Blog

David Cameron – 2016 Speech on the EU Referendum

Below is the text of the speech made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, at B&Q in Eastleigh on 23 May 2016.

Thank you very much, thank you. Well, thank you for that and a very good morning. Great to be back at B&Q, and thank you all for coming today.

This country has worked incredibly hard to recover from the recession of 7 years ago. Businesses have invested, people have taken risks, companies have come to this country, but above all the people of Britain have worked incredibly hard to get over that recession. And the 2 of us have worked together to try and put the right framework in place. Now we haven’t got every decision right, but the deficit is right down, the economy is growing, we’re creating jobs. Britain is making things again, and making its way in the world again. 2.4 million more people in work. We’ve got low inflation. We’ve almost got a million more businesses than when we first got our jobs in 2010. But yes, we still have a long way to go; yes, there is more to do. But I think there can be no doubt: Britain is on the right track.

Now I don’t want us to do anything that sets us on the wrong track. After all, that’s really the job description of a Prime Minister: to safeguard the nation’s security. Exactly a month from today, we’re going to make a decision that will determine our future security. I believe that leaving the EU would put our security at huge risk, that it would be the wrong track for Britain.

Why? Because, as we know, and as even Leave campaigners now freely admit, we’d lose full access to the European single market. We’d be abandoning the largest marketplace in the world, half a billion people. It’s a market which Britain helped to create, and which is the source of so much of our economic security. Inside that market, our businesses can trade freely and investors can invest here easily. That keeps our economy growing. That keeps our jobs safe, keeps the pounds strong, keeps our families secure. It means that a business from here in Eastleigh can get their goods to market anywhere in the EU, and get better access to all the places with which the EU has trade deals. So no Spanish importers saying to our manufacturers, ‘That doesn’t fit our regulations.’ No French minister saying to our farmers, ‘We don’t buy British beef.’ No tariffs, no barriers, just Britain doing what we need to do, getting out there and trading with our neighbours.

Now leaving this arrangement, our special status in the EU, is a leap in the dark, because no one has said what we’d have in its place. Now we already heard last month, from the Treasury, that the long-term impact of leaving would be a cost to every household equivalent to £4,300. Today we publish analysis of what would happen in the short term, in the immediate months and years after a British exit. As businesses freeze up, confidence drains, uncertainty clouds over, and an economic shock shakes our nation.

Now, the Chancellor will go into the details shortly, but I just want to focus on the impact it would have on your life, the job you do, the home you live in. Your weekly shop, your monthly bills. These things are all at risk. As the Bank of England has said, as the IMF has underlined, and as now the Treasury has confirmed, the shock to our economy after leaving Europe would tip the country into recession. This could be, for the first time in history, a recession brought on ourselves. As I stand here in B&Q, it would be a DIY recession. And it really matters to everyone.

Someone actually asked, in this debate, the other day, you know, “That’s the economic case. What about the moral case?” But don’t they realise that the economic case is the moral case? The moral case for keeping parents in work, firms in business, the pound in health, Britain in credit. The moral case for providing economic opportunity rather than unemployment for the next generation. Where is the morality in putting any of that at risk for some unknown end? This government was elected just over a year ago to deliver security at every stage of life, to build a greater Britain out of a great recession, and, after all the pain, all the sacrifice of the British people, why would we want to put it at risk again? It would be like surviving a fall and then running straight back to the cliff edge. It is the self destruct option.

So much of this debate is muddied and overshadowed by speculation about who says what about whom, and who’s in this camp or that camp. We need to strip away the drama, and focus on real life, because this isn’t about political parties or personalities or Prime Ministers. It’s about you, about your money and your life. The stakes couldn’t be higher, the risks couldn’t be greater, and, in my view, the choice couldn’t be clearer. Leave Europe and put at risk what we’ve achieved; stay in Europe, and stay on the right track.

And now it’s time to hear that analysis of the short-term impact. So over to you, Chancellor.

[The Chancellor’s speech is available here.]

May 23, 2016
George Osborne – 2016 Speech on HM Treasury Analysis of Leaving the EU

Below is the text of the speech made by George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at B&Q in Southampton on 23 May 2016.

Prime Minister, thank you very much.

The Treasury has already published detailed analysis of what a vote to leave would do to Britain’s economy over the long term.

And the results showed that Britain would be permanently poorer to the tune of £4,300 per household – £4,300 each and every year.

That’s the long term bill for leaving the EU.

But what about the immediate impact on our economy? What will it mean next month, next year? And what will it mean for you?

Today the Treasury is publishing its detailed and rigorous analysis of the immediate impact of leaving the EU on growth, jobs, prices, wages, house prices and our nation’s finances.

And the conclusion is that all would be hit.

Why is that?

Well, first households and businesses will know that Britain is going to be poorer in the future, so they’ll start cutting back on spending now, and avoiding big investments.

And that has an effect on the economy now.

Second, leaving the EU creates a huge amount of uncertainty.

We’d have just two years to work out how to leave the EU; two years to find a new working relationship with our neighbours; two years to do trade deals with over 50 other non EU countries; two years to introduce a load of new regulations here at home.

In other words, two years at the very least of complete uncertainty – and probably more.

And what will British businesses be doing during those two years?

They will be watching and waiting nervously.

They will delay purchasing new machinery, put on hold making plans for new premises.

They won’t take new people on; some will let existing people go.

And what about families – how are they likely to respond?

Families will also be uncertain about what is coming next.

If you don’t know what’s going to happen to your job, your partner’s job, your pay or the fortunes of the firm you work for – it would make sense to delay spending on things.

People will put off trying to buy a home, or starting their own business.

Put together millions of individual decisions like that and there is real damage to the economy.

And then there’s the impact on financial markets – and we’ve all learnt to our cost during the financial crash how that can affect us all.

Markets would be volatile, banks would be more cautious, the value of things like shares would likely fall.

So stack all these things together…

the fact we’d be heading towards a poorer Britain,

the fact we’d be surrounded by uncertainty,

the fact the financial system would be volatile,

and it builds up to a profound economic shock if Britain leaves the EU.

The Treasury asked one of the country’s leading economists and a former Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, Professor Sir Charles Bean to review the work, and he concludes that it “provides reasonable estimates of the likely size of the short term impact of a vote to leave on the UK economy”.

So what are the numbers from the Treasury analysis?

Economists looked at two scenarios – one where Britain experiences a shock, the second where it’s a severe shock. Under both scenarios here are the results.

