UKPOL.CO.UK

Blog

  • David Davis – 1987 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by David Davis, the then Conservative MP for Boothferry, in the House of Commons on 5 November 1987.

    I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me to make my maiden speech so early in the debate. I am also grateful for the compliments on my speech, however premature.

    I pray the indulgence of the House to speak briefly about my constituency and to pay proper tribute to my predecessor in Boothferry. The constituency of Boothferry encompasses the Yorkshire wolds and extends down to the vale of York, across the Ouse and Humber to include the Isle of Axholme. It is a beautiful rural area and can claim to be one of the cradles of English individualism. Many of its people fought for their beliefs and for other people’s rights. Some died. Robert Aske, who led the pilgrimage of Grace, was hanged in chains in York castle. Others, such as William Wilberforce and John Wesley, have, by the force of their character, and their commitment to their ideas, changed the world in such a way that history will never forget them.

    Today, individualism takes the form of enterprise and initiative on the part of the people I represent. That is why Yorkshire and Humberside has many more small businesses, private enterprise and self-employed people than most other areas of Britain.

    My predecessor in Boothferry was Sir Paul Bryan. When Sir Paul entered the House as the Member for Howden 32 years ago, he was already distinguished by his war record. He was a holder of the Military Cross and Distinguished Service Order. I think that he was the last Member of the House to hold both those decorations. He was clearly a man of considerable courage and leadership Courage has been described as the quality of exhibiting grace under pressure. Sir Paul had the quality of exhibiting grace in all circumstances. He was greatly loved in my constituency for his dignified leadership, quiet compassion and calm wisdom. If I can do as much for my constituency and the House as Sir Paul did, I shall be justifiably proud.

    Sir Paul had one other characteristic when he came to the House which helped him to stand out from the crowd. He had an entry in the “Guinness Book of Records”. He was and is a keen golfer and he achieved the feat of getting two holes in one, as some hon. Members will know. He tells the story of returning from that round, buying the traditional round of drinks in the club house and telling the barmaid about the fact that he had scored two holes in one. She asked him which holes he had scored them on and he said that it was the ninth and twelfth. “But, Mr. Bryan,” she said, “those are the two shortest holes in the club.” Such wry scepticism is often seen on the Opposition Benches today.

    My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has scored hat trick after hat trick—in the Autumn Statement last year, the Budget this year and the Autumn Statement this year—when we had a higher growth record than any other Western nation, a faster fall in unemployment than any other country, and many other characteristics in our financial situation which stood out as being models for the rest of the world. However, the comments of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) will not be the real test of the Government’s policy. The real test of the Government’s policy and our economy will be how it withstands the global adversity that we are seeing today.

    I want to explore how that test will come about. I am not just talking about a slump or a potential slump. If we have a slump, everybody understands what that means as a test for our economy. If we avoid a slump, that, too, will be a test for our economy.

    Let us examine what has been said about what is needed to avoid a slump. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) basically described five different points. Two of them are American. There is obviously the need to cut the budget deficit and the Americans must abandon protectionism. Three other things have to be done. First, we must maintain the liquidity of the financial markets, and that has already been done. Secondly, we probably have to see some fiscal relaxation in Germany and Japan. Thirdly, we must see a modification of the Louvre accord to allow the dollar to devalue to a proper level against the deutschmark. If that goes ahead and is successful in preventing a global slump, there will be a continuation of growth in global demand—it will not be as high as in recent years but it will continue. However, the structure of that global demand will change.

    Labour Members like to talk about the real economy, but what will happen in real terms? The American market will suffer deflationary effects. The policy change and the consumption effects of the Wall street crash will have deflationary effects. American industry and employment will be protected from that, to some extent, by the dollar-deutschmark parity change. British industry will not be protected. Some £12 billion worth of exports will be going into the dollar area markets. We will have a smaller, more difficult market for our high-tech and high-value items—typically the items that we sell to the United States—and we will face tougher competition from American producers with that dollar advantage.

    We will have to look elsewhere for outlets. If the global economy is growing, by definition there will be expansion elsewhere. When we look elsewhere we will run head on into Japanese competition and Japanese products that have been displaced from the United States market. We will also face German and American competition, which will be tougher because of that dollar parity change. We will have to battle hard for our market share. That market will not necessarily be in the same products—it certainly will not be in the same place—and we will have to fight for every percentage point of share.

    How will Britain’s industry cope? The transformation of British industry in the past eight years will ensure that we will win enough battles to maintain our growth rate. How would we have done eight or ten years ago if we had taken on the Japanese or tried to sell Jaguars to Germany? That is the acid test of Government policy. That is the test that will apply if the global market does not crash. The previous Labour Government would have failed that test. Their policies would not have coped because of the lack of competitiveness that they brought about in British industry.

    That is the successful scenario, but in the unsuccessful scenario the other side of the Government’s balance sheet takes effect. Clearly competition and competitiveness still matter. However, the Government’s ability to inject more demand into the economy—this is a common sense approach, not a Keynesian one—is a function of its creditworthiness. Any company chairman will know that creditworthiness dictates how one copes. The United States’ problem is that it has run out of creditworthiness.

    The Government’s balance sheet is as good as it has ever been, but it is not the only important balance sheet. Over the past few years it has become fashionable to criticise the bull market. However, one of its side effects is that British industry has been able to obtain lower borrowing levels, better equity funding and a lower risk base than ever before. Thus, it is better equipped to deal with stronger competition and higher margins.

    Our policies stand up, on any scenario, in comparison with anybody else’s. We have the flexibility to move with the world markets. We have the capacity to cope with a drop in world demand. In the final analysis, whatever the outcome, the British economy has the equipment to harness the wind or weather the storm.

  • Nigel Lawson – 1993 Maiden Speech in the House of Lords

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Nigel Lawson in the House of Lords on 14 July 1993.

    My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins—who has just sat down—for his expression of interest in what I am about to say. I shall try not to take too long in saying it. I suspect it is somewhat unusual, although I believe by no means unprecedented, to make one’s maiden speech during the course of the Report stage of a Bill. To those of your Lordships who feel affronted by my departure from custom, I can only apologise but perhaps plead in mitigation that this is no ordinary Bill and that this amendment is no ordinary amendment; not to mention the fact that, having had the privilege of being a Member of your Lordships’ House for a year, it was probably about time that I broke my cluck anyway.

    It is a particular pleasure to speak in a debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Blake. My noble friend was my politics tutor when I was an undergraduate at Oxford some 40 years ago. I may say that he survived the experience remarkably well. As a result, I always pay particular heed to what he has to say.

    It seems to me that at the heart of this debate lie two distinct questions. The first is whether a consultative referendum has any part in our constitution; the second is whether, if so, this Bill provides one of those rare occasions on which such a referendum is called for.

    As to the first of those questions, I am happy to agree with my noble friend Lord Blake. The precedent that has to some extent inadvertently been set in recent years, that fundamental constitutional change be put to the people in a referendum, is one that I welcome. I welcome it because it buttresses a constitution that is badly in need of buttressing. But I have to agree with my noble friend the Leader of the House that those who advocate a referendum on Maastricht do not strengthen their case by praying in aid the fact that at the last general election all three political parties were in favour of Maastricht, thus depriving the electorate of the possibility of casting a vote against it. Even if that had not been so, a general election is not an occasion on which a single isolated issue can be put to the people, as Mr. Heath discovered in 1974.

    But much more importantly, all-party agreement is not the only way in which the people can be deprived of the opportunity to vote against a proposal. It happens all the time. The people had no opportunity, for example, to vote against the Single European Act, which was ushered through Parliament under the leadership of my noble friend Lady Thatcher. As an issue it was not even in contemplation at the time of the 1983 general election and by the 1987 election it was already a fait accompli.

    No, the question—it is an important question—is simply whether, unlike the Single European Act, the Maastricht Treaty involves such a fundamental change to our constitution and such a grave loss of national and parliamentary sovereignty that it should, on those grounds and those grounds alone, be put to the people in a referendum first before final ratification can be contemplated.

    Those who claim that the objective of the architects of the Maastricht Treaty is to replace the European Community of nation states by a single European superstate are clearly right. There is nothing disreputable about such an objective, although for my part, as a longstanding proponent of European unity, I believe it to be profoundly mistaken and, if it were ever to be imposed on the peoples of Europe, a blueprint for disaster. But I repeat: there is nothing disreputable about it. All that might perhaps be considered disreputable would be to deny that that is the objective of the architects of the Maastricht Treaty, since it manifestly is so.

    But the question to which we have to address ourselves is whether the Maastricht Treaty in fact achieves or can be expected to achieve that objective. The heart of the Maastricht Treaty and the means by which its federalist architects seek to achieve their political objective is monetary union, the replacement of the individual European currencies and central banks by a single European currency and a single European central bank. That is the heart of it.

    I believe that there are two distinct constitutional dimensions to it. In the first place the loss of one’s national currency and of the ability to possess a national monetary policy is in itself a constitutional change and a loss of national autonomy of the first importance. But it does not stop there. It is envisaged that monetary policy ‘would be conducted by a European central bank which is politically independent.

