UKPOL.CO.UK

Blog

  • Jo Stevens – 2020 Comments on People Refusing Vaccine

    Jo Stevens – 2020 Comments on People Refusing Vaccine

    Below is the text of the comments made by Jo Stevens, the Shadow Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Secretary, on 7 July 2020.

    This poll lays bare just how dangerous disinformation online can be.

    The rapid spread of false information about vaccinations could literally be a question of life and death.

    Social media companies must ensure this content has no place on their platforms and Ministers must do more to promote the benefits of vaccines and counter the harmful, dangerous myths which surround them before a coronavirus vaccine becomes available.

  • Cat Smith – 2020 Comments on a Lost Generation of Teenagers

    Cat Smith – 2020 Comments on a Lost Generation of Teenagers

    Below is the text of the comments made by Cat Smith, the Shadow Minister for Young People, on 7 July 2020.

    Vulnerable young people have been falling through the gaps in support since long before the coronavirus pandemic. With youth services decimated by the Tories over the last decade, young people have nowhere to turn for professional support during these difficult times.

    Youth services in England have fallen by £1 billion since 2010, a reduction of 73%. This report shows that the Government must urgently invest in youth services, to support and re-engage vulnerable young people coming out of lockdown.

  • Gordon Brown – 2007 Mansion House Speech

    Gordon Brown – 2007 Mansion House Speech

    Below is the text of the speech made by Gordon Brown, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 20 June 2007.

    My Lord Mayor, Mr Governor, my Lords, Aldermen, Mr Recorder, Sheriffs, ladies and gentlemen.

    Over the ten years that I have had the privilege of addressing you as Chancellor, I have been able year by year to record how the City of London has risen by your efforts, ingenuity and creativity to become a new world leader.

    Now today over 40 per cent of the world’s foreign equities are traded here, more than New York:

    over 30 per cent of the world’s currencies exchanges take place here, more than New York and Tokyo combined, while New York and Tokyo are reliant mainly on their large American and Asian domestic markets, 80 per cent of our business is international, and in a study last week of the top 50 financial cities, the City of London came first.

    So I congratulate you Lord Mayor and the City of London on these remarkable achievements, an era that history will record as the beginning of a new golden age for the City of London.

    And I believe the lesson we learn from the success of the City has ramifications far beyond the City itself – that we are leading because we are first in putting to work exactly that set of qualities that is needed for global success:

    openness to the world and global reach,

    pioneers of free trade and its leading defenders,

    with a deep and abiding belief in open markets,

    champions of diversity in ownership and talent, and of flexibility and adaptability to change, and

    a basic faith that from wherever it comes and from whatever background, what matters is that the talent, ingenuity and potential of people is harnessed to drive performance.

    And I believe it will be said of this age, the first decades of the 21st century, that out of the greatest restructuring of the global economy, perhaps even greater than the industrial revolution, a new world order was created.

    When my predecessors spoke to this event a century or more ago, the world order of the nineteenth century they described was defined by the balance of military power, and saw European empires dividing the world between them from 1945 to 1990 when my predecessors of the post war years spoke to you. The world order was defined by the high-stake stand-off of the cold war years, these were orders ultimately reflected by political weight and military strength.

    Today with Asia already out-producing Europe, India and China are becoming part of this new order, principally because of their economic strength and potential.

    And while military and political power retain their status, future strength will depend much more on economic strength.

    Indeed success will flow to, and the next stage of globalisation will be driven by those countries:

    which are open and not closed, stable, pro competition and flexible, able to adjust quickly to change, and
    can as a result find – through their social and political cultures – the best means of developing and creating wealth through the scientific, creative, and entrepreneurial talent of their people, not least through being world class in education and skills.

    So why am I more optimistic than ever about the future of our islands, just one per cent of the world’s population, in this new era of globalisation?

    By your efforts Britain is already second to none:

    for our openness, pro Europe, pro free trade,

    a world leader in stability, and we will entrench that stability, by ensuring Britain’s macroeconomic framework remains

    a world benchmark, and

    we are flexible, and in being vigilant against complacency, we must be, as I believe we are ready to become even more flexible.

    So let me say as I begin my new job, I want to continue to work with you in helping you do yours, listening to what you say, always recognising your international success is critical to that of Britain’s overall and considering together the things that we must do – and, just as important, things we should not do – to maintain our competitiveness:

    enhancing a risk based regulatory approach, as we did in resisting pressure for a British Sarbannes-Oxley after Enron and Worldcom, maintaining our competitive tax regime, and having cut our main rate of corporation tax to again the lowest in the G8, today we are publishing the next stage of implementing Sir David Varney’s recommendations for a more risk based approach to the administration of the system, with greater certainty on tax matters when it’s needed most; and ensuring a modern planning system, that balances our economic and environmental needs with a more predictable and accountable decision making process, including that for major infrastructure projects.

    And because I recognise the benefits Crossrail would bring to the City, we are using every effort to find a solution to its affordability. I will ensure this work is stepped up but as you know the only financing solution that will work will require all parties – public and private – contributing significantly.

    But most importantly of all in the new world order, as the City bears witness, Britain’s great natural resource are our people – resourceful, enterprising, innovative – the foundation on which we will compete successfully.

    The financial services sector in Britain and the City of London at the centre of it, is a great example of a highly skilled, high value added, talent driven industry that shows how we can excel in a world of global competition. Britain needs more of the vigour, ingenuity and aspiration that you already demonstrate that is the hallmark of your success.

    We are unquestionably an enormously talented and creative country. Historically, we’ve been one of the most inventive nations in the world. And as the City shows with its high skills, if we are to be what I want Britain to be – the great global success story of this century – our first priority, and this is the theme of my final speech to you as Chancellor, must be to use the talents of every individual in our country far better than we do today by ensuring we become world class in education.