This is what happens if Britain leaves: the economy shrinks,

the value of the pound falls,

inflation rises,

unemployment rises,

real wages are hit,

so too are house prices,

and as a result – government borrowing goes up.

The central conclusions of today’s Treasury analysis are clear – a vote to leave will push our economy into a recession.

Within two years the size of our economy – our GDP – would be at least 3% smaller as a result of leaving the EU – and it could be as much as 6% smaller.

We’d have a year of negative growth – that’s a recession.

The pound would fall in value – by between 12% and 15%.

That doesn’t just mean it’s more expensive when you have a holiday abroad.

It means everything we import becomes more expensive, which increases inflation and hits family budgets.

Within a year of the Referendum, inflation would be over 2% higher.

And let’s be clear who that would hit the most: the lower income families who spend the largest proportion of their income on things like food and energy bills.

In the financial markets, tougher conditions would lead to higher mortgage costs for families.

By 2018 house prices would be hit by at least 10% and as much as 18%.

So that’s what it means to vote to leave the EU.

Incomes fall.

Mortgage rates go up.

And the value of the family home falls too.

Behind all this – what people can afford to buy, where they can afford to live – are people’s jobs.

And so I want to talk to you about the impact on jobs too.

The Treasury’s analysis published today finds that a direct consequence of a vote to leave the EU would be significant job losses across the UK.

Within two years, at least half a million jobs would be lost.

That’s 80,000 jobs in the Midlands.

Over 100,000 jobs across the North.

Over 40,000 in Scotland; over 20,000 in Wales; almost 15,000 in Northern Ireland.

In London over 70,000 jobs would be lost.

Here across the South, almost 120,000 jobs would go.

And that’s the lower end of the estimates – across Britain as many as 820,000 jobs could be lost.

As always, it would be young people leaving school and college, and those already in insecure work who would be hit hardest.

Youth unemployment would rise by over 10%.

And for those that stay in work, wages will be hit too as firms see their profits fall.

The Treasury’s analysis finds that real wages will fall by almost 3% in the first two years compared to where they’d be if we remain in the EU.

To put it in perspective – that’s a pay cut worth almost £800 a year to someone working full time on the average wage.

The analysis today is clear: the uncertainty that would be caused by a vote to leave would put the brakes on investment, would cost over half a million people in our country jobs, and would cut people’s wages too.

And of course, all of this would have a big impact on the nation’s finances and how much we have to spend on things we value like our NHS and schools.

If we vote to leave, evidence shows that the deficit would be higher than it would be if we remain.

The borrowing bill for leaving the EU would be between £24 billion to £39 billion a year.

Let me end by saying this: it’s only been 8 years since Britain entered the deepest recession our country has seen since the Second World War.

Every part of our country suffered.

The British people have worked so hard to get our country back on track.

Do we want to throw it all away?

With exactly one month to go to the referendum, the British people must ask themselves this question: can we knowingly vote for a recession?

Does Britain really want this DIY recession?

Because that’s what the evidence shows we’ll get if we vote to leave the EU.

And to those who say we should vote to leave I’d say this: you might think the economic shock is a price worth paying.

But it’s not your wages that will be hit, it’s not your livelihoods that will go, it’s not you who’ll struggle to pay the bills.

It’s the working people of Britain who will pay the price if we leave the EU.

None of this needs to happen if we vote to remain.

Yes, we’ve got improvements to make to the EU – but we know what they are and we’re clear about what the future holds.

If we remain, major British car manufacturers will go on selling hundreds of thousands of cars to Europe tariff-free. If we remain, British farmers will go on selling their beef and lamb to Europe tariff-free.

If we remain, British building firms will go on building homes, and people will have the confidence to do-up their own homes and shop with companies like yours.

And if we remain, our economy won’t lose half a million jobs, but instead we’ll create more than a million jobs over the coming years.

That is the brighter future on offer for our country.

We’ve spent 6 years dealing with what happens when recession hits this country – we’ve got one month to make sure we don’t do it to ourselves all over again.

One month to avoid a DIY recession.

The Treasury analysis shows Britain will be stronger, safer and better off if we vote to remain in the EU on 23 June.

May 23, 2016
John McDonnell – 2016 Speech on the Economy

Below is the text of the speech made by John McDonnell, the Shadow Chancellor, in London on 21 May 2016.

Thank you very much for coming here today…

I think this is the first event of its kind organised by a shadow chancellor.

I wanted to lay out, briefly, our strategy on the economy.

As Jeremy made clear this week, speaking at the Ralph Miliband lecture, Labour is not a party only of protest.

Protest matters, and protests make a difference.

I hope we’ve shown, over the last eight months, how an effective Opposition can make a difference.

We’ve helped win U-turns on cuts to tax credits, cuts to disability payments.

We’ve won U-turns on forced academisation.

The government has U-turned on cuts to solar panel subsidies, and on the tampon tax.

They’ve U-turned on Sunday trading, and on taking child refugees, and now even on the inclusion of the NHS in TTIP.

It’s almost dizzying, watching them from the opposite benches.

That’s what an effective Opposition can help do, alongside the protests and the movements outside of Parliament.

But it’s not enough to block and protest.

If we want to make a lasting difference to people’s lives, we have to offer an alternative.

So Labour is not only a party of protest.

It is a party of government.

The Tories may be in disarray. But even as they fight like rats in a sack over Europe, they will agree on one thing.

That is the need to tear up hard-won rights, and smash up the civilising institutions previous generations have won.

From the BBC to the NHS, from our schools to the welfare state, nothing remains safe whilst they are in power.

That means we have a responsibility to show the British people how Labour is not just an effective opposition, but a credible alternative government.

We will defend the good that has been won already.

But we can go further than this.

We should aim to show how we can improve on what we have.

Labour’s great reforming governments have always had a vision, whether in creating the NHS, or introducing the first national minimum wage.

When we return to government, we must aspire to be another great reforming administration.

I want us to surpass even the Attlee government for radical reform.

The situation demands nothing less. Simply undoing the damage inflicted by David Cameron and George Osborne will be a huge task.

But we should aim higher than this.

Not just cleaning up the mess and addressing the challenges, whether that is inequality or climate change.

But making the most of the opportunities that could be opened up.

New technology and new ways of working could help create a better, more prosperous society.

Our whole society could do so much better than we are.