    The idea of central bank independence has aroused increasing interest in recent years. I myself have long made clear that I favour conferring independence, within an appropriate statutory framework, on the Bank of England. But what is agreed on all sides—and the Prime Minister recently made this point in another place—is that in a democracy independence must be accompanied, as indeed it is in all those countries that already possess an independent central bank, by accountability. That involves both co-operation with the elected government of the day and open accountability to Parliament. So long as there is no single European government and no genuine Single European Parliament, a European central bank, which would arguably be the most powerful entity in the entire Community, would be effectively unaccountable and thus democratically unacceptable.

    As the architects of Maastricht are doubtless aware, the only way in which that dilemma could be resolved would be to create the European political institutions of a genuine European Parliament, a European finance ministry and a European government that democracy itself would then demand. Thus would the superstate be born. However, in regard to this country, none of that is in the treaty before us today, containing as it does a protocol specifying that the United Kingdom shall not be obliged or committed to move to the third stage of economic and monetary union without a separate decision to do so by its government and Parliament. It is of course only at the third stage that the single European currency and European central bank are planned to come into being.

    It is clear that Her Majesty’s Government, by negotiating that protocol, recognised the special political and constitutional significance of monetary union. Without monetary union the Maastricht Treaty is not, in my judgment, of any greater constitutional importance than the Single European Act (in the preamble to which, incidentally, the objective of monetary union was for the first time brought back to life from the grave in which it had lain since the collapse of the Werner plan in the mid-1970s).

    However, should there come a time when this or any future British Government are so unwise as to conclude that this country should participate in a European monetary union, with all its political consequences, that would be a decision of such momentous constitutional significance as to warrant not merely the separate approval of Parliament at a time as provided for in the treaty before us, but also a prior referendum of the British people. Unless and until that time arrives—and for a number of reasons I rather doubt that it ever will—I do not believe that the case for a referendum is made and I shall vote tonight accordingly.

  • Nigel Lawson – 1974 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Nigel Lawson, the then Conservative MP for Blaby, in the House of Commons on 1 April 1974.

    Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye for the first time, on All Fool’s Day, too—a date whose appropriateness to the occasion of a maiden speech needs no underlining.

    This has been a wide-ranging debate, and I could not pretend to be able to follow all its twists and turns, but I am particularly glad to have had the opportunity of speaking after the hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne), whose presence here is a symbol of a form of security of tenure which all of us have deeply at heart, although he has perhaps caused a lot of trouble at the United Nations.

    The new constituency of Blaby, which I have the honour to represent, is in South Leicestershire. It is roughly 60 per cent. of the old Harborough division, whose Member, happily, continues to serve here as Member for the new Harborough division. Therefore, for me to pay the customary tribute to my predecessor would in the circumstances perhaps be in questionable taste—rather like publishing an obituary of the living. Therefore, I shall simply say that it is my ambition to serve my constituents as well as my hon. Friend did when they were his constituents.

    Blaby is in a real sense the centre and heart of England. It is there that those two great Roman roads, Watling Street and the Fosse Way, cross. To come to the present day, it is in Blaby that the M6 meets the M1. As hon. Members of a monetarist persuasion will instantly recognise, that leads me logically to the subject of the Budget.

    As a former professional Budget-watcher it was easy for me to recognise the parentage of this beast. It is by the TUC cart horse out of the Treasury grey mare. Therefore, I was not in the least surprised to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that later in the year he intends to introduce a Budget of his own. In view of the speeches made earlier today, many of us on the Opposition side of the House would rather it was the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who introduced the subsequent Budget. However, I have always believed that every Chancellor should be allowed at least one Budget of his own. I am sure that will be the case on this occasion.

    In his Budget speech the Chancellor said: Unless we can somehow halt the accelerating inflationary trends in our economy, the resulting political and social strains may be too violent for the fabric of our democratic institutions to withstand.”—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March 1974; Vol. 871, c. 290.] Those were sombre words, but I fear that the right hon. Gentleman did not exaggerate. Yet there was nothing in that long and complex Budget which did anything to halt the Gadarene stampede to which he referred. Indeed, some measures in it may actively make matters worse. It seems that everything has been staked, indeed gambled, on the success or failure of the so-called social contract between the Government and the trade unions—the philosophy, we are told, on which the Budget has been based.

    A social contract is all very well, but, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), I found it difficult, in looking at the Budget in detail, not to be a trifle sceptical about it. Are we supposed to believe that the stony heart of the militant shop steward will melt at the thought of paying more for his cigarettes, petrol and beer in order to allow his wife to pay a little less for bread and milk? Perhaps this rather touching picture of male altruism is well founded, but I doubt it. It seems to me more likely that the Labour Party, which has always had a strange predilection for sacred cows, has gone one step further and now believes in sacred milk, too. Are we to believe that the great mass of trade unionists will suddenly be reconciled to the paths of moderation in wage claims by the knowledge that in future 33 per cent., and not 30 per cent., of any wage increase will be taken from them in tax? That applies to a married man, with two small children, earning as little as £25 a week. If hon. Gentlemen do not believe it, they should look at Table 17 in the Red Book.

    Are we meant to suppose that trade union activists will feel that an extra 2½ per cent. rise in the cost of living imposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer “at a stroke” is a small price to pay for the promise that one day there will be a wealth tax?

    The social psychology of clobbering the rich is a subject deserving of study. As one close student has written, there is a curious tendency within the Labour Party towards a suspicious, militant, class-conscious Leftism. That is the observation of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Environment in that classic work, “The Future of Socialism”. Can it be that fostering this suspicious, militant, class-conscious Leftism is compatible with the stirring cry for national unity which the Chancellor made the theme of his peroration in his Budget speech?

    Perhaps, after all that, it is not to the Budget that we should look for the key to the so-called social contract, the sop to the trade unions. Perhaps, instead, that key, that sop, is to be found elsewhere—in the repeal of the Industrial Relations Act and the “Footwork” that we are told will replace it. At first sight, that seems to be a more plausible candidate, but, even so, there is something curious about it.

    When I was listening recently to the eloquent oration of the Secretary of State for Employment, I was struck by the passage in his speech in which he accused the previous Conservative Government of having conceived of the statutory incomes policy as a kind of blunderbuss to brandish in the face of the Trades Union Congress and say to it ‘Stand and deliver’.”—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March 1974; Vol. 870, c. 697.] Most people in the country, and certainly the great majority of my constituents in Blaby, would say that if there is anyone these days who is inclined to say “Stand and deliver”, it is the big trade unions. One of the more endearing characteristics of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) is that he is inclined to live in the past. No doubt he imagines, even today, that he is marching alongside the Tolpuddle Martyrs or fighting the Taff Vale decision. But the rest of us know that times have changed and with them the balance of industrial power—and the balance of weaponry, as some of his right hon. Friends can testify. Some of us recall, during the celebrated “In Place of Strife” saga, the plaintive cry addressed by the Prime Minister to Mr. Scanlon, “Get your tanks off my lawn, Hughie”. I am afraid that Hughie’s tanks are still on the Prime Minister’s lawn and, in the light of that, the present Government’s intentions towards trade union law in general and picketing in particularly are thoroughly alarming.

    If I may draw an analogy following the “blunderbuss” of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, there is in the United States considerable concern over the constitutional right of every citizen to bear firearms and the violence and bloodshed that result from it. Sensible people there are campaigning to try to get the right limited by law. The position of the Government in a similar situation boils down to saying, “Of course people will be frustrated if they have only rifles, and this will lead to violence. For real peace and good order you should let them have machine-guns, or even bazookas.” That is a serious point. The central problem of our time, however much hon. Members on the Government benches may try to hide away from it, is the problem of the abuse of trade union power. If a social contract is to mean anything, it must mean that that power has to be used responsibly, but we will not ensure that by enlarging that power, or making its abuse still easier.

    The link between trade union power and wage inflation sheds a spotlight on the basic fallacy that underlies the social contract/egalitarian approach. The mechanism of wage inflation rests on two simple and unequivocal facts. First, there are more groups of workers who feel strongly that their relative pay in relation to that of other groups of workers should be improved than there are groups who feel that their relative position should be allowed to deteriorate. Secondly, many of these groups—not all—have the economic and industrial power to be able, at least in the short term, to force the relative improvement they seek.

    No amount of egalitarianism—of clobbering the so-called rich in the sacred name of the social contract—can make the slightest difference to this central issue. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer can have Mr. Harry Hyams hanged in public—and drawn and quartered, if he so wishes—but it will not make a jot of difference to the differing views of ASLEF and the NUR on the relative standing of their respective members. Why should it? Again, the right hon. Gentleman can, if he likes, impose a 90 per cent. capital levy on second, third, fourth or even fifth homes, but it will not make the slightest difference to the view taken by mineworkers about their position in the industrial league table. Again, why should it?

    Let us suppose that it made sense for the Government to base all their hopes on the all-important struggle against inflation on the social contract. The crucial fact remains that there can be no such thing as a contract, social or otherwise, unless there are sanctions against those who break it. The question is—and this is the crux of the matter—what are the sanctions to be against the TUC or its member unions if they break the social contract which the Government are currently endeavouring to negotiate?

    There are three, and only three, possible answers. The first is that the Government could stand by and allow the strongest groups to grab what they can, but refuse to increase the money supply accordingly. They could let events take their course so that there are bankruptcies, falling real wages and large scale unemployment among the groups which are less strong. The second possible sanction is to take the “free” out of free collective bargaining, which would envisage a return to the statutory incomes policy and all that—assuming we ever leave it. The third possibility is to take the “collective” out of free collective bargaining, and move to curb trade union monopoly power—which sooner or later is bound to happen.