    But if we fail to equip people successfully for the future and then as a result of them being left behind by our competitors, they start to see themselves as the victims not beneficiaries of globalisation, I have no doubt that open markets, free trade and flexibility will be challenged by protectionist pressures.

    Indeed this is what we are already seeing in the USA, parts of Europe and Asia.

    So the choice is for me clear: invest in education, to prevent protectionism.

    It is investment in education that when combined with free trade, open markets and flexibility makes for the virtuous circle of an inclusive globalisation:

    the key to prosperity for all as well as to opportunity for all,

    the key to making globalisation work, and

    to become world class in education is our mission.

    And so I believe it is time for all of us, and particularly businesses who recruit skilled people, to usher in a national debate on how we, Britain, can move to becoming world class in education.

    But for me the necessity for this national debate is fundamental. Because unless we widely engage people in the debate about being world class in education – and show how people themselves must now be involved in an endeavour that is essential to secure our common future prosperity – then that future prosperity is at risk.

    Let me give one example.

    Today there are in Britain 5 million unskilled people. By 2020 we will need only just over half a million. So we must create up to five million new skilled jobs and to fill them we must persuade five million unskilled men and women to gain skills, the biggest transformation in the skills of our economy for more than a century.

    And we will need 50 per cent more people of graduate skills. Yet, while China and India are turning out 4 million graduates a year, we produce just 400,000.

    Quite simply in Britain today there is too much potential untapped, too much talent wasted, too much ability unrealised.

    And so despite all the progress we have made, there is no place in the new Britain we seek for complacency and no room for inadequate skills, low aspirations, a soft approach to discipline or for a culture of the second best.

    Other countries aren’t standing still, rather they are pushing forward the frontiers – showing what a 21st century education system can offer. There are many good examples:

    in Finland every teacher now has a masters degree and many have PhDs,

    in Ireland 55 per cent now go on to higher education and their target is for 90% to stay in education until 18,

    in France every pupil now learns a second language in primary school, and

    in Singapore the consistently high quality of classroom teaching has led them to be world leaders in maths and science.

    The global competition to create highly skilled, value added economies is fierce and can only get fiercer.

    I am passionate about education because I want a Britain where there is no cap on ambition, no ceiling on talent, no limit to where your potential will take you and how far you can rise. A Britain of talent unleashed, driving our economy and future prosperity.

    And because schools are the foundation, we need to ensure all schools are committed to high standards and are at the same time centres of creativity, innovation and enjoyment. Ready to challenge and inspire – fostering scholarship, inquisitiveness and independence of thought, teaching facts and imparting knowledge – of course. But doing far more than that – nourishing all forms of talent – because that is the future of our nation.

    The foundation of our new approach is that for the first time young people in Britain will be offered education to 18 and for the first time also a clear pathway from school to a career: either through college or university and then a profession, or through an apprenticeship and skilled work. Diplomas such as engineering or for others a young apprenticeship with an employer. For those who need more support we will provide pre-apprenticeship courses as a stepping stone to a full apprenticeship of which there will, over time, be 500,000.

    And I believe that taking private and public investments together, advanced industrial countries will have in future aspire to invest not 5-6-7-8 per cent of their national income, on education science and innovation but 10 per cent, one pound in every ten.

    And to mobilise all the energies of our country – the Secretary of State for Education and I propose a National Council for Educational Excellence – bringing together leaders in business, higher education, and the voluntary sector, alongside school heads, teachers and parents, all who can play their part.

    It is good for our country that we have businesses involved in some schools, and I can congratulate companies who are. In future every single secondary school and primary school should have a business partner and I invite you all to participate, every secondary school should have a university or college partner, every school should work directly with the arts and cultural and sporting communities in their area, every school should work with other local schools to raise standards for all.

    I am pleased that Sir Terry Leahy, Sir John Rose, Richard Lambert, Bob Wigley and Damon Buffini have agreed to join the Council.

    The Council will be advised by Sir Michael Barber, Julia Cleverdon, Head of Business in the Community, has agreed to report on how more businesses, small medium and large, can play a bigger part in support of our schools.

    We have asked Steve Smith, Vice-Chancellor of Exeter University to report on what more universities and colleges can do to help our schools.

    We have asked Edward Gould, former chair of the Independent Schools Council and Steve Munday, Principal of Comberton Village College to work jointly to identify how in areas such as sports science and languages private and state funded schools can work together to raise standards to the benefit of all.

    We would like this new Council to promote national debate, that I invite you to be part of, about our ambitions for our education system in the years to 2020: today we invest £5,500 in the education of a pupil in the public sector and £8,000 or more in the private sector, 50 per cent per pupil less, and my aim is, over time, to raise our public investment towards that £8,000 figure.

    First, our future education policy must and will champion aspiration and excellence with a renewed focus on standards and rigour in teaching methods, particularly in literacy and by reviewing fundamentally the teaching of numeracy.

    So my proposal is for a far-reaching new nationwide programme that will empower head teachers to provide individual guidance and support for every child in Britain:

    for each pupil, a personal learning guide or coach to help them make the right curriculum choices and to act as an easy point of contact for parents,

    to back this up, for pupils at risk of falling behind, early intervention and special support to help them catch up. This is already underway with the ‘Every Child a Reader’ programme for literacy, which is now being matched with the ‘Every Child Counts’ initiative for numeracy, alongside one-to one tuition for up to another 600,000 children, for all secondary school pupils, starting with a pilot this year, access to after-school small group tuition in subjects areas they have special interest in,

    for pupils who show a special aptitude or talent, extra support through growing our gifted and talented programme,
    for young people at risk of disillusion or dropping out, a mentor – often from a local business – to help them raise their sights, and

    to ensure that those on low incomes receive the support they need, I would also like to pilot a new learning credit which they, their parents and the school can agree will be spent on extra provision in order to make the most of their potential.