What we’ve attempted, over the last eight months, is to lay out the framework by which Labour can win the next election and then set about the fundamental business of transforming capitalism.

We should aim at nothing less than that.

It’s important that we state our objective clearly.

Our aim is that is that in the life of one Parliament we lay the foundations of a new society that is radically fairer, more equal and more democratic, based upon a prosperous economy which is economically and environmentally sustainable and where that prosperity is shared by all.

And we aim to introduce a new era of transformative economics to achieve that goal.

That means we have to be ambitious. We have to “rewrite the rules” of the economy, in the words of Economic Advisory Council member Joseph Stiglitz.

The old rules have failed too many.

They have meant rising inequality, and wasted talent.

Prosperity has become too concentrated in the hands of too few, and the best opportunities in life restricted to a gilded set at the top of society.

We have trampled all over the natural world, and squandered its resources.

This is a bigger project than offering just a few appealing policy tweaks here and there.

It means striving for a transformation in how capitalism in Britain operates.

That means a fundamental shift in how future governments relate to the economy.

We are a long way from the election. But in outline this rewriting of the rules has three parts.

First, we need to make an absolute commitment to responsible financing by a future Labour government.

Let me spell out what that means.

The old rules meant the last Labour government relied too heavily on tax revenues from financial services, and too heavily on off-balance sheet spending through the Private Finance Initiative.

It didn’t do enough to clamp down on tax evasion and avoidance.

It helped create an unfair tax system.

In Opposition today we are doing all we can, here and at an EU level, to hold this government of tax dodgers to account.

This country will no longer act like a tax haven for the super-rich under Labour. And nor will those other places it exercises jurisdiction over.

And on the other side, it means every penny of government spending will be accounted for.

Unlike the current government, we won’t gamble with the nation’s finances, setting unachievable targets and leaving black holes in their accounts.

If we don’t show that we are responsible custodians of the people’s money, they will not give us the right to govern.

We can reject the dreadful choice of austerity and maintain solid government finances.

We’ve enshrined these commitments in our Fiscal Credibility Rule, drawn up with help from the world-leading economists on our Economic Advisory Council.

This Rule says we will close the deficit on day-to-day spending over a five year period, but we’ll make sure government has the capacity to invest in the future.

If there was a single biggest failure for George Osborne, it has been his failure to invest.

But he is the worst of a long tradition of weak investment by British governments. We want to break with that.

Investment is the key to shared prosperity now, and in the future.

We’re not just a Party that thinks how to spend money.

We need to be a Party that thinks how to earn money.

The clue is in our name. We are the party of labour – the party of the wealth creators, of technicians, designers, machinists, entrepreneurs, the self-employed – the party of workers and small businesses.

Second, we need to reshape how government and the economy relate to each other.

Another Economic Advisory Council member, Marianna Mazzucato has written about how what she calls the “entrepreneurial state” can help support new industries and technologies.

This breaking with the failures of the hands-off approach.

We’ve seen, just in the last few months, what happens when a government thinks a vital industry like steel can be left to the mercies of the market.

It means plant closures and job losses, devastating communities.

It means a key industry for the future left on the brink of disappearance.

We responded rapidly to the steel crisis, arguing that government had to step in.

To nationalise to stabilize the industry.

Use government spending to buy steel from British plants, protecting jobs here.

And work with, not against, our European partners to stop the dumping of cheap steel.

I’m pleased to see our do-nothing Business Secretary has been forced to respond to pressure to act.

But we need to think beyond crisis management.

If, for instance, we’re serious about seeing a shift towards a low-carbon economy, we’ll need to transform how we produce and use electricity.

More public transport and more renewables have to be a part of the mix.

And that has to mean supporting a steel industry here.

So we’re not just seeing industrial policy as a response to crisis.

Too many governments in the past, and not just this one, thought government should only intervene when something goes wrong.

We think government intervention should be there to make sure things go right.

The swift actions taken by the previous Labour government, for instance, to support the car industry in the aftermath of the 2008 crash mean that, today, Britain exports more cars than ever before.

So we know intervention can work. We have to apply it properly.

Jeremy has argued before for a National Investment Bank.

This could supply the investment needed for the big infrastructure projects, like high speed rail, that form the backbone of a modern economy and in which Britain is sorely deficient.

It can help local and regional institutions provide the financing for our small businesses, still starved of funding by our existing banks.

And we’ll look for ways to ensure new technologies get the funding they need not just for research but for dissemination and adoption.

Renewables in particular need attention.

As we develop our policies, we’ll be drawing on the best research and expertise to show how this new institution could work

We must overcome the arrogance and isolation of government.

Civil servants do not always know best. Nor do politicians.

Too many governments in the past have believed that they do.

But it should be fundamental to a genuinely democratic approach to economic policy that governments are there to bring people together, to facilitate discussion and to listen.

Not to impose, but to seek consensus.

When we return to government, I’ll be looking to set up an Economic and Innovation Forum which will provide a space where representatives of businesses, unions, and wider civil society can come together with government at a national level.

We’ll create a real partnership in policymaking.

We will restore that line of communication right from the shop floor, the office, the studio and the R and D department to the heart of government.decision making.

We think we are far more effective when we work together, when we co-operate.

But intervention can take place not only at the national level.

Pioneering councils, under the cosh of Tory austerity, are having to think creatively about how to deliver local services and secure the local economy.

Transformative councils like Preston in Lancashire are developing a “local entrepreneurial state”. The council there is working with major local institutions, like the university, to help support the local economy.

Procurement spending is being rerouted back into local businesses. They’ve provided a multi-million pound boost to the economy in Preston and beyond.

Alongside that, they’re helping workers set up co-operatives to sustain local employment.

We think this bottom-up approach can be applied more widely.

Take the scandal of the housing crisis.

At the national level, Jeremy has made the shadow housing minister a fully-fledged shadow cabinet post for the first time in years.

This reflects the high priority we are giving to housing and solving the serious housing crisis.

Sadiq Khan has rightly highlighted the issue of housings costs in London.

The cost of housing in London is arguably the biggest single blight on this city.

Many, particularly young people, who are unable to get onto the housing ladder are then at the mercy of an unforgiving, unrestrained housing market.

Other urban areas are suffering from skyrocketing rents.

We’ll look to give local authorities the powers to impose rent regulation to secure fair rents where these are needed as Labour committed itself to at the last election.

We know the supply of housing is simply not sufficient to meet demand.