    The question to which we want an answer is which of those three possibilities is to be chosen by the Government. It must be one of those three choices. What is to be the sanction against breach of the social contract? Trade union members have a right to know the small print of the contract which they are being asked to enter into. But, above all, we in this House and the country have a right to know, and I trust that we shall be given the answer before this debate draws to a close tonight.

    Before entering the Chamber tonight, I took the trouble to read an essay which appeared in the Spectator on the subject of maiden speeches. It was written by my predecessor as editor—Iain Macleod, whose loss to this House, to the Conservative Party and to the country is still deeply felt by all of us. His principal piece of advice—indeed his only practical advice—was that a maiden speech should on no account exceed 15 minutes. I apologise to the House, for I fear that I may have transgressed that advice, but I shall try to do better next time.

    Mrs. Renée Short (Wolverhampton, North-East) The conventions of the House require that I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) on his maiden speech. He delivered it very well and was rather witty at the expense of trade unions. He talked about militant shop stewards. But his view of the trade union movement is as inaccurate as his recollection of the figures contained in my right hon. Friend’s Budget speech. I do not recognise the trade unionist whom the hon. Gentleman described as being the militant trade unionist who would not be prepared to sit back while some of the lower paid and weaker elements in our society got a rather better deal such as that which my right hon. Friend has offered them. Nor do I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the accuracy of the figures which he quoted. He said that a married man with two children and an income of about £30 a week would pay more in income tax. He is wrong—

    Mr. Lawson rose—

    Mrs. Short I am not giving way.

    Mr. Lawson The hon. Lady is wrong—

    Mrs. Short I repeat, I have not given way to the hon. Gentleman. A married man with two children earning that sum will pay £47 per annum less in income tax. In fact, he can earn £3,000 a year and still pay less tax—

    Mr. Lawson rose—

    Mrs. Short No. I will not give way.

    Mr. Peter Rees Give way to a maiden.

    Mrs. Short I hope that the hon. Member for Blaby will be a little more accurate in future when he quotes figures—

    Mr. Lawson rose—

    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. George Thomas) Order. If the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) does not give way, the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) must himself give way.

  • Eric Forth – 1983 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Eric Forth, the then Conservative MP for Mid-Worcestershire, in the House of Commons on 9 December 1983.

    As I address the House for the first time, I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members who take a pride in identifying accents will quickly recognise that I have the honour to represent the new Mid-Worcestershire constituency.

    I am delighted to be able to pay tribute to my predecessor in that constituency—Sir Herbert Whitely—who represented it from 1916. I suspect that even senior right hon. and hon. Members will not remember him. Although he is strictly my immediate predecessor it gives me greater pleasure to pay tribute to those from whom I have inherited my constituency. The first is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, who now represents the Worcester constituency, who is a distinguished member of the Cabinet and for some 22 years assiduously represented a part of what is now my constituency. The second is my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Miller) who is a distinguished Back Bencher of great integrity who has worked hard on behalf of the people of Redditch. I am aware that I shall find it difficult to follow my distinguished colleagues, but I shall do my best to try to maintain their standards of representation.

    My constituency was originally to have been named Redditch and Droitwich as those towns comprise about 85 per cent. of the electorate in Mid-Worcestershire. Redditch is one of the best examples of a new town. It is well planned and well built and has moved away from its traditional industry of needle making. It has diversified into several light industries and is ideally poised in the midlands to take advantage of the economic recovery that we are now experiencing. Droitwich has Roman origins and is now working hard to develop its tourist industry on the basis of its spa and the brine baths which were the origin of the salt industry on which it lived for many centuries.

    I cannot leave the subject of my constituency without mentioning some of the villages. Hartlebury, Ombersley, Himbleton, Fernhill Heath and many others make up the new constituency of Mid-Worcestershire in the heart of England.

    It gives me great pleasure to address the House for the first time during this debate as the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) was my opponent in the two general elections of 1974. Although it has taken me nine years to catch up with her, I am delighted to participate in this debate. I must crave some indulgence of the House as it is remarkably difficult to be uncontroversial in a maiden on sex. I might try the patience of right hon. and hon. Members almost beyond endurance. If I stray across some of the conventions of the House I hope that I shall be forgiven, but that is almost inevitable when making a maiden speech on this subject.

    In many ways, the Bill epitomises one of the regrettable tendencies of politics today — the increasing gulf between rhetoric and aspirations on the one hand and reality and practicality on the other. It is most unfortunate that politicians of all parties feel obliged or tempted increasingly to claim what they will or intend to do whereas in reality they are quite unable to live up to or deliver what they promise. The Bill is a perfect example of that. We are now in the difficult and delicate business of attempting to legislate for human behaviour. We are in danger of adding to the behavioural interference industry which is already established in Britain.

    I refer, for example, to the Equal Opportunities Commission which already costs about £3 million a year to run and the Commission for Racial Equality which costs about £8 million. The Bill proposes to add to that cost although experience in many other parts of the world, such as Title 7 in California, has shown that such attempts fail. Such measures have disappeared in a welter of argument and counter-argument from which the only beneficiary is the legal profession. There is a serious risk that what the Bill proposes will end up in much the same way.

    The Bill will also add serious additional burdens to those already faced by industry when we are worried about employment. We all want industry to be helped as much as possible to provide more jobs. Anything which prejudices that must be examined carefully and sceptically. Many of the Bill’s provisions would seriously prejudice industry’s ability to be flexible, meet the needs of the future and provide employment. In that regard, I refer to one of the most difficult provisions in the Bill—the attempt to give home workers equal status with other employees. Such a provision would seriously prejudice the employment opportunities which are available to those who work at home. Moreover, it would create serious difficulties for employers who use home workers extensively. If such a provision were accepted, we should have to ensure that all of the health and safety at work provisions and the rest were implemented in every home where people work. If we impose one provision, we must impose them all. Following that line of argument, it is already obvious that we shall have great difficulty in implementing such a provision properly. There is also a danger of giving people false hopes that we shall improve something when we are patently unable to do so.

    The provision of paternity leave would also put a heavy burden on industry. Annual reporting to the commission would create more bureaucracy when we are trying to reduce the burden of paperwork on industry. Providing that arrears should be paid as far back as 1976 could also be a heavy burden.

    The hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) mentioned sexist calendars. This is a serious question. Are we contemplating making illegal calendars that portray men, women or anything else, and preventing them from being shown in places of work? That is the implication of what the hon. Lady said, If we are to make words such as “waiter” and “stewardess” illegal or the basis of a case for discrimination, that is going much too far in the direction of trying to legislate for behaviour and the way in which people speak.

    However well intentioned, the Bill is yet another step along the road to additional bureaucracy and burdens on industry. It will not achieve its aim, but will be counterproductive. Living as I do in a society in which the Queen, the Prime Minister, my wife, my daughters and my mother are all female, I still find it in my heart to oppose the Bill.

  • Liam Fox – 2017 Speech in Bogota

    Below is the text of the speech made by Liam Fox, the Secretary of State for International Trade, in Bogota, Colombia on 23 August 2017.

    Good morning everyone,

    It is a pleasure to be here today in Bogota.

    More than two centuries ago Simón Bolivar came to London to seek British support for Colombian independence; he returned with seven thousand British soldiers, who fought for Colombia, along with substantial financial and technological support for the cause.

    British engineers constructed Colombia’s network of railways and other heavy industry, stimulating economic development.

    The United Kingdom supported Colombia from its very first days as a fledgling nation, and it is from these bonds of friendship that the UK and Colombia have built a great partnership that endures to this day, as our two nations remain key partners on the world stage.

    Last year, soon after I was appointed Secretary of State, I had the honour to speak alongside President Santos during his very successful state visit to the United Kingdom.

    I talked then about how the bonds of history have continued to unite our two countries.

    We have remained close partners on defence and security. According to your own official figures, the UK has been Colombia’s third largest foreign investor over the past decade, and our trading relationship was worth over one billion pounds in 2015.

    But it is also fair to say that British business has not developed and nurtured this relationship as well as we might have done.

    Our trade in goods with Colombia is behind the likes of France, Germany and Spain.

    So today my message to British business is this; we need to redouble our efforts to re-forge this close bond, for Colombia is in the process of implementing an historic peace agreement which could transform its economic performance.

    At our country our own painful experiences of the troubles in Northern Ireland have taught us that peace processes are never easy. They take courage and resilience, but that the rewards that come for a lasting and sustainable peace are worth the years of negotiations and reconciliation.

    I am here today because the United Kingdom wants to partner Colombia, helping your nation to realize the dividends of peace, and working to transform the country.

    We are supporting Colombia reach its full potential and generate prosperity. During last year’s state visit we announced the creation of a £25m Prosperity Fund to promote prosperity and economic development in the areas affected by the conflict, and to support Colombia in reaching the full benefits of peace.

    The programme will focus on urban development, transport infrastructure, capacity building, anti-corruption and increasing the agricultural competitiveness.

    Our trading relationship continues to expand. Total trade in goods and services between the UK and Colombia totalled £1.3bn in 2015 – an 11.8% increase from the year before.

    Like the UK, Colombia is committed to fiscal prudence, sound governance, and a commitment to free trade. With 16 free trade agreements already in place, your economy is among the most open in Latin America.