    And because this personalised approach to learning is at the heart of the next stage of education reform, we need a renewed focus on setting by ability in the key subjects essential to our competitiveness like maths, English, science and languages as the norm in all our schools; we need pupils increasingly assessed on these subjects by stage, when they are ready to move to the next level; and we need schools held to account for ensuring that every child makes progress.

    Second, in order to achieve excellence in the classroom, future educational policy must and will champion greater diversity, the best way of both encouraging innovation and meeting the different and individual needs of every child. Already we are close to every school being either a specialist, trust or academy school – like the City of London’s own academy in Bermondsey I recently visited with Lord Adonis, and applaud and like so many is flourishing. And we will now consider reduced cash contributions for universities and colleges to make it easier for them to play a fuller part in the expansion of academies.

    And we should also be willing to consider new proposals for: combined all-through primary and secondary schools, employer-led skills academies to transform the quality of vocational provision, and studio schools that motivate dis-engaged pupils by allowing them to learn the curriculum alongside a chance to work in and run a real business based in the school.

    Third, future education policy must and will champion excellence in teaching. Excellent standards require excellent teachers and hence greater status and respect for the difficult job they do. So we need to give heads the freedom they need to lead schools and respect the professionalism of our teachers – helping them to train and retrain, and become expert tutors and subject specialists. We also need to attract more of the most inspirational graduates from the best universities into our schools. So we will expand our ‘Teach First’ programme for the best graduates and complement it with a new ‘Teach Next’ programme, encouraging men and women of talent to move mid or late career into teaching.

    And fourth, future education policy will champion discipline. I know parents and employers expect us to do more to help schools recognise this vital role in developing children and young people and they are right to do so. I want teachers to be in control in every classroom, so we will work with the profession not just to ensure that teachers can make maximum use of tough new powers, but to emphasise the priority of setting boundaries on what is acceptable and unacceptable, I will ask Ofsted to consider raising the bar on what is satisfactory and unsatisfactory behaviour. And we will take further steps not just to stamp out bullying in and outside the school but give parents rights of appeal.

    And alongside discipline there are broader educational goals that have had too little attention: good behaviour, decent manners, the ability to communicate well and work in a team – these soft skills that help a young person’s character develop, that are critical for their employability, and are the essential complement to the hard skills they gain from higher standards.

    And we’ll do this by encouraging parents to work with schools and organisations in the community that have a reputation for fostering children’s character, like the cadets and skill-force; and by building a new offer of national youth community service for young people.

    I have spoken about education this evening.

    Only with investment in education can open markets, free trade and flexibility succeed.

    And the prize is enormous. If we can show people that by equipping themselves for the future they can be the winners not losers in globalisation, beneficiaries of this era of fast moving change, then people will welcome open, flexible, free trade and pro-competition economies as an emancipating force.

    If we can become the education nation, great days are ahead of us.

    While never the biggest in size, nor the mightiest in military hardware, I believe we are – as the city’s success shows – capable of being one of the greatest success stories in the new global economy.

    Already strong in this young century, but greater days are ahead of us.

    Britain the education nation,

    Britain a world leader for its talents and skills,

    So tonight in celebrating the success of the talents, innovations and achievements of the city let us look forward to working together for even greater success in the future.

  • Oliver Dowden – 2020 Comments on Heritage and Culture Investment

    Oliver Dowden – 2020 Comments on Heritage and Culture Investment

    Below is the text of the comments made by Oliver Dowden, the Secretary of State for Culture, on 6 July 2020.

    Our arts and culture are the soul of our nation. They make our country great and are the lynchpin of our world-beating and fast growing creative industries.

    I understand the grave challenges the arts face and we must protect and preserve all we can for future generations. Today we are announcing a huge support package of immediate funding to tackle the funding crisis they face. I said we would not let the arts down, and this massive investment shows our level of commitment.

  • Boris Johnson – 2020 Statement on the Birthday of the NHS

    Boris Johnson – 2020 Statement on the Birthday of the NHS

    Below is the text of the statement made by Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, on 5 July 2020.

    This year has seen the NHS gallantly respond to the greatest challenge it has ever faced and rightly receive unprecedented support.

    Week after week, we saw people take to their doorsteps, line the streets, lean precariously out of rainbow-bedecked windows to clap their hands and bang their saucepans to show their appreciation.

    I am proud to be once again clapping for our heroic NHS staff, alongside Anne-Marie Plas who launched this inspirational initiative.

    I am also celebrating today with staff from St Thomas’ Hospital who, quite simply, saved my life.

    As we mark seventy-two years of the NHS, I want to say how thankful I am of this world leading institution.

    As Prime Minister, I have given the NHS a £34 billion funding increase, the biggest in decades, and made sure it has every penny it needs to cope with coronavirus.

    I’m immensely proud that the organisation built by Beveridge, Bevan, Willink, Godber, and so many others, has grown into the spritely seventy-two year old we see today.

  • Jeane Freeman – 2020 Letter to NHS Staff in Scotland

    Jeane Freeman – 2020 Letter to NHS Staff in Scotland

    Below is the text of the letter to NHS staff in Scotland from Jeane Freeman, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport in the Scottish Parliament, on 5 July 2020.

    There can be very few if any of us who do not have cause to be grateful for our NHS. In big ways and small, it touches all our lives. But on this anniversary, I want to thank each one of you.

    In this 72nd year, our NHS Scotland has had to respond in ways it has never had to at any point in its history. The NHS – and that really means every single member of NHS staff, has had to respond very quickly to the demands of a pandemic on a new virus about which we are continually learning.