My colleague the shadow housing minister John Healey has set out his plans to build 100,000 new council houses a year, funded from savings in the Housing Benefit bill.

With fewer new social rented homes built last year than at any time in over two decades, it will be a top priority for a Labour government to reverse the short-term and counter-productive cuts in housing investment made by George Osborne.

But we have to also meet the aspirations of people to own their own home.

We are also looking at how we can reverse the freefall decline in home-ownership amongst young people.

There are now a third of a million fewer home-owners under 35 than when David Cameron became PM, and the biggest drop is among working class young people.

We know that part of the reason why the Tories are failing on home-ownership is that their support is not targeted at those who need help the most.

Thousands of households earning over £100,000 a year have benefited from the government’s ‘help to buy’ scheme, while their so-called ‘starter homes’ will cost up to £450,000 each.

So Labour would make it a mission to ensure families and young people on ordinary incomes aren’t locked out of home-ownership as they are under the Tories.

It is Labour councils providing innovative solutions to the housing crisis.

Councils in Manchester, Warrington and Sandwell, offering cheap, local authority-backed mortgages to first-time buyers in particular.

With too many first-time buyers excluded from the housing market by high-street banks, we’ll be looking at ways to securely expand local authority mortgage lending.

We need action now to solve the housing crisis.

With Mayors elected across major cities in this country, and more Mayoral elections to follow, there is a new enthusiasm and capacity to take the initiative locally.

Bristol’s new Mayor, Marvin Rees, and his administration have announced plans to build 2,000 new homes every year.

They’ve immediately released land the size of 80 football pitches for new building.

Along with Jon Trickett, our Shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, I will be convening a Mayors’ Economic Forum to bring together local leaderships to participate in the development of economic policy making.

For the first time, national economic policy making will be influenced directly by local decision makers representing their metropolises and local communities.

Clearly one of our first agenda items will be solving the housing crisis.

We can all learn from each other in this, but we need mechanisms to make it happen.

This leads to the third policy area.

We need to unlock the potential of the whole economy, and society.

The economic institutions that we have were developed in an earlier age.

Too many of them are not fit for purpose in the 21st century.

Our banking system failed in 2008 and still fails too many small businesses today.

As Lord Turner has detailed, it pumps lending into the property market, but fails to invest in the productive economy.

No other major developed economy has a banking system so dominated by a few corporations.

We need to end that domination, developing a range of new institutions including the National Investment Bank.

We need to make sure every part of our economy has access to the financing it needs, not concentrate it in one sector and in one place.

Similarly, the fixation on shareholder value and short-term results means that our giant corporations are sitting on giant cash piles – perhaps up to £700bn.

Instead of investing money productively, creating new jobs and opportunities, our corporations are hoarding cash.

And those responsible for running them are paying themselves obscene amounts of cash.

Shareholders have risen in revolt against excessive executive pay.

I think we need to open up the whole question of how our major corporations are structured.

Put an end to the short-termism. End the fixation with shareholder value. Start to think how employees and customers can be brought into the decision-making process.

These aren’t just good in themselves. There is a hard-nosed economic case for addressing these questions.

We know that there is a clear boost to the economy from worker ownership and management.

One recent academic literature thinks worker-managed companies enjoy a productivity bonus of 6-14%.

I’ve said I want to at least double the size of the co-operative sector in Britain.

Similar economies like the US and Germany make far more use of co-operatives than here.

There is a long labour movement tradition in Britain of support for grassroots ownership and decentralized economies, from the Rochdale Pioneers onwards.

That tradition has been buried for too long. After the Second World War, Labour adopted a model of centralized ownership and control for the economy.

This model worked well enough, for a time. But it always had problems.

Today, the proliferation of small-scale and digital technology can grant a new lease of life to the tradition.

From community-owned renewable generation to open source software, collective and shared forms of ownership can provide fairer and more efficient ways of working than the older business models.

So the future has an ancient heart.

I’ve said before that democracy and decentralization must be the centerpiece of our economic policy.

From the ground up, we can start to transform how capitalism in Britain works.

Previous Labour governments were content to only think about how to redistribute income.

Today, technological change means we have to think more closely about ownership.

I’ve spoken before of moving beyond the Tory Right to Buy and creating a Labour Right to Own.

This can be at the centre of our offer to Britain.

A radical decentralization of economic power and authority back to working people and local communities.

If we are to make all this work, we have to go beyond simply thinking we can pull the levers of government, and expect to deliver results.

The machinery of government that we have for overseeing the economy is looking increasingly rusty.

Those levers cannot be relied on.

We have an HMRC that, time and again, lets major corporations off the hook when it comes to their taxes – whilst hounding hard-pressed small businesses.

I want to pay tribute to the staff of Revenue and Customs, who have been cut and cut again by Osborne.

Staff at HMRC generate revenues. Cutting their numbers is self-defeating.

But serious questions have to be raised about its management.

Economists from across the political spectrum are questioning whether, after 2008, we need a new way of making monetary policy.

Andy Haldane, chief economist at the Bank of England, has raised interesting future possibilities for monetary policy, including more quantitative easing and even negative interest rates.

The current architecture was established in 1997. We can raise a legitimate question as to whether the Monetary Policy Committee’s remit still fits changed circumstances.

And then at the heart of economic policymaking in Britain sits the Treasury.

Its powers, already expansive under Gordon Brown, have grown hugely under Osborne.

It dominates not just economic policy, but the whole of domestic policymaking in Whitehall.

Its staff are talented and dedicated. But, time and again, it has faced serious questions about its own role.

Is it too short-term in its outlook? Too focused on London? Too unimaginative in its approach?

Iain Duncan Smith has even gone so far as to call it “the worst thing in Britain”.

I’ve commissioned a series of reviews, led by experts, to report on the functioning of these three critical institutions.

Lord Kerslake, former head of the civil service, is reviewing the Treasury.

Professor Prem Sikka is reviewing HMRC.

And Professor Danny Blanchflower is conducting a review of the Monetary Policy Committee.

All three will report back over the next period, and make recommendations that will feed into our own policymaking.

We are creating our own architecture for sound economic policy making and implementation.

Even in outline, this is a bold programme.

But economics isn’t a spectator sport.

I’m heartened to see so many here today, just as hundreds upon hundreds have turned out across the country for the lecture series.

Everyone here has a critical role to play.

Fundamentally, we have to reshape the narrative on the economy.

It’s been dominated for too long not only by the ludicrous claims of the austerity-mongers.