    Combined with a 4% average growth rate over the past decade, and it is easy to see why Colombia is widely seen as one of the brightest prospects in the Americas.

    When British companies arrive in Colombia, they can be transformational. KPMG has recently been awarded a contract to undertake financial structuring of the new Metro here in Bogota, a project that will have a very real impact on the lives of 10 million Colombians.

    Holtrade have recently reached an agreement with Fenoco, the central rail concession, to become the first private operator in recent history to transport freight across the Central and Caribbean regions, revolutionising Colombian freight capacity.

    Red Leopard and Cerromatoso, a subsidiary of the UK company South 32, have both announced major new expansions in their coal and nickel mining projects.

    And Currie & Brown have been awarded the contract to undertake the technical structuring of Bogota’s largest and most ambitious health project – the regeneration and construction of 6 hospitals through Public Private Partnership. This is the first project of its kind in Colombia.

    And it is not just the physical infrastructure of Colombia that UK companies are investing in. For more than 80 years, the British Council Colombia has supported the development of quality education, and promoted English language proficiency across the country.

    Moreover, the British Council it´s currently working with young people across Colombia to build upon the opportunities brought by peace.

    These examples are only the tip of the iceberg, yet they illustrate how some of the UK’s strongest areas of expertise – financial services, transport, mineral extraction, healthcare, and education – have the capacity to rapidly transform the lives of Colombian citizens.

    Despite all this, we want to maintain and expand such relationships, the United Kingdom itself must continue to be a sure and stable commercial partner to Colombia.

    As I’m sure you will all be aware, the United Kingdom is currently negotiating our withdrawal from the European Union.

    There has been speculation in some sections of the media, here in Colombia as well as in the United Kingdom, that last year’s vote to leave was a symptom of insularity, and that the United Kingdom would be withdrawing from the world stage, abdicating our international responsibilities and severing ties with Europe and the world.

    I am here to tell you that nothing, absolutely nothing, could be further from the truth.

    Last year’s vote was about looking beyond the boundaries of Europe to the wider world. The government’s ambition is not to create a ‘little England’, but a truly Global Britain.

    Our country will become, once again, the greatest champion of global free trade, renewing our partnerships with new friends and new allies alike to spread prosperity to every corner of the world.

    What lies at the heart of this vision? Why have we made it our mission to champion global free trade?

    There are, of course, the macroeconomic benefits of free trade. Making it easier for UK businesses to sell overseas, and for foreign companies to operate in the UK, stimulates the economy.

    Analysis by the OECD has indicated that a 10% increase in economic openness is associated with a 4% increase in output per head of the working population.

    Yet the case for free trade is much wider. A better availability of products has brought cheaper goods and services to consumers across the world, raising living standards and making incomes go further.

    Economic interdependence reduces the risk of conflict, as prosperity weakens the grip of authoritarian leaders and commercial ties remove the incentives to have conflicts with one another.

    And, perhaps most importantly, liberalised trade practices have lifted millions from poverty across the globe. There has been no greater liberator of the world’s poor than free and open international trade.

    It is perhaps true that businesses have been more adept at seeing the inherent opportunities of free trade, while governments have tend to see the risks.

    That is why the UK intends to lead by example in promoting free trade from the highest levels of government. For those countries like the UK who have grown rich from global trade, there is a moral duty to ensure that those same freedoms are extended to developing nations.

    Soon, the UK will be in a unique position to influence the spread of global free trade.

    For the first time in more than four decades, we will have a fully independent trade policy.

    Crucially, this will allow us to negotiate free trade agreements with new partners across the world, including those rapidly developing and expanding economies that will drive the global economy and global growth in the 21st Century.

    The UK will become a global trade hub, leading by example to ensure that the world economy remains open and interconnected.

    We will also regain our independent seat at the World Trade Organisation in Geneva.

    As one of the world’s largest economies, this will not only allow us a new forum in which to promote and protect free trade, but gives Britain a role in safeguarding the rules-based international order which drives global prosperity.

    My own department for International Trade is a symbol of these ambitions.

    Created mere weeks after last year’s referendum, our task is to build these relationships, and to ensure that the United Kingdom remains open, outward-looking, and internationalist.

    Yet this vision for Britain does not mean turning our back on Europe. Indeed, we want nothing more than to be the closest partners of a successful and prosperous European Union, maintaining those mutually beneficial commercial relationships upon which many international companies, including those from Colombia, rely.

    Throughout the period of our withdrawal, our watchwords will be stability, continuity and transparency. We know how important certainty is to the global trading environment, and we will strive to ensure that consistency is maintained at all times.

    That is why, as we leave the European Union, it is our strongest desire to maintain the same privileged relationship that our countries currently enjoy under the EU FTA, replicating as far as possible our existing trading terms. If Britain is to be a global leader in free trade, then we cannot, and will not, begin by erecting barriers that do not exist today.

    So I am here today to reassure you that the UK will continue to be prosperous. The UK will continue to be at the heart of global trade. And the UK will continue to be the premier destination for Colombian investment.

    The Department for International Trade is taking steps to ensure that these ambitions that we have are supported by our actions.

    I am pleased to announce that support from UK Export Finance for trade with Colombia will increase to £4.5 billion.

    This makes billions of pounds of additional financial support available to both UK exporters, and buyers of UK goods and services in Colombia, opening vast opportunities for British and Colombian businesses alike.

    As globalisation and new technology continue to eliminate the barriers of distance and time, the UK stands ready to help Colombia harness this power.

    Technology, Data, FinTech and Scientific Research are areas in which the UK excels. Firms across Britain are ready to bring their expertise to bear, expanding new industries across Colombia and South America.

    IT services company Endava has just opened a new Software Development and Innovation Centre in Bogota, with plans to grow to at least 500 staff over the next few years, a training programme that invests in Colombia’s future.

    And Genius Sports, one of the fastest growing sports data and technology companies in the world, have decided to establish their South American Tech Hub in Medellín, to capitalise, they say, “on the enormous wealth of highly qualified tech workers available there”.

    They also freely admit that “the inspiration behind this investment came from President Santos’s ‘Legacy of Peace’ Speech in 2016”.

    Across almost every industry, UK companies stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Colombia. Yet there is always more for us to do.

    So I am here this morning not only to celebrate the past strength of the UK-Colombia relationship, but also to embrace the opportunities of the future.

    As Colombia marks the transition to peace, the United Kingdom too is opening a new chapter in our future, one that will be founded upon economic openness, free trade, and a firm embrace of global opportunities.

    It is an ambition for Britain which cannot be realised without the support and friendship of our allies. Those nations who recognise and embrace the importance of free trade must work tirelessly to strengthen the argument, leading by example and showing a world a path to prosperity that lies not in the protectionism, but in economic openness.

    In this, the UK and Colombia are natural partners.

    There may be challenges ahead, but if we remain true to these principles then we can build a safe and prosperous future for Britain, Colombia, and the rest of the world.

    Thank you.

  • Francis Pym – 1961 Maiden Speech to the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Francis Pym, the then Conservative MP for Cambridgeshire, in the House of Commons on 17 May 1961.

    In addressing the House for the first time, I ask for the indulgence which the House so generously accords its newest recruits; the indulgence which the House has in the past accorded to the several members of my family who have had the honour to sit here over the last three and a half centuries. I hope that the House will not think it presumptuous of me to have said that.

    I am privileged to follow Sir Gerald Howard, as he now is. For ten years he was a well-known Member of the House, and he has been a most distinguished member of the Bar. I am sure that all hon. Members would want to join in wishing him well in his new and important office.

    I represent Cambridgeshire, one of the loveliest English counties, and famous for its villages. I think that right hon. and hon. Members would wish that that peacefulness which is a characteristic of Cambridgeshire was more prevalent in the world today.

    I venture to speak on this occasion and in support of the Motion, because I know from my recent experience in the election how strong is the desire for peace and the willingness to attain it; and our foreign policy is nothing if it is not the pursuit of peace.

    The first point that I want to make is on defence. We must have adequate defence forces, for at present, whether we like it or not, there can be no peace or security otherwise. The people in my constituency, and the people in the country as a whole, are prepared to foot the bill. In fact, they know that if they do not the other bill will be higher.

    The tragedy of Singapore, in the last war, when so many Cambridgeshire men were taken, is still a real memory. The people of this country are not prepared to forgive weaknesses in our defences. Indeed, they do not appreciate weakness at all, and this applies to our economic and domestic policies as much as to foreign affairs. But the risk of weakness in defence is too great, and there is some disquiet at present about the level of our conventional forces. Our regiments become amalgamated one with another and grow less in number, yet our commitments for those forces do not seem to diminish in any way. I urge the Government, with all the earnestness that I can, to make sure that our forces are adequate for the tasks which confront them, and that we are bearing at least our part of the burden which we share with our allies.

    One of the problems of the so-called Western world is that it comprises a much larger number of countries and covers a much wider area than the Communist and Eastern bloc. Clearly, this makes our task the more complicated and we group together to protect ourselves by a series of alliances. These alliances are arranged geographically, and the problems are tackled area by area. This is right, but I wonder whether it is enough.

    Is there anything to be said for an occasional meeting of all the free countries in the world—those not under Communism or under the Communist yoke? The only occasion at present when all these countries meet is in the Assembly of the United Nations, and there are many influences present in that forum which have to be token into account. I think that it might help to get a new purchase for negotiations with the Soviet Union if the free world held a conclave of its own. I would welcome any measures of this sort to further international co-operation.

