in itself. An hon. Member opposite says “Hear, hear.” Why should we bemoan the lack of information from Eastern Europe, if at the same time we seek to cast venomous scorn on hon. Members who go there to see how people are living?

    Mr. Eden (Warwick and Leamington) I do not wish that there should be any misunderstanding. I do not think that could have been put on record. I never suggested that hon. Members should not go to Eastern Europe. I have been there a good many times, and I think it a very good thing that hon. Members should go. What I was objecting to was the use made in Warsaw by foreign Press agencies of an attack on His Majesty’s Government by hon. Members who are supporters of the Government.

    Mr. Thomas I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making his position clear, but he did say that we were Communist in all but name. The right hon. Gentleman made that statement, and I suggest it would be quite as realistic, and quite as courteous, for me to refer to some of his hon. Friends, not as Communists, but by a far more ugly name in the minds of the people of this country. I think no advantage is gained by seeking to adopt that line.

    During our visit to Eastern Europe eight Members of this House were privileged to meet four Prime Ministers, to meet the heads of the trade union movement, to meet Foreign Secretaries, and to meet people with whom it is important that this country should have an understanding. Have we now reached a position when relationships between Eastern Europe and Great Britain are so bad that for an hon. Member merely to visit there, and to say what he has seen, becomes a crime? So much for the love of freedom of speech and movement, of which we hear so much. The outstanding features of Eastern Europe as I saw them were, first, that there is a tremendous enthusiasm for reconstruction. When we realise that we are dealing with a people who suffered destruction on a scale far greater than anything we had, fortunately, in this country, and when we realise that they suffered Auschwitz, Belsen and Buchenweld——

    Mr. Michael Astor (Surrey, Eastern) And the Soviet.

    Mr. Thomas I do not see the point of the interruption, but this much is true, I hope—that no one in any part of this House will seek to take away from what was done by any of our honourable allies during the war. I am not seeking to take away the credit of anyone. We are dealing with people who suffered deep wounds and whose economic life was entirely destroyed, but they have somehow managed to find among their people an enthusiasm which we would welcome among our working people in this country. I believe it is fair to say that without American dollars, without aid at all, they are getting on with the job, and the humblest worker in Europe knows his plan, and this is where we, too, might gain advantage from looking at Eastern Europe. Whilst this little island country has given much to the world in other days, she too can learn much from other countries that have experienced this rebirth of spirit, as it were, on the Continent of Europe I believe we ought to learn from them the lesson that every worker in every factory ought to know what his part of the plan is, and he ought to be given his target. In the whole of industrial activity a target should be set and general enthusiasm aimed toward that end.

    Another outstanding feature I found in Eastern Europe was that amongst people everywhere there is a deep and anxious fear concerning the possibility of another war. I found it among the ordinary folk. I found a fear due to Press reports which they read, and Press cuttings from abroad. We are sometimes told in this country that the people there cannot find out what is happening beyond the iron curtain. My hon. Friends and I were kept well in touch with what was happening outside merely by reading the Press. One of my hon. Friends could read in each of the Slav languages; I could not, but I trust my hon. Friend. In the Slav papers there were reported all the important events of the world outside. There is a tremendous fear in Europe about Germany being strengthened at the expense of the victorious countries, which in their victory lost almost everything except their spirit. We were reminded that the average income for Europe as a whole is 450 dollars per head per year; for Poland it is 250 dollars per head; but the proposed income for Germany under the American proposals for reconstruction there would be 650 dollars per head per year, which would give to her a surplus of which she would have to get rid. The great question over there is whether we should once again allow that country so to establish her industrial and economic machine that she can be a menace to the nations that are around her. We might regard that question as rather pedantic in view of the state of desolation in Germany at the present time, but if we had had our 4½ millions lost in Auschwitz alone, and if we were living next door to Germany, I suggest that we might take a more realistic view of that question.

    All of us are anxious at this time not only about the international situation but about our economic affairs at home, and I am convinced that the international deterioration finds adequate reflection in our economic crisis here at home, that there is a link between the two, for Eastern Europe can provide much of what we need, without any dollars having to be paid. The trade agreement which was in a state of negotiation between Soviet Russia and ourselves broke down, and both Governments have now expressed their earnest desire for the resumption of those negotiations. How crazy it is that when both countries stand to gain, and both Governments say quite openly that they want to resume negotiations, that some formula should not be devised. I believe that we have a right to ask His Majesty’s Government if indeed in the negotiations with the Soviet Union it was possible for us to obtain timber and grain without having to provide dollars, and, if there is a difficulty that with our less planned economy we are unable to provide definite dates for delivering our equipment, whether there should not be a tightening up of controls and a greater measure of planning in order that we, too, might meet our side of any agreement which might be entered into.