Going back further, it’s been the dominated by a particular belief that free markets are fundamentally always right, and that free market outcomes are always the best.

We have to break with that.

But that means winning the argument.

It means all of us being prepared to take on and challenge the arguments when they arise.

It means we’re all ready to make the case for a different way of doing economics, based on the best possible expert advice and with a clear vision for the future.

So the debates and discussion we hear today aren’t supposed to stay on this campus.

They need to be taken to every town and village in the country.

If we want to realise the kind of programme I’ve laid out, we need to be prepared to take that message to every corner of the country.

I’m convinced there’s a real thirst out there to see something new.

You don’t need to spend too long convincing most people that things aren’t working as they should.

But unless we have a credible alternative, and the people prepared to make the case for it, we won’t be able to change how things work.

It doesn’t mean shouting and berating those who disagree with us, but patiently explaining how we can do things better.

So I think this conference should be the first of many.

Slowly but surely, we need to reshape the discussion.

Each one of us has an important role to play in this.

We need you all to help raise the quality of economic discourse in this country.

We need you all to be the advocates of the transformative economics we are developing to achieve that fairer, more equal, more democratic, sustainable prosperous society we aspire to.

And as we approach the election, we will work together to sharpen and develop our ideas collectively.

If the Tories are the party of a failing past and present, Labour must be the party of the future.

If the Tories are the party of fear, Labour must be the party of hope.

That’s what this conference today is all about.

Let’s go to it.

May 23, 2016
Jeremy Corbyn – 2016 Speech on the Economy

Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Corbyn, the Leader of the Opposition, in London on 21 May 2016.

Thank you all for coming today to Labour’s inaugural State of the Economy Conference … Thank you to John and his Shadow Treasury Team for organising

Thanks in particular to Ha-Joon Chang … for his terrific speech on building a balanced and sustainable economy.

And to Sue Himmelweit, Paul Mason, Linda Yueh, Adam Marshall and Len McCluskey for their engaging discussions …

And thank you … most of all … to all of you who took part in the various workshops this afternoon … Debating some of the most important issues facing our economy and our society.

These discussions are invaluable.

It is only through active debate – like we’ve had today – between politicians and businesses … employers and employees … thinkers and educators … that we can build an economy for the future that delivers for all.

I’ve said before that we must change the way our party makes policy.

When politicians and their advisers sit round a table and devise policy … they rarely succeed in getting to grips with the real problems our country faces.

We need to involve more people in decision-making and consult far more widely outside politics.

I believe it’s essential to listen:

To the growing army of the self-employed … often struggling to make ends meet, and falling through the cracks in our social security system;

to entrepreneurs seeking to innovate and create wealth;

to trades unions who stand up for workers’ rights;

to our friends from progressive movements in countries across the world;

to academics; and

to business people shaping a more dynamic, responsive economy.

Only by engaging and debating these crucial issues … as we have done today … can we develop a comprehensive plan … to forge a new economy and the kind of Britain we want to live in.

I think we’ve come a long way already in the eight months since I became leader … John McDonnell, has started to lay out the framework of a new economics.

As John repeated today … an economy that allows people to flourish and prosper in the 21st century will be a very different kind of economy from that of the 1990s … let alone the economy of the 1940s or 1960s.

Building an economy for the future requires bold ambition … A New Economics … And that’s what today has been about.

Looking forward … And tackling – head on – the reforms necessary to build a fairer, more equal, more just society.

Today we’ve discussed the state of the economy. And the sad truth is… the economy is in a bad state.

What’s clear is that this government is not creating the economy of the future we need … Six years ago George Osborne said austerity would wipe out the deficit and cut the debt.

That’s the wonderful thing about George Osborne’s five year plans … they’re always five years away.

What we have instead is an economy that works for the few, not for the many.

Inequality is rising … And food bank queues are growing.

We’ve seen an explosion of zero hour contracts … and a race to the bottom on pay, job security and workplace rights.

A gender pay gap that is still wedged at 19 per cent.

Despite George Osborne’s promises of a ‘March of the Makers’ … we have a government that won’t stand up for key strategic industries … like steel.

Instead, they sought to abdicate their responsibilities when it came to the crisis in the steel industry …

And it was only concerted pressure from the trade unions, from Labour MPs and from the steel communities that forced the government … kicking and screaming … into a change in position.

The security of home ownership is moving further and further away for so many people.

We have a government that … despite the growing economic consensus against austerity …. despite the fact the Prime Minister tells us we now have a ‘strong economy’ … is continuing to pursue spending cuts.

A government that is failing to invest in our public services … leading to a crisis in our NHS.

A government that is failing to invest in critical infrastructure.

A government that is failing to invest in the skills that our young people want … and our businesses need.

And let’s be clear. Austerity is a political choice not an economic necessity.

Even Iain Duncan Smith is now parroting our mantra … saying after the Budget that Osborne’s cuts were … “distinctly political rather than in the national economic interest”.

The Chancellor has utterly failed against every single one of its economic targets …

· They have failed to eradicate the deficit

· Failed to meet their target on the debt

· Failed to rebalance the economy

· Failed to address the productivity crisis

This government has consistently made the case for austerity … George Osborne has staked his economic credibility on his austerity economics … and they are failing to deliver.

But worst of all, this government does not seem to understand … that their cuts have consequences

… when you cut adult social care … it means isolation and a loss of dignity for older and disabled people… and it piles pressure onto an NHS that is already being overstretched

… when you saddle young people with more debt … you impede their ability to buy a home or start a family

… when you fail to build housing and tackle sky-high rents … then homelessness increases and the number of families in temporary accommodation increases.

… when you slash the budgets of local authorities … then leisure centres close … libraries close … children’s centres close

… when you close fire stations and cut firefighters … then response times increase and more people die in fires.

These are the very real consequences of the politics of austerity.

Being in opposition can be frustrating … but Labour has proved you can still have influence and make a difference.

We have forced the government to back down in a number of important areas … from tax credits to disability payments … and, most recently, to forced academisation.

Together as a country … we must continue to stand up against the Conservative six year record of mismanagement of the economy …and stand up for the vital services on which we all depend.

But what Labour stands for is far more than stopping the damage being done by this government.

We want to see a break with the failed economic orthodoxy that has gripped policy makers for a generation … And set out a clear vision for a Labour government … that will create an economy that works for all, not just the few.

We must be ambitious and bold to win the next election … and deliver the new economy that Britain needs.