    That leads me to consider the Commonwealth, which is the only alliance or group of nations which comes anywhere near to encompassing the earth. Some people say that it is now disintegrating, but I do not accept that. Gloomy forecasts as to its future have been made in the past and been proved wrong. The Commonwealth has a substantial history behind it, and is in the habit of evolving, of adapting itself to changing circumstances. I am one of those who believe that the Commonwealth is one basis of our hope for the peaceful co-existence of nations, and I think that we must try to build on it.

    If we believe in that policy, we need to do two things. First, to invest more in the Commonwealth, especially in those countries which are under-developed. I welcome the increased emphasis which has been placed on this policy lately, but I should like to see more done to publicise and bring home to our people the importance of it, the purposes behind it, and the sacrifices involved. I am not thinking only of financial investment, but also of the many opportunities which exist overseas today for our young men and women with a spirit of adventure. I believe that this is an appeal which would go down well in the country, and one to which the country would respond.

    The second thing which we need to do is to try to increase the membership of the Commonwealth. It is normal practice today for associations and clubs to try to increase their membership, and I do not think that the Commonwealth should be any exception. Certainly, we do not want any closed doors. We want an open association. Is it possible that countries in addition to those who have recently attained their independence and joined the Commonwealth might become members? It is an expansion and extension of membership which we require so that the influence of Commonwealth ideas can spread.

    It is in that sense that I see the Common Market as an opportunity. I welcome my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s reaffirmation only yesterday that we shall not sign the Treaty of Rome in its present form. I know that that is partly due to the agricultural difficulty, but there is also the difficulty of Commonwealth trade. If we become associated with the European Economic Community, it will surely be with the Commonwealth, and in that way the influence of both groups will be enlarged.

    There seems to be a tendency sometimes to look at the Common Market in isolation, whereas, in fact, it is one of the stages in the economic integration of the West. This is not a process that we could or should arrest, but one we want to foster in principle in the general interests of the widening of world trade and the strengthening of the economic position of the West. Naturally, we must look after the interests of our own people, but, equally, we want to break down international barriers. I hope that we shall be able to find a satisfactory way of bringing Europe and the Commonwealth closer together, to the mutual benefit of both.

    I believe that this movement towards unity, coupled with adequate defences, will contribute significantly to that peace which, as I said at the beginning, is the one desire that is common to the hearts of all our people.

  • Ernest Pretyman – 1900 Speech Supporting the Loyal Address

    Below is the text of the speech made by Captain Ernest Pretyman in the House of Commons on 30 January 1900.

    It is a kindly custom of this House to regard with special indulgence the Member to whom is entrusted the duty which I have to discharge to-day, and I feel sure that I shall have given me even double indulgence because the occasion is not an ordinary one, and I cannot and do not pretend to have that special knowledge which alone would enable me to do full justice to it.

    Ordinarily our discussions here are upon controversial matters. As mover of the Address it is difficult to be non-controversial without being colourless. But to-day there is common ground I shall have to traverse, and there are feelings which we shall all share on whichever side of the House we sit. The first of these feelings is that of deep sympathy, which it is our privilege to express, as representing the nation, with all sufferers by the war which is going on in South Africa.

    It will hardly be necessary to enumerate the sufferings which are in the minds of everyone of us here, but I think we must first refer to those who are suffering from wounds and from bodily disablement. Then, Sir, our sympathy must go out to those who are bereaved, to the widow and childless, and also to the weary watchers who have their dear ones at the front, and who are daily waiting for news—painful news such as we received this morning, and which carries sorrow and distress into many a home.

    There is one other expression of sympathy which I am sure will not be wanting, and that is an expression of the deepest sympathy with the sufferings of colony of Natal. Half the colony is in the hands of the enemy, and not only have they put into the field a force far out of proportion to their numbers, but they have suffered grievous loss of property and life.

    I trust we may be in a position at the end of the war to recompense them for the losses and suffering they have experienced. We have also feelings of the deepest admiration for the gallantry which our soldiers have displayed. Whether it be in the gallant defence of Mafeking, or the no less gallant and protracted defence of Ladysmith, or in the gallant action of Wauchope and the Highland Brigade at Magersfontein, where so many lost their lives, the story is the same, and it is a story of which we are all proud.

    It is our only regret that so many of those to whom our pride goes out are lost for ever. In addition to that we have another common ground. We have pride not only in the gallantry that this contest has evoked, but also in the national spirit which has been evinced. That national spirit is not confined to the British Islands. It has found expression to the utmost bounds of this Empire. If we look at the present position of the Empire as a whole, we may say with truth we have set a girdle round the globe, and every link rings true and clear at this moment. I believe when this war is over we may look forward to South Africa being peaceful and tranquil and contented, and that any rift which may exist can and will be repaired in a way which will cause less offence and less trouble in the future.

    Although at the end of the war there will, no doubt, remain a certain amount of race antagonism, which is the natural result of a contest of this description, we shall at any rate have purged the contempt with which that race antagonism was previously associated; the races will have learned to respect one another, and will be able to live side by side in amity, the hatreds of the past being merged into a mutual liking. Contempt is the kindling which fans antagonism into flame; and it was that contempt combined with race antagonism which brought about the present conflict.

    When the struggle is concluded let us hope that the contempt which has arisen from surface causes will have been purged, that Boer and Briton will live side by side in peace, and that both will have a great future before them under the British flag. One other feeling we have in common, and that is the feeling of regret for the reverses which we have suffered in South Africa. Further than that we have the unanimous determination to retrieve those reverses. We wish to examine and to investigate the causes of the reverses and the failures, if they may be so called, which have occurred in our campaign. I am here, perhaps, on delicate ground, but I think I may say this.

    We may ask ourselves with advantage whether our weakness or our failures, if I may use that word, are due to any deep-seated and inherent national weakness, or to temporary and removable causes. I think the latter can only be the answer. The Empire and the resources of the nation were never stronger than at this moment, but our power does not lie on the surface. It is deep-seated, and the causes which we have to inquire into if they are temporary and removable must be inquired into with a view to their being removed.

    I feel sure that no obstacle will be thrown in the way, but that the Government will welcome an inquiry in any form which may be agreeable to the House and which will enable us to discover the causes of the difficulty, and to remove them. There is one consideration which occurs to me, and that is that of “inadequate preparation.” Is that one of the principal causes for our difficulties? I would rather say it is not so much inadequate preparation as the insufficient estimate of the forces arrayed against us.

    In the case of the Crimean war the preparations were inadequate for any war, but I doubt if we were ever so well prepared to undertake a campaign on a certain scale as when this war broke out three months ago. If there was a fault it was the under-estimate of the forces arrayed against us, and it will be for us to consider how the under-estimate arose. There are many factors to be considered, some of which are new, but I think that we shall find—or, at any rate, it so appears to me—that those factors in themselves were to a certain extent foreseen, and that there was some knowledge of them. But the result of the combination of all those factors and the strength of the enemy, from a defensive point of view, which we had to engage, was not foreseen or measured, so far as I am aware, by any person.

    The want of prophetic power was not confined to the Government alone, it was common to the country as a whole. That, at all events, was the impression at which I arrived in this House three months ago: that nobody on this or that side of the House, or in the country, had measured the strength of the enemy arrayed against us or, if so, the expressions of opinion were few and far between.

    Who could have realised that this campaign would resolve itself into the taking of a series of natural fortresses of enormous strength, ably defended by troops of unexampled mobility, instructed by Continental experts, and armed with the most perfect weapons ever used in warfare? It is perhaps difficult to realise how small a factor will determine success or failure. Such a thing as a barbed wire fence may easily turn a victory into a defeat, and to sum up all these factors is almost impossible after fifty years of peace, which we have passed through, when many of these factors are to a large extent unknown.

    There has been some criticism in which I as an artilleryman feel particularly interested. Our field guns have been condemned on all sides because they are of less range than the guns of the enemy; but one thing has been forgotten, and that is that our field guns have been compared with guns of the enemy, which are guns of position and not field guns at all, and for an artilleryman to estimate the efficiency of a field gun solely by its range is—I should look on as very much the same thing as a pressman who would judge the merits of a newspaper solely by its circulation. The situation is a most grave one, but it has its better side: I do not think that the resources of our opponents were immediately realised.

    The Boer Republic had formed itself into a vast military machine, every part of which was perfect; our military machine was imperfect in the sense that our resources had not been called together. Is it therefore any wonder that the smaller perfect machine should for the moment be successful? But we have resources, and I hope that this House will support the Government in bringing every one of those resources into action to bring about our supremacy. They are only just now coming into play, and although we have now been checked more than once, when once the ring is broken the collapse may be as sudden as our progress, up to the present, has been slow.

    The last struggle for the relief of Ladysmith, it was hoped, would be the beginning of the end, as it is it is only the end of the beginning. But this House has not only to consider the cause of the difficulty, but the cause and the motive which led up to the war itself. Here I am on very delicate ground, and it would not become me in the duty I have to perform to-day to examine the questions which have been, and which will have to be, discussed here; but I should like to make one observation. Although some may attribute a motive to this or that person or politician, I think we may all agree that the national motive for this war is a pure and just one.