    And all at the same time as continuing to deliver essential and urgent health care to the people of Scotland.

    So while the NHS has always had to adapt and respond to the health needs of the people of Scotland and both lead and respond to emerging clinical practice and scientific developments over its 72 years, the response in recent times from NHS staff and staff across health and social care, has been phenomenal.

    This has truly been a system wide effort, spanning health and social care but reaching across our public, independent, third and private sectors.

    Our colleagues who work in health and social care services across Scotland have demonstrated incredible resilience and capability – by quickly adapting and delivering in the most extraordinary of circumstances – and I am very grateful to each and every one for your tireless work, your compassion and your care.

    You’ve worked so hard to make sure that our health and care services have coped and continue to manage with the added pressures we face.

    I know that many of you will be working in unfamiliar settings, are being asked to learn new skills and are working in new roles. I also know that all of you will be doing that at the same time as you have your own worries and anxieties about family or friends.

    Some will have been very directly affected by the loss of loved ones and it is important that we take time to recognise that, to recognise that grief never follows the same path for any of us and that we need to reflect and remember those we’ve lost.

    None of this is going unnoticed and it is important to me that you take time to look after your own health and wellbeing. At different times in the last few months every one of us has felt overwhelmed or unsure or anxious. And that really is OK. It is part of being human. So please make use of the National Wellbeing Hub (www.promis.scot) to help you do so.

    Of course, Covid-19 is still with us.

    The virus hasn’t gone away. And while we have, together, achieved a very great deal in driving down the level of the virus in Scotland, you know probably better than many just how easily it could rise again. So you know that we need to remain ready to flex our response and our services to cope should that happen just at the same time as we are safely and steadily restarting important health care that we had to pause in the early stages of the pandemic.

    We ask a very great deal of you in normal times. In recent months and for the months ahead we will be asking for even more. But in your response – in your professionalism, your dedication and your care you have been exemplary. So please take a moment to be proud of everything you have done – as an individual and as a team.

    The future is always with us. And our future as an NHS is even more firmly grounded in all you have achieved and because of that, no matter how hard it will feel at times or how complex – that future is a bright one. So please accept my heartfelt thanks today – and every day.

  • Alyn Smith – 2020 Article on China’s Human Rights Violations

    Alyn Smith – 2020 Article on China’s Human Rights Violations

    Below is the text of the article by Alyn Smith, the SNP MP for Stirling, on 5 July 2020.

    Hong Kong has long been a special place. Its unique constitutional set-up – known as ‘one country, two systems’ – recognises that Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of China, but still allows it to retain its own legal and legislative systems, as well as enjoy a high degree of freedom.

    This week that principle was torn up by the imposition of the new National Security Law on the people of Hong Kong by the Chinese Government.

    While the details of the law were kept secret until it was passed, we know now that it has created several vague new criminal offences, including ‘subversion’ and ‘collusion with external forces’, which are punishable with a maximum sentence of life in prison.

    This law puts an end to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of expression. It puts an end to the free society that we have watched Hong Kongers take in their hundreds of thousands to the streets to defend.

    The ‘one country, two systems’ principle was enshrined in the Sino-British Joint Declaration in 1984, when the UK committed – along with China – to protect Hong Kong’s unique status for the next fifty years.

    For this system to be dismantled before our eyes like this is more than a challenge to the international rules-based order: it is a direct challenge to the UK Government, and no amount of shiny new planes or Royal Yachts can disguise the fact that this is a humiliating affront to the United Kingdom on the international stage.

    These recent actions by the Chinese state are just the latest in a long pattern of aggression, disregard for human rights and disrespect for international agreements. They are a direct assault on our values and our interests and cannot be tolerated.

    The imposition of this law matters to us all.

    It matters to us as defenders of human rights that people everywhere are allowed to live freely and without fear, and that international human rights organisations like Amnesty International are able to carry out their vital work without fear of reprisal.

    It matters to us as internationalists that we can speak openly with people in other countries, and that the brave Hong Kongers I have spoken with in recent weeks can continue to share their stories without the threat of life in prison just for speaking to a foreign politician.

    It matters to us that as campaigners for an independent Scotland that international law is respected and strengthened, and that small states the world over know that the world order is based on mutually agreed rules, not mere economic and military might.

    This law matters to Scotland and it matters to the world.

    Time and time again, the SNP has made the case for safe and legal routes to this country for those fleeing political oppression and I welcome that – in this instance – the UK Government has listened and created a new path to citizenship for BNO passport holders. But we have to do more than that.

    When the people of West Berlin were threatened by the USSR, the international community they recognised that it wasn’t enough to simply open the door to those who were fleeing repression: they had to face the threat head-on. While Hong Kong may be a little further away than Berlin, the values that we share are universal.

    The UK Government must take a stand against China, if their much-touted idea of ‘Global Britain’ is to mean anything.

    They must join with our allies in the European Union and commit to lodging an action against China in the International Court of Justice to hold it to account for its breach of international law, they must open active consideration of targeted sanctions against China and Chinese companies active within the UK and – most fundamentally – the UK Government must show that breaking the law has consequences.

    I believe that China’s violations of international agreements and of the rights of its own citizens matters to us all. It’s about time the UK Government showed that it thinks so too.

  • Emma Hardy – 2020 Comments on Universities and Insolvency

    Emma Hardy – 2020 Comments on Universities and Insolvency

    Below is the text of the comments made by Emma Hardy, the Shadow Minister for Further Education & Universities, on 6 July 2020.

    Universities can provide the training and skills we need to build back better as we emerge from the coronavirus crisis, but this report shows how under threat they are.