… An economy that tackles the grotesque inequality that is holding people back.

… An economy that ensures every young person has the opportunities to maximise their talents … And that produces the high skilled, high value and secure jobs, they need.

… An economy that delivers new, more democratic forms of ownership.

… A zero-carbon economy that protects our environment.

… A balanced and broad-based economy … supported by investment and a proactive industrial strategy that devolves decision-making to where it needs to be.

We want to see a genuinely mixed economy of public and social enterprise … alongside a private sector with a long-term private business commitment … that will provide the decent pay, jobs, housing, schools, health and social care of the future.

An economy based on a new settlement with the corporate sector that, yes … involves both rights and responsibilities.

Labour will always seek to distribute the rewards of growth more fairly … But, to deliver that growth demands real change in the way the economy is run.

Change that puts the interests of the public, the workforce and the wider economy … ahead of short-term shareholder interest.

Wealth creation is a good thing: we all want greater prosperity.

But let us have a serious debate about how wealth is created … And how that wealth should be shared.

It is a co-operative process between workers, public investment and services, and, yes … often very innovative and creative individuals and businesses.

So if wealth creation is a shared process … then the proceeds must be shared too.

Technology is changing the way we work … Digital technology and robotics are transforming jobs and whole sectors of the economy.

Globalisation means that greater international trade is altering where jobs are based … and where workers are in demand.

Work for many has become insecure … and we want to change that because we believe that a happier, more secure workforce is a more productive workforce.

That’s why I was at Ecotricity in Stroud on Thursday … launching Workplace 2020 alongside our shadow Trade Union minister Ian Lavery … and our shadow Business Secretary Angela Eagle … to kickstart a national conversation about what the world of work should look like in 2020.

Only an economy that is run for all wealth creators … the technicians, entrepreneurs, designers, shopfloor workers, and the self-employed … and that puts them in the driving seat … is going to deliver prosperity for all.

John McDonnell talked this morning about rewriting the rules of the economy … Because the old rules have failed.

The old rules – Tory rules – have led to a lack of investment in our economy, which is failing our communities.

They’ve led to a government that has failed to tackle our unbalanced economy … They are failing to support key strategic industries … like our steel industry.

They have failed to invest in the infrastructure that communities across the country desperately need.

They have failed to invest in housing … The government says it aspires to build a million new homes … The reality however is that housebuilding has sunk to its lowest level since the 1920s.

They have failed to invest in developing the skills our young people deserve and our businesses need.

The old rules mean failing to invest in Britain’s future.

A Labour government will make different choices.

If we want to create the economy of the future … then government has a vital role to play in making the long-term, patient investments … that are the foundations of long-term prosperity.

We want to see the reindustrialisation of Britain for the digital age … That means putting public investment front and centre stage …. driven by a National Investment Bank as a motor of economic modernization … based on investment in infrastructure, transport, housing and the technologies of the future.

John also talked this morning about the need for greater democratisation and decentralisation.

This includes the contribution that co-operatives can make to our economy … to empower people to come together to take control of their own lives

This is the complete opposite of the Conservative devolution plans … passing responsibility without the support and resources to enable people to take control.

John has rightly talked about establishing a “right to own” for workers … to stop jobs and companies being treated like possessions on a Monopoly board … and to give workers the first refusal on taking over a company when it changes hands.

The New Economics is also about economic justice.

People expect companies that trade in this country … and people who live in this country … to pay their tax in this country … It funds our public services.

Aggressive tax avoidance and tax evasion are an attack on the NHS, on schools our care for elderly and disabled people and the social security system that prevents poverty, homelessness and destitution

So I’m very grateful to Professor Prem Sikka who is reviewing HMRC for us to ensure it has the resources it needs to tackle this endemic problem … and to our Labour MEPs who are leading the tax justice fight in Brussels.

I’m equally grateful to Danny Blanchflower for the work he’s doing to review the Monetary Policy Committee … and to Lord Kerslake who is reviewing the Treasury

The machinery of government overseeing the economy must be fit for the reality of today’s economy.

We believe that economic justice and economic credibility must go hand-in-hand … Which is why all our plans are underpinned by Labour’s Fiscal Credibility Rule … agreed following discussions with the world-leading economists on our Economic Advisory Council.

Our rule makes clear that we will ensure solid public finances … while rejecting the politically motivated austerity that is strangling investment … and choking prosperity.

We need a Labour government that will put investment, productivity and sustainable growth first … alongside a 21st century industrial policy.

That is how we will provide the economic security that the Tories are failing to deliver.

… Security and investment in jobs and skills.

… Security and investment in housing.

… Security and investment in our NHS and our schools.

… And, yes, security and investment in our public finances too.

We have the opportunity to build a fairer, more equal, more prosperous economy.

But we must be bold and ambitious in our approach.

It was the radical Labour government of 1945 that delivered so many of the social achievements of which we Labour members are so proud … the National Health Service, the welfare state, council housing, comprehensive education … institutions that were about the collective improvement of all.

And we must harness that radical spirit to build an economy for the 21st century.

This morning John laid out the framework developed over the last eight months … by which Labour can win the next election.

It is a bold and ambitious programme.

I don’t underestimate the scale of the task in front of us.

There is no point being in politics if you are not ambitious not for yourself but to make your community your country and our world a better and more just place.

And it’s a programme that we will continue to refine … With your help.

As I said at the start … we need to involve more people in decision-making … and consult far more widely outside politics.

It is essential that we continue a rich and diverse debate on these fundamental issues … To continue to build the New Economics from the ground up.

So I hope you will all continue to engage in these important discussions and to contribute to this debate … to continue building a platform for economic and social justice.

Thank you for your contributions today … and in the future.

May 23, 2016
Colin Shepherd – 1984 Speech on Leptospirosis

Below is the text of the speech made by Colin Shepherd, the then Conservative MP for Hereford, in the House of Commons on 11 April 1984.

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for coming to the House this evening to discuss the—to me—very interesting subject of leptospirosis, and cattle-associated leptospirosis in particular. We can both heave a sigh of relief that we are here at a modest hour and not early in the morning, as has been the case of late.

My hon. Friend will know that among the many important functions—and there are many—which go on in Hereford, the Public Health Laboratory Service has its leptospirosis reference unit. It is very much as a consequence of the work done by that unit, and by Dr. Sheena Waitkins in particular, that I have sought to utilise this opportunity to draw attention to the concern which should be shown in the dairy sector of the farming community in respect of one particular strain of leptospirosis—cattle-associated leptospirosis.