    The motive which has for centuries animated this country, and which animates it now, is that we shall obtain justice and freedom for all races and all creeds. That is the great stream in which our national sentiment has run in the past and is running now. It will always occur that where there is a great stream of pure water there will be draining into it streams which are not so pure as the river itself, and no doubt uses will be made and motives attributed that do not exist.

    The motive that animates us here, and the House and country generally, is to restore peace and freedom to all throughout South Africa. So far as I have observed that is the motive animating us all, and although we may have to engage our attention with that legislation which we are more accustomed to consider, our hearts will be with our soldiers in South Africa. But that is no reason why we should not consider other measures. We have submitted to us to-day no measures of heroic legislation or costly legislation. The only costly legislation will be the estimates for the war in South Africa.

    Last year the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked for a vote of eight millions. He would be a bold man who would say how much we shall be asked for this session. But whatever is asked for I hope will be cheerfully given. We cannot set money against the lives of our fellow subjects now being risked in South Africa. We shall be asked to sanction measures of improving and remodelling the Companies Act, and that a matter we shall gladly do because we know the loss which is suffered by those who are induced to part with their money under false pretences by fraudulent companies.

    Another measure we shall be asked to consider is what is called an Agricultural Holdings Bill, and anything that this House can do towards the improvement of our agriculture will be greatly welcomed. We have, however, to remember that the conditions of our agricultural industry, vary greatly in different parts of the country. We have also to consider the incoming tenant as well as the outgoing, tenant. Sir, the situation before us is indeed a serious and a difficult one. It is, perhaps, the most serious and, perhaps, the most difficult situation which this country has had to face since the earliest years of the century. This is, indeed, a momentous session.

    Our, ill-wishers, we know, are looking eagerly for any signs of weakness, of vacillation, or of disunion within these walls. On the other hand, the country, and the Empire in arms, are looking to us to express their unanimous determination to bring this struggle to a successful issue. Now, Sir, I need hardly ask the House to which of these we should afford satisfaction. The question can have but one answer. Therefore, I trust that the touchstone of all criticism will be not party advantage, but the needs and necessities of the Empire.

  • John Prescott – 1970 Maiden Speech to the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by John Prescott, the then Labour MP for Kingston upon Hull East, in the House of Commons on 14 July 1970.

    I crave the indulgence of the House so that I may embark on the ritualistic ordeal associated with maiden speeches which I hope will be neither too lengthy nor too boring.

    Commander Pursey, whom I have the honour to succeed, made a distinct impression during his 25 years’ service in the House. He was an orphan who joined the Royal Navy as a rating where his ability was quickly recognised. He was promoted eventually to the rank of commander—a considerable achievement in those days. This experience, combined with a period in journalism when he wrote on naval affairs, gave him an unparalleled range of experience and detailed knowledge of naval matters, from anchors and chains to the broader philosophy of naval policy. He was able to use this to great effect in debates in the House on naval matters. Divorced of personal ambition, he sought to use his skill and energy to improve the lot of those less fortunate. Many will remember his efforts on behalf of orphans in the debates on the Royal Naval School for orphans at Greenwich.

    The House may not fully appreciate the extent of Commander Pursey’s constituency work, which included his efforts, against tremendous opposition, in bringing about the raising of the banks of the River Hull, whose continual flooding caused a great deal of anxiety and misery to people in the East Hull constituency. He was both colourful and controversial, and his presence will be sorely missed in the House.

    Kingston upon Hull is the home of Britain’s largest port. It is third in the value of tonnage handled and is surrounded by a diversity of industries of national and international repute. Their importance has been recognised by the number of awards which have recently been made to them for their export performance.

    Hull is equally renowned for its advance health and welfare services, well-established comprehensive education and architecturally-awarded council housing estates built by its own direct-labour department. They are the evidence of the foresight and planning of a post-war Labour local authority.

    However, Hull’s greatest asset is its people whose warm Yorkshire hospitality and generosity and shrewd judgment of character and appreciation of value are universally renowned. Never was this so amply demonstrated than in the recent General Election when the Labour candidate was elected with no evidence of the national swing against the Labour Party. I like to think that this was due to the personal qualities of the candidate, although I am prepared to accept that the advent of Hull’s first 12 months of rule by a Tory council since before the war in which rents were raised from £3 to £9 a week played no small part.

    Kingston upon Hull has a consistent record of electing Members with seagoing experience and understanding. As long ago as 1890, it offered Samuel Plimsoll the opportunity to represent it in this House. Commander Pursey served his period in the Royal Navy, whereas I served for 10 years as a seaman rating in the Merchant Service. In fact, I am the first seaman sponsored by the National Union of Seamen to be elected to the House. Of that I am particularly proud. I will endeavour to put the point of view of the British seafarer and that of the East Hull constituents, many of whom are seamen, particularly on legislation affecting the welfare of seafarers and the shipping industry. Indeed, I shall be pressing the Government to implement legislation to correct many of the faults which have been made obvious in the recent Reports of the Rochdale Committee of Inquiry into shipping, the Pearson Inquiry and the more recent safety report.

    May I also advise the Government that the seamen sincerely hope that they will honour the promise of the previous Government, who in their much-awaited reform of the Merchant Shipping Acts promised to review the penal clauses within a three-year period. The seamen will not tolerate those penal clauses remaining in the Acts. I hope that the Government will take due note of this, particularly as this was the running sore which led to the problem of the 1966 strike.

    It is fortunate and appropriate that I have been given the opportunity to make my maiden speech on a Bill directly affecting the future of Hull. No constituency is so dependent on the future growth and development of its port. Much of the local industry is in some way or other, directly or indirectly, associated with the development of a transport economy and the port of Hull.

    The port covers seven miles of river bank, 12 miles of quays and 11 docks. The new £7 million container berth, which is evidence of its desire for greater trade, was recently opened by Her Majesty the Queen. It is situated on a major undeveloped estuary, recommended for consideration as a maritime industrial development area, ideally suited as the gateway to Europe and serviced by canals which transport over 50 per cent. of its exports and imports to the industrial heart of the Midlands and Yorkshire. It enjoys a potential not unlike that of Rotterdam 10 years ago. The Port of Hull has all the assets but is prevented from success, like Cinderella, by her ugly sisters, represented in this case by the lack of capital and imaginative co-ordinated planning.

    The Government could go some way in using their powers to raise the loans referred to in the Bill to correct some of the glaring examples of the failure to co-ordinate the overall planning of a port system and an overall transport network. Ports are purely the links between internal transport systems and sea transport systems. These sectors are part of a vertically integrated industrial system in which each part is vital to the operation of the whole.

    Failure to appreciate that important principle has led to the building in Hull of a container berth which is required to pay for itself without the essential requirement of a container crane. Indeed, the Rochdale inquiry into the docks, reporting in 1962, pointed out in paragraph 280 of its Report that the ports of railway origin, of which Hull is one, should provide a choice of transport. Those who have taken the decisions concerning the development of Hull’s port have taken this extremely literally and have proceeded to rip up all the railway lines on the dock, losing the vital traffic of coal and timber and providing no rail line on the new container port, which is one of the essentials of a container transportation system, resulting in the rundown of the railway and the shutting of workshops. The excuse which is continually given for these activities is a rundown of traffic, which is the direct result of faulty planning decisions. We have recently heard that a restriction is to be placed upon the freightliner centre, which is situated on the wrong side of the city. We are now, apparently, to lose or to have the freightliner services very much restricted. We shall certainly be saying something about this to the Minister.

    The Port of Hull is serviced by, possibly, one of the worst road systems facing any port in the country. We will be pressing to have something done about the infrastructure, which includes the roads, on which the Government were elected. We hope to enjoy the benefit of road works. It is essential that we have immediate access to the industrial hinterland, from where we must draw the cargoes for the very survival and expansion of the port.

    In 1962, Lord Rochdale recommended the provision of a bridge crossing the river and said that this should be provided if the Midlands continued to expand and exports to Europe continued to develop. Both these things have happened. We therefore look to the Government to make a definite statement about a Humber bridge, which is essential to regional development and to the port.

    In giving the Minister that advice, however, I must confess that it would fail to meet the essential ingredient which has been so lacking in the past: that is, developed, co-ordinated planning, which could be envisaged only by a National Ports Authority with executive powers. In presenting the Bill, the Government have made it clear that, as they promised, they intend to reject the essential provisions that were embodied in the previous Government’s Bill and were designed to tackle the fundamental problems facing port development.

    I should, therefore, like to point out to the Government that in their consideration of the alternatives, they should give due weight to the innate conservatism which bolsters traditional attitudes with little prospect of change among those who have mismanaged this vital sector of our economy. To my mind, this can be changed only by a fundamental reorganisation of the industry, beginning with public ownership and accompanied by the implementation of industrial democracy, so that the vast knowledge and experience of the port workers are fully utilised and there is a breaking-down of authoritarian management’s attitude which is typical of both ports and shipping industries.

    It is no coincidence that the criticisms made of the port industry by Lord Rochdale in his 1962 Report on the ports were followed and repeated almost word for word by the recent Rochdale Inquiry on shipping. Both industries are fragmented by both growth rates and the multiplicity of ownership, documents and procedures, contributing to their visible decline, and accompanied by bad industrial relations and low wages for dock workers until they were recently changed by a Labour Government.