    Losing any university or cutting courses would mean losing opportunities to reshape lives, particularly for people who can only study locally such as carers and those who cannot afford to move away.

    The choice of a university education must remain available to everyone, wherever they live. The Government cannot allow a single university to fail.

  • Thangam Debbonaire – 2020 Comments on Evictions

    Thangam Debbonaire – 2020 Comments on Evictions

    Below is the text of the comments made by Thangam Debbonaire, the Shadow Housing Minister, on 6 July 2020.

    We need emergency legislation to protect renters from evictions. But the Government seems to be more interested in protecting landlords’ incomes than preventing families from losing their homes in the middle of a deadly pandemic.

    Rough sleeping had more than doubled under the Tories before coronavirus. If we go back to business as usual, many thousands of people will find themselves sleeping on the streets this winter.

    This is one of the reasons why we need a Back to Work Budget focused on jobs, jobs, jobs, to prevent people from getting into difficulty with their rent.

  • Dadabhai Naoroji – 1893 Comments on East India Revenue Accounts

    Dadabhai Naoroji – 1893 Comments on East India Revenue Accounts

    Below is the text of the speech made by Dadabhai Naoroji, the then Liberal MP for Finsbury Central, in the House of Commons on 20 September 1893.

    Forty years ago, when I first spoke upon this question, I expressed my faith that the British people were lovers of justice and fair play. After those 40 years, and with an intimate acquaintance with the people of this country, and a residence of 38 years, I repeat that faith. I stand here again in that faith, ten times stronger than ever it was before—that the British people are lovers of their Indian subjects—and I stand here in that, faith hoping that India will receive justice and fair dealing at the hands of this Parliament.

    I might also add, Sir, that from that time to the present I have always held that the British rule is the salvation of India. A higher compliment I cannot pay to the British rule. It has done a great many good things, and has given new political life to India. If certain reforms that can be made, and about which there was no difficulty, are brought about, both England and India will be blessed. I do not want to occupy much of your time, so I will not say more on this point.

    I acknowledge with the deepest gratitude that so far, in several respects, though not in all, the English rule in India had been a great and an inestimable blessing. With regard to the Amendment I propose, in which I ask that a Royal Commission be appointed in order that we may come to the bottom of many questions of grievances, and especially into the principle and policy of the British rule as it exists at present, I may just quote a few words that were uttered by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister only a few days ago in connection with the question that is before us. He says— I must make an admission. I do not think that in this matter we ought to be guided exclusively—perhaps even principally—by those who may consider themselves experts.

    It is a very sad thing to say, but unquestionably it happens not infrequently in human affairs, that those who ought, from their situation, to know the most and the best, yet from prejudice and prepossessions know the least and worst. How far that is applicable to the Indian administration I am not undertaking to say; that is exactly what the inquiry ought to settle—whether the views expressed by the Anglo-Indian officials are the right views, or whether they are mistaken in the way the Prime Minister thinks they may be. He says, again— I certainly, for my part, do not propose to abide finally and decisively by official opinion. Independent opinion—independent but responsible—is what the House wants in my opinion in order to enable it to proceed safely in the career upon which, I admit, that it has definitively entered. And that is exactly what I appeal to.

    In the matter of the difference of opinion that exists between the Indian officials on the one hand and the native opinion on the question it is absolutely necessary—especially in the case where this House cannot in any way watch the taxes and the taxpayers, which it cannot at a distance of 5,000 miles—it is absolutely necessary that there should be some independent inquiry to satisfy this House and the public whether the administration is such as it ought to be.

    I hear that grumbling has begun to come from India itself. Only the other day, the 15th June, a telegram appeared in The Times saying that there seemed to be little doubt that all classes of India would soon join in demanding a strict and impartial inquiry into the excessive cost of the Indian establishments and the contributions levied on the Indian Treasury by the War Office, the Admiralty, and the Foreign Office; it was universally felt that India has been treated very unfairly in these matters, and that any attempt to stifle or delay the inquiry would cause much bitterness and discontent. Now, this is not all that has to be inquired into.

    I say that the whole policy and principle of the Budget, and the whole administration requires an overhauling. The last inquiry we all know took place in 1854. Since then there has not been an inquiry of the same kind. When we see the Prime Minister himself acknowledging only a few weeks ago, on the 30th June, that the expenditure of India, and especially the military expenditure, is alarming, and when we see also the Finance Minister telling us in his last speech— The financial position of the Government of India at the present moment is such as to give cause for apprehension, I think it will be admitted by the House that the time has come when it is exceedingly necessary that some fair inquiry ought to be made into the state of affairs.

    Well may the Prime Minister say that the expenditure is alarming, when we see that in 1853 and 1854—when the last inquiry took place—the annual expenditure of India was £28,000,000, whereas now in 1893 and 1894, excluding everything connected with public works, railways, &c, we have an expenditure of Rx68,000,000, which means an increase of 140 per cent. upon the expenditure of 1853 and 1854 in 40 years. The question is, whether this expenditure is justifiable or not?

    No inquiry has been made during these 40 years, and it is time, with such an additional expenditure, that full inquiry ought to be made. And then we know, at the same time, that from the beginning of this century to the present day there has been a constant wail and complaint that India is poor; and when we remember that the latest Finance Ministers emphatically laid down that it is the poorest country in the world, even compared with Turkey in Europe, I think it will be enough to satisfy the House that there ought to be a proper inquiry. I will now take a few illustrations of the principles on which the Budget, as it were, is built up, and consequently which also is an indication of the principles and policy of the whole administration.