In this matter the interface between this House and departmental responsibility is complex. The disease is one which affects cattle, with associated problems of cattle suffering abortion and milk loss, together with financial loss for farmers. It is also capable of being easily transmitted to man. The evidence points to a greater level of infection than was previously apparent.

My purpose in drawing attention to the various interrelated problems is, first, to increase agricultural awareness of the disease; secondly to increase medical awareness of the condition; and, thirdly to sound out my hon. Friend—who is the Minister with particular responsibility for animal health matters—on the possibility of developing a programme of containment of the disease at source, that is to say, to deal with before it leaves the infected cattle.

I raised the matter with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, who gave me a somewhat disappointing reply on 27 March. He said that he was satisfied that GPs have an adequate knowledge of the risks of the disease, especially in dairying areas.”—[Offical Report, 27 March 1984; Vol. 57, c. 133.] My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has no responsibility for the replies of a Minister in another Department, and I would not ask her to comment on that reply. It is worthwhile noting, however, that the disease is being discovered by those medical practitioners who have become attuned to look for cattle-associated leptospirosis. Other doctors may mistake it for flu.

One Herefordshire milk producer, with a herd of 130 milkers, contracted human leptospirosis or CAL. His herd became infected in 1982, and he contracted the disease. He became very poorly. Because the illness was not like ordinary flu, his wife called in the doctor. The doctor said that it was a bad case of flu. He said, “It’s just a case of sweating it out.” The next day, the cowman went down with the disease and a standby cowman was called in to help with the milking. Four days later, the standby cowman, too, fell ill. Because of the dairy connection, his doctor, who lived in Hereford, suspected brucellosis, and treated him with penicillin. Because penicillin deals with CAL as well as brucellosis, the cowman recovered speedily. When his blood sample was sent to the reference unit and showed leptospirosis, Dr. Waitkins became aware of the problem. She went out to the farm, took blood samples and found that the producer and his cowman had the same problem. A few days later, after taking tablets and penicillin, they had begun to recover.

That milk producer said, I have never had anything like it before. The NFU and the farmworkers’ union should press for urgent research into this disease, and if eradication is shown to be possible then they should be supported to the hilt. He had had a blinding headache, worse than anything he had ever known before. It was so bad that he could not bear to touch a single hair. He was miserably feverish—hot and cold—and poured sweat in torrents to no avail. One can understand his sentiments. Two years later, he still has to wear a woolly hat to keep his head warm, and so does his cowman.

Today, when the dairy industry is under severe pressure, it is relevant that the economic losses which the disease can cause are also severe. One farmer in the Welsh borders with 250 cows lost some £11,000 in 18 months in 1980 and 1981. That was accounted for by 21 dead calves, half the normal milk yield from 10 cows that calved early, replacements for two dead cows which had developed chills while ill, lactation loss from 80 cows—the average loss being two and a half litres for 150 days—and milk from 80 cows held back for three days following antibiotic treatment.

Another producer near Ludlow recently aggregated the losses that he had suffered at about £15,000 on his herd of 230 cows. Such losses are in no way inconsequential.

A logical progression from the human and economic factors that I have outlined must take one to the conclusion that prevention is better than cure. But one might ask whether there is in fact a real problem to prevent.

As brucellosis recedes into the past because of the extremely successful eradication of the problem, the wider extent of the human aspect of CAL is becoming more apparent. It has certainly been cloaked before. In a recent written answer I was told: The increase in cattle-associated infections”— of leptospirosis— in 1983 is thought to be due largely to increased awareness of the disease in the farming community and not to an increase in the disease in herds.”—[Official Report, 20 March 1984; Vol, 56, c. 424.] So far, so good, but the work done by Dr. Waitkins of the leptospirosis reference unit points to the probability that at least one third of Britain’s dairy herds are infected or show serological evidence of past infection. That shows that the problem could be far more serious than has hitherto been appreciated. In economic terms, that means that one third of dairy farmers will at some time stand to lose a lot of money. There seems to be an incipient problem which, if the experience of New Zealand is anything to go by, could increase. The rate of infection there is 90 per cent., and climatic conditions are not dissimilar to ours.

Our Herefordshire milk producer who suffered asked for urgent action. In New Zealand it was the farmers’ wives who showed the greatest anxiety. It was the women’s division of the New Zealand Federated Farmers, the equivalent of the women’s section of the National Farmers Union, which built up the pressure for action. Action is being taken and vaccination is becoming much more frequent. Indeed, as many as 50 per cent. of cows in New Zealand are now vaccinated. Hitherto, vaccines have not been available in the United Kingdom although they have been made here. I am given to understand, however, that vaccines are now available for British herds. That is encouraging news. I do not want to pre-empt anything that my hon. Friend the Minister might want to say, but, as Dr. Waitkins put it: Once there is a vaccine for animals then the human problem should be reduced. Whilst vaccines don’t totally eracicate leptospira, treated cows become such low rate shedders that their urine does not contain enough bacteria for humans to be at risk. New Zealand is well ahead of the United Kingdom in the war against leptospirosis—as it should be with its 480 cases in humans which are notified each year. Although we have so far examined only the tip of the iceberg with our 40 cases last year and 100 cases in the past six years, it is probable that there are many more unnoticed and therefore unnotified cases. I do not want our problem to grow to the level of New Zealand’s. I am therefore asking my hon. Friend to do all that she can to promote understanding of the problem and to develop a vaccination programme, as the more vaccination that is carried out, the cheaper will be the cost to dairy farmers.

One of the inhibitory factors so far has been the cost of vaccine. I should also like the Ministry’s advice service to draw farmers’ attention to the economic benefits of vaccination. The present anticipated cost of £4 per cow per year seems a good investment when compared with possible losses of £10,000, as has been experienced in several farms. I should also like there to be the provision of a continuous reporting system on Leptospira in the farming community, which involves collaboration between the central veterinary unit, the communicable disease surveillance unit and the Leptospira reference unit in Hereford.

This would have the effect of broadening the base of knowledge of what is going on in the farming community and determining from that the direction that further research ought to take in order to get a full understanding of the nature of the disease and what needs to be done.