    I am convinced that the way for this Government to tread at this time of crisis is not to have less Socialism, but more. I believe that our economy needs far greater planning, for it is pathetic if we are sending our experts to negotiate with other countries only to find that they are unable to give specific dates for delivery when other countries can put their finger on definite dates and definite quantities. We could be having grain, lumber and tobacco without any attempt being made to dictate to us our internal domestic policy here at home, without any attempt to control the way of life of Britain, or to say that steel should not be nationalised, or any other issue of that sort, but on a basis of mutual understanding. I am convinced that it is possible now for us to reach an agreement.

    I am bound to refer to the war of nerves to which this nation has been subjected in connection with the Marshall plan. We have had dangled before us like a carrot the promise of help, only to have it disappear every now and then, and then it is brought back, and we are told “You must take the report back, alter it, improve it.” All this tends to reduce our prestige in the eyes of the world to that of a very small Power indeed. I am one who believes that this nation must realise that whilst co-operation with America is highly desirable and necessary, co-operation with Eastern Europe is equally desirable and equally necessary to our own survival. We cannot allow political prejudices of any sort or personal bias to stand in the way of assistance to our nation at the present time. I believe that if a real gesture is made now, the way of life for our people can be made easier and the standard of life might be more assured, because it is possible—I reiterate that it is possible—for us to have from over there things of which we stand badly in need. The capital goods which we make we cannot sell to America; they are ready to sell to us. The only market we can find is either our great Empire or Eastern Europe. I advise His Majesty’s Government to look there.

    I cannot sit down tonight, in this Debate on the Address, without a reference to my Socialist comrades in Greece. At the present time while we here, and His Majesty’s Government, are in friendly relationship with the Government in Greece, thousands upon thousands of people are exiled to the Ægean Sea, to the little islands there. People are dying — 465 political executions have taken place, women as well as men amongst them. Numbers of people in Greece are being sentenced without trial, and though their name be not Petkov, surely their lives are just as precious? I do not want so say anything about the Petkov trial. I am not trying to be unreasonable about that. If he did not have a fair trial, I am sorry I do not know enough about it, but I do know something about what is happening in Greece.

    I know that although they are about 2,000 miles away from us, they are human beings. They fought with us, and it is those who were on our side during the war who are now in the prison camps, and those who collaborated, not all, it is true, but there are known collaborators with the Nazis, who are in power at the present time. What a farce we make of democracy if we say that we are supporting democracy by supporting what is happening in Greece today. It is a slur upon our national name that we, with a rich tradition for helping democracy everywhere, with our care for humble people, should today turn our backs upon our friends and take the bloodstained hand of some people who in the days of the war were prepared to work with the security battalions of the Hitler regime. I trust that in this coming year we may look to His Majesty’s Government for words about what is happening in Greece as strong as they have used about Petkov.

    If we are to be indignant, let us be indignant for small people as well as for the leaders of great parties. Let us realise that this House can give to the world a moral tone by denouncing the awful tyranny, the secret arrests, the beatings up, and the judicial murders that are taking place in Greece. I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that these murders cannot even be called judicial murders, for they have nothing about them that smacks of a fair judicial trial.

    I know that I have spoken with some feeling. The reason is that I have seen what has happened to comrades in Greece. Almost every person who gave me any hospitality or who had any dealings with me in Greece has suffered. Within a month of my departure from that country, they were away in exile or fleeing from the hands of the gendarmerie. [An HON. MEMBER: “I am not surprised.”] I am not surprised that the hon. Member does not seem to be disturbed. When I think of those people, I think of family people. I sat at the family table with them and they discussed the glories of English history. They were friendly towards us. They spoke with pride of Byron and of Gladstone. We cannot let these people down. I say to His Majesty’s Government that we should recognise that our Imperial position and our strategic routes are better protected by a friendship with the great mass of the common people than they can be by a friendship with the handful who hold power at the moment simply because the American and British Governments are behind them. If the support of America and Britain were withdrawn, the Government in Greece would not last for a fortnight, and the whole world knows it. So much for this Government which is said to represent the free people of Greece. I leave these suggestions to the House, and I earnestly trust that His Majesty’s Government will bear in mind that at this critical time in our economic distress we can find a way of regaining our strength, keeping our independence and freeing ourselves from a state of being pensioner upon another great country in the world, by looking to the common peoples of Europe.