    I have here the Colonial Office built at an expense of £100,000; every farthing of which is paid from the British Exchequer. I have the India Office built at nearly or about £500,000; every farthing of which is taken out of the Indian Exchequer from the Revenue of the poorest country in the world. The Colonial Service is given in the finance accounts as about £168,000; every farthing of which is paid from the British Exchequer. The Indian expenses or establishments given in the India Office expenditure is something like £230,000; every farthing of which is taken from the Indian Exchequer.

    But there is one item which, small as it is, is peculiarly indicative of the curious relations between England and India. I refer to the examinations that take place in England to send out young men for service in India, where they get a splendid career. They inflict upon us, rightly or wrongly—I am not discussing the justifiableness of such an injury—injuries of six different kinds. They take the bread from the mouths of the natives; they take away from the natives the opportunities of service in their own country which they otherwise would have. That is the material welfare we lose.

    They take away also esteem and the wealth of experience, because when an English official of 20 or 40 years’ experience leaves the country all his accumulated wisdom is utterly lost to us, and we do not get the benefit of the wealth of that wisdom which we have a right to from the experience of those who are serving in India. The result of that again is that we have no opportunity of exercising our faculties, or of showing our capacity for administration. So that I think, as a law of nature, our capacity is stunted, we lose and wither, and we naturally become, as it were, incapable in time of showing that we have capacity for government. And what follows? You add insult to injury.

    After stultifying our growth, our mental and moral capacity, we are told that we are not capable. Well, Sir, I cannot, of course, enter into the details of these various injuries we suffer; but I say that here are these English youths who are to go out to India for a splendid career, and yet for their examination and further education in this country India must be charged £18,000 a year. This is a significant example of the relations that exist between India and England.

    Lastly, I will give one more authority. Lord Hartington has put the case very significantly. He once said— There can, in my opinion, be very little doubt that India is insufficiently governed. I believe there are many districts in India in which the number of officials is altogether insufficient, and that is owing to the fact that the Indian Revenue would not boar the strain if a sufficient number of Europeans were appointed. The Government of India cannot afford to spend more than they do on the administration of the country; and if the country is to be better governed that can only be done by the employment of the best and most intelligent of the natives in the Service. I want to point out this as an illustration of the relations that subsist between England and India.

    I need not say anything about the saving of £2,000 in the salary of Lord Kimberley, by appointing him also as the President of the Council. Much has been said on this point, so I will not add to it. By one stroke of the pen about 10,000,000 rupees additional burden is put on the poor taxpayer of India by giving a British exchange of 1s. 6d. to the European officials. This means this, that the starving are to be starved more in order that the well-fed may have their fill.

    I think the House will ask whether such should be the relations between the two Revenues? To come to the next proposition. Another illustration of what I am saying is charging India with half the expense of the Opium Commission. I will not say much upon that subject, because I find that almost the whole of the English Press, as well as the Indian Press, have condemned that proposal, and have used strong words, which I should be unwilling to use—that is to say, the English Press has used very strong words against that proposal, and I will only use the softer and milder word—that it is unjust.

    It was the English people, in the interest of what they consider their own morality, who proposed that this Commission should be instituted, and it must be remembered that it was this House that had settled that such a Commission should be given. Under such peculiar circumstances, to ask the people of India to pay half of this expense is anything but just. And what is still more striking is this—that in 1870 the same question was before this House, and then the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, and in 1891 the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith), laid it down distinctly that India should not suffer in the slightest way; that unless the House was prepared to give to India the surplus of £6,000,000 of 1870 to make up the deficit of every year in Indian Revenue, neither the Prime Minister nor the Leader of the House in 1891 (Mr. W. H. Smith) would proceed any further, or would listen to any representation about it. After such just protest against any movement of that kind, that the Prime Minister should now agree to this proposition is, I must confess, altogether beyond my comprehension.

    The next illustration, and a very significant one, is one upon which I need not dwell long, because only a short time ago a Debate took place in the House of Lords on the subject of military expenditure, when. Lord Northbrook, who has been Viceroy of India; the Duke of Argyll, who has been a Secretary of State; Lord Kimberley and Lord Cross were present, and it was the unanimous opinion of their Lordships that the Treasury and the War Office had treated India very unjustly in respect of the military expenditure and upon expeditions.

    I will read one extract from Lord Northbrook to show the manner in which India is treated in that respect. The whole Debate is worth a very careful perusal, and if hon. Gentlemen of this House will peruse that Debate they will get some idea of what highest Indian officials think of the relations of England with India. I will read one extract of Lord Northbrook’s speech, which is very significant.

    He said— The whole of the ordinary expenses in the Abyssinian Expedition were paid by India, only the extraordinary expenses being paid by the Home Government. I may interpose that, had it not been for the agitation I raised on that occasion, there is no doubt that the Indian Government would have been saddled with the whole of that expense. As it is, they had only to pay the ordinary expenses, and the British Government to pay the extraordinary expenses, though we had nothing to do with that. Lord North-brook goes further.

    He goes on to say— The argument used being that India would have to pay her troops in the ordinary way, and she ought not to seek to make a profit out of the affair. But how did the Home Government treat the Indian Government when troops were sent out during the Mutiny? Did they say—’We do not want to make any profit out of this?’ Not a bit of it. Every single man sent out was paid for by India during the whole time, though only temporary use was made of them, including the cost of their drilling and training as recruits until they were sent out. I think this is a significant instance of the relations between England and India, and I hope the House will carefully consider its position.

    In regard to the injustice of the military expense, even a paper (The Pioneer), which takes the side of the Government against the Indians generally, has expressed the opinion that the sum now imposed is an injustice, and that the expense is a large item annually increasing. It gives the whole—I think £2,200,000 in all—and then says— This sum is a terrible drain on the resources of India, and might well be reduced. One more significant instance of these things. When the Afghan War took place it was urged upon this House that it was an Imperial question; that the interests both of England and India were concerned in it; and it was right and proper that this House and this country should take a fair share in the expenditure of that war.