    It is not my intention to discuss the present dispute, which is a further manifestation of the organisation of these industries. It should be noted by the Government that almost exactly the same problems are peculiar to both docks and shipping and, I suggest, for exactly the same reason. Both have a history of casual labour, controlled in the supply by the employer, disciplined by means of fines and penalties, plagued by a higher record of occupational accidents and deaths and further soured by the lack of welfare facilities and amenities. The means of trade union representation through shop stewards, so fiercely resisted by both these industries, has only recently been implemented.

    As labour has become less cheap, both industries have found means of securing cheaper labour, with the exploitation of Asiatic seamen for shipping and, in the case of the Port of Hull, by the diversion of cargoes to fly-by-night non-registered ports such as Flixborough, Howden Dyke, New Holland and Whitby, using cheap labour, unsafe working practices and little capital investment which is required by the major ports to develop.

    The Rochdale Inquiries on both ports and shipping found that one of the cardinal reasons explaining the failure of both these industries could be traced to the general low quality of management in those sectors. This has recently been confirmed ten years later in the Report on shipping. Private management has visibly failed in both these important sectors of our economy.

    The only solution is to take both industries into public ownership in the interests of the nation. As a first step in regard to the docks, I suggest that the Government should implement Sir Arthur Kirby’s recent suggestion to rid the docks of the private employers and go on further, I hope, to take the docks into public ownership. Those are the only sort of actions that will solve the major problems in both docks and shipping.

  • John Patten – 1979 Maiden Speech to the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by John Patten, the then Conservative MP for Oxford, in the House of Commons on 24 July 1979.

    I am grateful to be called, though I am conscious that the time is never right to make one’s maiden speech and I know that this afternoon, when so many others wish to speak, that must be especially so. One of my noble predecessors as Member for Oxford, Viscount Valentia, clearly thought that the time was not right to make his maiden speech for a very long time. He took his seat in 1895 and uttered his first words in the House 11 years later in 1906. I decided that in my case 11 weeks or so is about the right length of time to leave it.

    I am honoured to have many noble predecessors in Oxford, and one, my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, once described the city and constituency of Oxford as nothing but the Latin quarter of Cowley. There is more than a grain of truth in what my noble Friend said, for, great university though it contains, and a notable polytechnic, amidst an urban landscape that makes it one of the most beautiful cities not only in this country but in Western Europe, it depends for a great deal of its prosperity, not only in the city but in the region around, on the prosperity of the British Leyland plant at Cowley.

    I am extremely glad that in recent months—indeed, for about the past year—the people who work at the BL plant at Cowley have shown such splendid increases in productivity and splendid increases in the quality of the motor cars which they have been producing. At a meeting I had this morning with the chairman of British Leyland, Sir Michael Edwardes, he was pleased to make that point.

    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, in reply to a question after his statement last week on the future of the National Enterprise Board, said that he praised the management of BL for the changes in attitude that they had been able to bring about in that company. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will recognise also that those changes in attitude are possible only with the full-hearted co-operation of all who work at Cowley and at other BL plants, and I am glad to see that that has been as forthcoming as Government support has been forthcoming.

    If there is a financial burden on the Government and a practical burden on management, there also must be a strong moral burden on trade union leaders, in my constituency and elsewhere, to make sure that in a company such as BL—which has had more than its fair share of troubles—increases in productivity, changes in manning procedures and de-manning happen all the more easily.

    Both the university element of Oxford, the university, the polytechnic and the great teaching hospitals—the gown side—and the motor industry side—the town side—have been extremely fortunate in those who have represented them in the House. I wish to refer not only to my immediate predecessor but to his predecessor, my old friend and mentor Monty Woodhouse. He worked hard on behalf of Oxford, as did his successor, Mr. Evan Luard. Their epic battles for victory in Oxford in the general elections of the 1960s and 1970s may have resulted in something that sounded rather like a football score—Woodhouse three, Luard two. I should like to reassure Mr. Luard that, although he may have won fewer general election victories over the past 20 years than did Mr. Woodhouse, his services are greatly appreciated by all those in Oxford who were his constituents, including myself, over the past 10 to 15 years.

    Oxford has never been, and I hope that it will never be, an assisted area. In that sense, it is an extremely fortunate part of the country. It has never had any assisted area status, although I freely recognise that BL has had considerable direct Government assistance. Oxford has a low rate of unemployment compared to many of the constituencies represented by other hon. Members.

    Oxford is approximately in the middle of England, and that location allows me to look north and south rather more dispassionately than can some hon. Members on either side of the House. I shall restrict my remarks on regional policy to England, as I do not feel that I have the experience to comment on other parts of Britain.

    It is interesting to speculate on what might have happened to the regions and to regional development in England had the Special Areas (Development and Improvement) Act 1934, and the legislation that followed it, not taken place. The preamble to the 1934 Act—I am speaking only from memory—talks not only about economic development but about social improvement. It is critical to today’s debate that we look not only to economic development but also to social improvement.

    Looking back at that Act is a fairly gloomy experience, because the first schedule to it, which lists all those places in England and other parts of Britain which were to receive regional aid, demonstrates how clearly our regional policy over the past 45 years has failed. The present list of areas receiving assistance in one form or another from the Government is, with a few notable additions such as Merseyside, more or less the same.

    Therefore, whatever else we may say about our regional policy over the past half-century, it can hardly be said to have been especially successful in all its ramifications. If we stand back from it, we can see that we are dealing with a historic problem and we will have to use historic solutions to try to solve it. It would be hopeless to think that we could solve it in a very short time.

    Looking at the history and geography of England and the rest of the United Kingdom, we see that the sort of regional problems that we are dealing with have a historical inevitability all their own. Throughout the history of England, it has always been in the southern part of the country that the majority of people, for better or worse, have preferred to locate most of their economic activities, except for that brief period in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and the early twentieth century, when coal was king and the whole axis of development turned north-south.

    What we are discussing in the debate and trying to deal with in the Government’s regional policy is picking up the tabs from the legacy of that movement. If we stand back from the history of regional development, looking not at last year’s changes or at whether regional employment premium was put on or taken off or whatever but at the problem in its total historical and geographical context, that must be seen to be true.

    We shall, I think, see the northernmost regions of England, in particular, remaining in need of substantial assistance from Governments of whatever colour for a substantial time, just as they have needed it for most of the last half-century. Conscious as I am of the need in a maiden speech not to be controversial, I say at once that I do not thereby belittle for one moment the continuing economic, social and cultural benefits that flow from those regions. But we must take a long-term view of those most depressed areas, especially in the northern, north-eastern and north-western parts of England, while, I suggest, using an entirely different strategy for other parts of England—and, I dare say, other parts of the United Kingdom—which have less deep-seated economic and social problems. In the strategy that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry has begun to unveil, I can see a much more sensitive attitude towards and identification of the true nature of the problems and, therefore, of their solutions.

    I was delighted to hear my right hon. Friend in his introductory remarks point to the importance in regional policy of taking into account not only economic but social desiderata, just as the preamble to the 1934 Act had it. In that respect he is exactly right. He is only too well aware of the effects that changes in policy have upon the economy and the society of the regions that are affected. He has it exactly right in loading such help as is available on the regions that need it most. That is economically sensible and it strikes me as being extremely socially correct.

    That is the sort of attitude that we have learnt to expect from my right hon. Friend. I risk praising someone on the Government Front Bench in my maiden speech as I know that it will be the only time that I shall be able to do so without Labour Members shouting “Give him a job.”

    I believe that my right hon. Friend is a most compassionate man. The elements of regional policy that he is outlining are economically correct and socially compassionate. We need to look long and hard at the real problems of regions and regional development and not imagine that they will be solved merely by an endless amoeba-like growth of assisted areas.

    There are different problems in different parts of the country. There are the really depressed regions and other regions that have more disparate problems. I agree that assisted area strategy is economically and socially correct for the areas that have the deepest-set problems, but for other areas—for example, the areas from which the Government are withdrawing—I suggest that other types of aid under the Industry Act 1972 and other forms of Government assistance are much more applicable. It may be that we shall see regional policies taking off in two separate directions, each fitted to suit the problems more than some ideology or idea.

    The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) concluded his remarks by quoting my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior). In a recent speech my right hon. Friend said that we must not create two nations in the United Kingdom. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend and with the right hon. Gentleman. It strikes me that the way of preventing the two-nation concept becoming not merely a threat but a reality is to load such help as we can offer from entirely limited national resources, in an economy which for the moment is growing but slowly, on the areas that need help the most.

  • Liam Fox – 2004 Speech to Conservative Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Liam Fox at the Conservative Party Conference in Bournemouth on 4 October 2004.

    Welcome to Bournemouth to this, our last conference in Opposition.

    At this conference, a renewed and reinvigorated party will set out a clear and hopeful alternative for our country – one that promises freedom and security.

    And we begin by reclaiming as our party colours the red white and blue that reflects our pride in our country. We will never surrender the colours of our flag to those on the dangerous fringe of British politics. We are the party of all Britain and all Britons.

    Under the leadership of Michael Howard, we have become by far the biggest party in local government. On June 10th when millions of voters went to the polls, we pushed Labour into a humiliating third place. We triumphed in the London Assembly with our best performance since the early 90s. We have more women in local government. office than any other political party. And recently we showed that we can win again in the cities, for example, in Millwall in London, our first seat in Tower Hamlets for 40 years.

    All talk and no action

    Over the past year our membership has grown so that we now have more members than the Labour Party and the LibDems combined.