    The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister accepted the view which Mr. Fawcett put forward, and he said— In my opinion, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney has made good his case. And he says again that it is fair and right to say that, in his opinion, the case of his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney is completely made good, and that case, as he understood it, had not received one shred of answer.

    Well, Sir, the case was then that this war had taken place in which both India and England were equally interested; that as it was an Imperial question, and not altogether an Indian question, a portion of the expenses ought to be defrayed by this country. And the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, true to his word, when he came into power, did contribute a certain portion on that ground. We might have expected that he would have contributed half of it, but he contributed nearly a quarter; out of an expenditure of £20,000,000 or £21,000,000 he contributed from the British Exchequer £5,000,000, for which I can assure the House we are most grateful, not so much for the sake of the money, but because the principle of justice was admitted. It was admitted that this country had something to do with India; and if it has its rights, if it draws millions and millions a year from India, it has also its duties. And the first time this was ever admitted was on the occasion I have referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. We regard it as a great departure in the administration of the country.

    Now, I urge that there is a large Military and also Civil expenditure upon Europeans. It is avowedly declared—over and over again we have been told—that a British Army and some British Civil Service in India are necessary for the maintenance of the British power, as well as in the interests of India. That in order to maintain British power there must be a certain amount of British Army nobody denies; but the question is whether the employment of this British Army is entirely for the interests of India alone, or whether it is not also necessary for the maintenance of the British power in India? In other words, are not the two countries equal partners in the benefit to be derived from the European Services; and, if so, should not England pay for this as well as India? I urge the consideration of this upon the House.

    I say that part of the military expenditure is for the interests of the British Empire; that the maintenance of this Army involves the interests of Great Britain as well as India, and that both should equally share the expenditure for the maintenance of the British power in India and for the protection of British interests there. I may have to say a great deal upon this subject, but considering the time we have at our command I will be very brief. I would only say this: that on the discussion which formerly took place the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition took an opposite view to the view held by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. Among the other reasons this was one of the reasons urged—that if India had belonged to an independent Ruler, like the Mogul, it would have been necessary for him to have entered into the war precisely as the Indian Government had done, and for precisely the same objects.

    There was no doubt, therefore, that Her Majesty’s Government were following out a right line of policy in throwing the whole of the cost upon Indian finance. For these reasons he gave the Government his cordial support—that is to say, for throwing the whole expenditure on India. The right hon. Gentleman, however, forgets altogether that when the Mogul was the Emperor, and when the natives were a self-governing people, every farthing spent in the country on every soldier returned back to the people, whilst at the present time, in maintaining a foreign distant Power, you are drawing considerable amounts of money from the Indians for the Europeans, every farthing of which is completely taken away from the people under the present circumstances. That makes it entirely different.

    When a foreign domination compels the people to find every farthing for the sinews of war, then the money does not go back to the people as it would under, a Home Ruler. That is not the position of Britain. Britain is 5,000 miles away from India, and sends thousands of Europeans and foreigners over to India in order to support her power. We have to find every farthing of the cost, and then we are told it is only what the Mogul would have done. It is as different as the poles, as the House will recognise.

    It may be remembered that a few months ago a Petition was presented to this House from a public meeting in Bombay. In the Despatch quoted from the Government of Lord Lytton to the Secretary of State, he put the question in such a form that I shall be perfectly content to leave his words before the House. After making certain preliminary remarks, the Despatch goes on— We are constrained to represent to Her Majesty’s Government that, in our own opinion, the burden now thrown upon India on account of the British troops is excessive, and beyond what an impartial judgment would assign, considering the relative material wealth of the two countries and the mutual obligations that subsist between them.

    All that we can do is to appeal to the British Government for an impartial view of the relative financial capacity of the two countries to bear the charges that arise from the maintenance of the Army of Great Britain, and for a generous consideration of the share to be assigned by the wealthiest nation in the world on a dependency so comparatively poor and so little advanced as India. I hope these few words will bear weight. I do not ask for a share of the Military and Civil expenditures of the European Services simply as a beggar on account of being poor, though that is a great hardship; but I ask it on the ground of justice, on the ground that our interests and British interests are practically identical, and that both have an interest in maintaining the British rule in India. The British people have a great advantage, and in justice to the Indians they should be willing to pay their share.

    Now, I wish to say a little about the administration. I will say it in a very few words. As an illustration, may I remind the House that there are 37,000,000 people in the United Kingdom, and that an Income Tax of 1d. in the £1 produces above £2,250,000. India has a population of seven or six times the number in Great Britain, and yet on the 1d. in the £1 she can hardly pay, I think, £200,000. If this be not an indication of the condition of the people, of India I do not know what else is.

    A short time ago I heard with very great interest the Statement on the Budget by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He spoke in very warm terms of the marvellous way in which the Income Tax increased in this country, although merchants and traders were complaining of a very bad state of trade. The Chancellor of the Exchequer rejoiced that, notwithstanding this, the Income Tax was jumping on year after year. I was very anxious to hear his explanation of this paradox. I would like to give a little explanation upon it. I do not know whether it may be an exact statement of the facts, but still I will venture to give it.

    Under ordinary circumstances, it is estimated that Britain draws something like £20,000,000 a year from India. I know that much more is said by some people, but I want to put it at the lowest. On the testimony of one gentleman who is generally antagonistic to the Indians—namely, the late Member for Oldham (Mr. Maclean)—£20,000,000 is about the amount. Therefore, we may take it that something like that sum is annually drawn from India. I would welcome this annual wealth being taken from India by you if we benefited as well as you. I take it as a matter of fact that with all this wealth flowing into Britain the Income Tax is increased.