    Remember what he said? 24 hours to save the NHS. Yet despite spending billions of pounds of your money look what’s happened. There are too many managers, too many filthy hospitals, too many people waiting for treatment – and you can’t even find an NHS dentist.

    Remember he said education, education, education? But Labour have wasted billions on bureaucracy. There is too much paperwork for teachers and too little discipline for pupils.

    He said tough on crime tough on the causes of crime but guess what he forgot. He forgot to be tough on the criminals, so crime, especially violent crime, is out of control. And to make matters worse, too many sentences are far too lenient.

    Too many people live in fear in Blair’s Britain, a Britain crying out for more respect, more discipline and decent values.

    And what about our security? At a time of greater threats from abroad what do we get from Labour? Cuts to the Army. Cuts to the Navy. Cuts to the AirForce. We will soon have a smaller navy than France for the first time since the seven years war ended in 1763.

    And isn’t it shameful that this Government sent our servicemen and women to Iraq to fight without the proper equipment to protect them and keep them safe?

    Then there’s asylum. Labour have lost control of asylum. Under Labour, Britain has become a soft touch. People look to us, the Conservatives, to get a grip on the system.

    Of course, if you are Prime Minister, if you get five summer holiday freebies and spend more time out of Britain, these things might not matter to you .

    But all these things do matter. They matter to all the people who have seen Tony Blair break his promises. Pensioners, patients, parents, pupils, taxpayers, students, our servicemen and women. Each and every one betrayed by Tony Blair.

    No wonder people no longer believe a word he says. He is all talk and no action. No matter what he promises at the next election, nobody in this country will be able to trust him.

    The LibDems

    Of course, if you can’t trust Labour you could always try the Lib Dems.

    They want to ban smoking but legalise soft drugs.

    They want to license prostitution, but ban the sale of goldfish.

    They want the age of criminal responsibility to go up but the age at which you can buy pornography to come down.

    And they want prisoners all to have the vote – presumably because every inmate would support them.

    They want a tax on zoos and a tax for regional assemblies. One MP wants cocaine to be sold from licensed premises.

    They haven’t changed. They’re still a Party that likes to get high – high on taxes but low on integrity.

    But a LibDem vote is not just a wasted vote, it is a dangerous vote.

    Their crazy law and order policies would be even softer on crime than Labour. And their European policy would sell Britain out with a single currency, a single constitution and a single European defence policy.

    They know they can never win office in Britain. But what they can never achieve in this country they would conspire to impose upon the British people from Brussels.

    Michael Howard

    It will fall to Michael Howard and the Conservative Party and everyone here in this hall to restore trust in British politics.

    Let me tell you about Michael Howard. He gave me my first political job. Come to think of it, he may have given me my last one.

    Michael is not always the easiest person to work with. He knows what he thinks and what he believes in. He likes a good argument – a very good argument.

    He wants evidence and fact, not supposition and prejudice – and when he makes up his mind, he can be one of the most stubborn people I’ve ever met.

    But not only is he one of the most fair and decent people I’ve worked with, but his case will always be based on reason and he will always put his country before his party.

    What a contrast to our current Prime Minister, whose moral vanity means that he believes he is always right. Even his own Party can now see through the lame excuses from the lame duck Prime Minister.

    The scale of our task

    This Conservative Party last threw out a failed Labour Government under the brave and historic leadership of Margaret Thatcher. We owe her so much.

    We were faced with a broken economy crippled by socialism. Our task this time will be just as great.

    Not only will we have to restore trust in politics itself, We will have to restore the balance of power between the government and the British people.

    Over the last seven years Labour have eroded more and more of our freedoms. They have created a pocket money society where the government takes more and more of our money to make more and more decisions on our behalf and they leave us with less and less income and less and less control over our own lives.

    New Labour have hit us with new taxes. New taxes on pensions. New taxes on homeowners. New taxes on business.

    And it is not just more taxes. They now intrude into every nook and cranny of our lives. They tell you how to do your job and how many hours you are allowed to do it for. How to bring up your child – even what to feed them. They extended means testing, so that pensioners who have spent their lives trying to be independent of the state now have to declare their savings to the ever more intrusive taxman.

    This is not the nanny state – that makes it sound too cuddly – this is the intruder state, which is eroding our historic liberties, strangling our self- reliance and suffocating our freedoms.

    Is this the sort of Britain we want ?

    Where professionals are told how to do their jobs?

    Where there is a speed camera round every corner not to make us safer but to lighten our pockets?

    Where the rights of the countryside are decided by the bigotry of urban class warriors? Is this what we want?

    New Labour have created a society where people increasingly feel that there is a growing gap between the law and justice. People feel that their burglars will never be caught, but they will be if they drive at 35 in a 30 zone.

    And they wonder what is the point of the law if, when you fail the tests for asylum, you are still allowed to stay in this country.

    Worst of all, New Labour have created a tyranny of political correctness. A tyranny where decent, ordinary people feel intimidated. They know there are things that need to be said, but they are afraid to say them.

    Well, we are not afraid.

    I thought it was outrageous for the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to tell us that “gang rape” is a politically incorrect term . Apparently it should be called group rape. Well, frankly, I couldn’t care less about the sensitivities of rapists – what about the sensitivities of the victims of rape?

    If a husband kills his wife in their home it’s not ” a case of domestic violence”- it’s murder. Let’s call it that.

    And drunk youngsters on street corners who threaten old people are not guilty of “social disorder”, they are yobs, they are thugs and they are hooligans.

    Its time to start saying things as they are.

    A Conservative alternative

    Britain is crying out for a new direction and this week we will give it. People are tired of Labour’s words. Tired of soundbites and empty promises. They are tired of being preached at.

    They want action. And this week we’ll tell them what the next Conservative Government will do – and how we will make a difference.

    Andrew Lansley will show how we will get our hospitals clean, get money through to doctors and nurses and give patients the opportunity to choose where and when they get their treatment.

    David Davis will show how we will cut police paperwork, put more police on the beat and stop the early release scheme that puts the public at risk by letting dangerous criminals out too soon.

    Tim Collins will show how we will restore discipline in schools and give parents the opportunity to choose the best school for their child.

    We will show how we will stop Labour’s reckless defence cuts and make sure we have the armed forces to do the job.

    And we will set a firm timetable for a referendum on the European constitution. If we win an election in May we will hold a referendum before we meet at next year’s Party Conference- a pledge that only the Conservative Party can deliver. We will campaign for a No vote. And we will get a No vote.

    We will show that you can get a grip on asylum and stop Britain being a soft touch. It is not ” a lurch to the right” but an overdue response to the real anxieties expressed by the British people. If we do not deal fairly and clearly with these issues then there are those on the shadowy extremes of British politics who would love to exploit them.

    We need a fair but firm system that helps genuine refugees. We will introduce a points system like they have in Australia. It will give priority to those who want to come to Britain to work hard and make a positive contribution to our country.

    And, for the first time, we will set a ceiling on the number of people who can come into the United Kingdom each year.

    Cleaner hospitals, discipline in schools, an end to political correctness, police on the beat, support for our armed forces, control of our borders and the British people controlling their own future in Europe.

    A Conservative Government delivering freedom from fear and the security to enjoy our liberties.

    A timetable for action

    People are fed up with talk. They want action. They don’t want vague promises. They want to know exactly what a Conservative Government would do – and when.

    That is why, that at this Conference, will do something that has never been done before. We will set a timetable for action. We will set out what we will actually do in our first day, our first week, our first month in office. So that people will know how to judge our performance, so that we can be held to account – so that we can restore trust between the government and the people of our country.

    Natural Conservatives

    We will show that there are huge differences in the way we see our future. Political parties are not all the same.

    I don’t know about you, but one thing that makes me mad is when people say Tony Blair’s really a Conservative. He’s even had the nerve to compare himself to Margaret Thatcher. To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen, we know Margaret Thatcher, we worked with Margaret Thatcher – Mr. Blair, you’re no Margaret Thatcher.

    Tony Blair has raised tax and wasted our money. He has presided over an explosion in crime. He has lost control over the asylum system. He has failed to deliver his promises on health and education and he will sell us out on the European constitution. He’s no Conservative.

    There is a fundamental difference between us and Tony Blair. On tax, we’re right and he’s wrong. On crime and asylum we’re right and he’s wrong. And on health, education and especially on our future in Europe, we’re right and he’s wrong.

    All across this country, there are natural conservatives looking for leadership, for a place to go. They have forgotten what we stand for because we have stopped telling them. So, for those who wonder if they are natural conservatives, let me say this with all due respect to the Governor of California.

    If you believe that the first duty of the government is defence of this country, then you are a conservative.

    If you believe that you should keep more of your own hard-earned income, then you are a conservative.

    If you believe that those who save for themselves and their families should be rewarded not penalized, then you are a conservative.

    If you believe that government should give us the tools, get off our backs and let us get on with our lives, then you are a conservative.

    If you believe the law is for the security of the law abiding and to punish not to excuse criminals, then you are a conservative.

    If you believe that we are a nation of individuals whose talents and diversity should be encouraged, you are a conservative

    And if you believe that the British people should have control of their own destiny, then you are a conservative.

    We must tell these things to the British people with clarity and courage. We can restore trust in politics.

    There is an alternative.

    You can make a difference.

    Less talk, more action.

    For the sake of this country the fight starts today.