    I think if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer can see his way to agree with me on this point he will show a greater sympathy with India in his dealings with the financial aspect of the Empire. I will give another illustration which will bring the matter home to the mass of the English people themselves. In India you have a vast country inhabited by people who have been civilised for thousands of years, and capable of enjoying all the good things of the world.

    They are not like the savage Africans, whom we have yet to teach how to value goods. But here you have 300,000,000 people to trade with, and for 100 years you have ruled them administratively by the highest-paid Service in the world. What is the result? What does England get in the shape of commerce? England sends her exports to various countries, and there are countries which shut their doors to her trade.

    But in India the trade is free; it is entirely under the control of the British themselves, and yet what profit do all the masses of the people receive? Very little. The total export of British produce to India is not worth 2s. 6d. per head per annum. If India were prosperous, if you allowed India to grow and make use of its own productions, then if you could export, say, £1 per head per annum, you would have a trade in India as you have not now in the whole world. It is a great loss to you and to us.

    If the present principles of administration were reformed and changed, and brought into a more natural condition, the result would be that the trade of England would grow to an extent of which we have no conception. You would have a market with 300,000,000 people, whereas, at the present time, you are spending hundreds of thousands in finding markets which will produce nothing approaching this. But here is a market at your own doors, and you are not able to sell of your produce more than 2s. 6d. a head per annum on the population.

    We know that in Native States native industry is prospering under the protection of British supremacy. The Native States have not foreigners going in and eating up their productions. They are gradually progressing in prosperity. I hope the time may come when important changes will be made in the administration of the country. I will not go into any further illustrations, but I would remind the House that Lord Salisbury has said what this policy is in the most significant terms. He has expressed it not in the hurry of a speech, but in a deliberate Minute made as Secretary of State for India. I hope his words will be digested by the House. He thinks that India only exists to be bled, and that now only those portions should be bled which are capable of giving blood. He says— As India must be bled, the lancet should be directed to the parts where the blood is congested, or at least sufficient, not to those which are already feeble from the want of it.

    An hon. MEMBER Where does he say that?

    MR. NAOROJI It is in a Minute made by Lord Salisbury in connection with the Famine Commission Return, No. 3,086–1, 1881, page 144. Those singular words cover the whole present policy of administration, and I do not think I need add anything to them. I will use a few words of our Prime Minister, and of other great and eminent statesmen, as to what sort of relationship there should be between England and India. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister on one occasion, in 1858, quoted these words of Mr. Halliday approvingly— I believe our mission in India is to qualify the natives for governing themselves. But I would lay most stress on the words he recently expressed in this House in connection with the Irish Home Rule Bill.

    He says— There can be no nobler spectacle than that of a nation deliberately set on the removal of injustice, deliberately determined to break not through terror, and not in haste, but under the sole influence of duty and honour, determined to break with whatever remains still existing of an evil tradition, and determined in that way at once to pay a debt of justice, and to consult by a bold, wide, and good act its own interest and its own honour. I appeal to no other sentiment of the British people, but leave it to their justice. It is necessary, in putting this matter properly before the House, to show how the present principles of administration in India are destructive.

    I appeal, therefore, to the Government, and say that an inquiry is absolutely necessary to ascertain whether it is or not that the administration of India is based upon a principle not only destructive, but very much mistaken. This is my view. I appeal to this House to give us an opportunity of proving that the present system of administration is an unfortunate one, and that certain changes of reform would be a blessing. With regard to the extract from Lord Hartington’s speech, which I have read, I may say that that clearly shows that India is not properly governed. It is not sufficiently governed, for you cannot have the requisite number of men to govern it except from the Indians.

    I will read a few words from a speech of Mr. Bright’s which are very expressive of our opinion regarding Indian government. He said— You may govern India, if you like, for the good of England, but the good of England must come through the channels of the good of India. This expresses what is desired by the people of India.

    Mr. Bright further says— There are but two modes of gaining anything by our connection with India: the one is by plundering the people of India, and the other by trading with them. I prefer to do by trading with them. But in order that England may become rich by trading with India, India itself must become rich. He also says— We must in future have India governed, not for a handful of Englishmen, not for that Civil Service, whose praises are so constantly sounded in this House. On this point and in these words you have the whole Indian trouble, what the principle of the administration ought to be, and what alone will benefit both England and India.

    I will just read a few words by Sir Stafford Northcote when he was Secretary of State; I have no hesitation in saying that he endeavoured to do the best for us. He tried his best to see what justice he could do to the Indians, and he expressed himself in words like these— If they were to do their duty towards India they could only discharge that duty by obtaining the assistance and counsel of all who were great and good in that country. It would be absurd in them to say that there was not a large fund of statesmanship and ability in the Indian character. I might quote something similar by the hon. Member for Kingston (Sir E. Temple).

    Sir Stafford Northcote further says— Nothing could be more wonderful than our Empire in India, but we ought to consider on what conditions we held it, and how our predecessors held it. The greatness of the Mogul Empire depended upon the liberal policy that was pursued by men like Akbar availing themselves of Hindu talent and assistance, and identifying themselves, as far as possible, with the people of the country. He thought that they ought to take a lesson from such a circumstance.

    Now, I do not think I need say more. I think I have made out a primâ facie case that the Indian problem is a very serious problem. As Sir William Hunter once said, it is a problem which might in 40 years become an Irish problem, but 50 times more difficult. I hope and trust that time will never come, and that such a contingency will never arise. I hope the time is coming when the natives themselves, educated and learned men, will have a voice and due share in the government of India. Everything is promising. If the statesmen of to-day will only overhaul the whole question and have a clear inquiry by independent and responsible men acting with English sense and honour and justice, then the time is not far distant when both England and India will bless each other.