Action now can prevent much bovine and human misery, and I will draw my remarks tonight to a close by giving the last word to that disease-hit Hereford dairy farmer, who said: We were told that all three of us had only a mild leptospirosis problem, but you can take it from me even the mild attack was agony. Anyone who comes in contact with cows should keep Leptospira in mind if their doctor blandly tells them they have ‘flu. That is the nature of the problem. It is the reality of the interface between the two areas, and I believe that the answer lies in terms of animal health, to get at the problem at source.

May 21, 2016
Richard Holt – 1984 Speech on Alzheimers

Below is the text of the speech made by Richard Holt, the then Conservative MP for Langbaurgh, in the House of Commons on 9 April 1984.

One thing that all hon. Members would agree, irrespective of politics, is that we wish each other long and healthy lives. In doing so, we always regard our responsibilities and duties to society.
There is today a slowly growing awareness of a disease called Alzheimer’s disease, which was first diagnosed in 1907 and which has taken 75 years to become the subject of comment in the House. Alzheimer’s disease is the most common form of dementia. It is incurable and irreversible. Dementia is a progressive decline in the ability to speak, to think, to remember and to learn, with an accompanying loss in the capacity for deliberate actions and movement. A once active and responsible adult will no longer remember his spouse and children, will not be able to maintain even a simple conversation, will become disoriented, even in the familiar surroundings of his home, and completely incontinent. In short, as an adult, he will revert to infancy.

Dementia is not a normal part of the ageing process. Rather, it is a disease with a variety of causes and a wide range of symptoms. The likelihood that an individual will be affected by a dementing disorder increases with age, but this does not mean that it is inevitable.

Alzheimer’s disease and stroke-associated or multi-infarct-dementia, which together account for 85 per cent. of all the incurable dementing illnesses, should be diagnosed only after the exclusion, by a series of tests, of other causes of the problem, such as poor nutrition, metabolic disorders, side effects of drugs, chronic alcohol abuse and so on. Diagnosis of AD, with all its catastrophic implications for both sufferer and family, is too often made without adequate investigation.

It is late and we have had a long day, but I would not be doing full justice to the sufferers of Alzheimer’s disease, and more importantly to those who will suffer in future, if I did not to some extent underline the problems by referring to case histories. It would, of course be wrong in any way to identify the affected people. In one instance a man aged 38 —Mr. D, a qualified architect with a large well-known company — contemplated group and individual suicide on learning that he had AD. His wife is totally unable to cope with the change in her family life. That is an unusual and rare case, because it affects someone in a younger age group. Normally, the disease is found in older people. Obviously, the greatest stress affects not only the sufferers but their loved ones.

I have a short letter that I wish to place on record. It states: I am very sorry but your wife has Alzheimer’s Disease. Unfortunately there is no cure. A lot of care will be needed. A simple statement. I had stopped work because I could not cope. My wife had shown a lack of interest in household affairs which was quite out of character. After a few months she lost the ability to carry out the most simple household tasks. Any attempt to teach anew was met with anger and tears. Dressing became very difficult, but when assistance was given, she replied with anger and not thanks. This was very perplexing after years of close relationship.

As the disease had progressed, toilet and bathing became a problem. The use of the toilet was forgotten, and I had to insist on regular visits. When assisting with the removal of clothing extreme anger was displayed. The problem is worse when a wife is required to deal with her husband; the stronger and aggressive male usually wins, making the toilet problem a nightmare. My efforts to see to my wife in the bath were frantically resisted. Hair washing was a particular problem, and rinsing off shampoo was rewarded with screams as the water flowed over her face. This was a very frightening experience and had to be handled with care. Toilet problems were at their worst when away from home. My wife quite often entered the conveniences and refused to allow anyone to help her to use the toilet, usually with disastrous results. Such events continue until finally the person ebbs away and dies. That report was written not by an emotional, unrealistic person, but by a senior police officer who had to retire from the police force to look after his wife in this sad and demented state.

The cause of this condition is not known. It is only after a person has died, when there is a post-mortem, that it can be shown absolutely for sure that he has suffered from Alzheimer’s disease, but the likelihood is that when the symptoms manifest themselves, the person has begun on a course that ultimately results in death.

There is the mild period, followed by the moderate period, followed by the severe period. The average length of life after the disease has been diagnosed is about two and a half to five years. Some people have been known to live longer, but that means that the deteriorating period is more severe and, equally, that the strain on those responsible for the individual’s care is even greater.

In Cleveland, in my constituency, we have today a branch of the Alzheimer’s Disease Society which is working wonders in providing a form of adult creche to enable those suffering from the dementia to be brought in and looked after on a daily basis, thereby enabling the carers themselves to have time off, for surely when the disease strikes one member of the family it equally strikes another.

I have known of people who have suffered from dementia and have seen for myself how they have deteriorated and died in a most miserable way. Twelve months ago, before I came to this House, I had never heard of Alzheimer’s disease and did not know what it was. It has only recently been brought to my attention. During the past week, since my name appeared for an Adjournment debate on the subject, I have been spoken to by many colleagues, some with knowledge of relatives who have suffered and died from Alzheimer’s disease, and others who were totally unaware of what the disease was and what its manifestations caused. It is because of that latter group of people that I have taken the opportunity of an Adjournment debate to bring to a wider audience the need for an understanding of it.

Everyone in society today, I believe, understands what multiple sclerosis is and what the initials MS stand for, and can recognise symptoms in people and know the care that is required. Regrettably, there has been far too much confusion historically between the normal ageing process and Alzheimer’s disease, to such an extent that we as a society have failed so far to provide sufficient care, to obtain sufficient knowledge, or to do sufficient research into the subject.

I do not make a special plea for additional funds and resources for Alzheimer’s disease over and above the many other worthy causes which require as much funding as they can be given, but I urge upon the Government, upon all hon. Members of this House, and upon people beyond this House, a greater understanding and awareness of the problem. It is one which can and will affect as many as one in 10 of our population. We have an aging population. Therefore, the manifestations will become greater. It is an incurable disease as things stand at the moment. Research is being carried out and many people are now turning their attention to seeing whether there is any way in which there can be a diagnosis in the first instance and a cure in the second. But until such time as either of those things come to pass, it is incumbent upon us to make sure that all people become more widely aware of the problems of Alzheimer’s disease and the associated problems for the people who have to care for those who are suffering from that disease.

May 21, 2016
Sajid Javid – 2016 Speech on Manufacturing

Below is the text of the speech made by Sajid Javid, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, in Sheffield on 19 May 2016.

Master and Mistress Cutler.

Lord Lieutenant.

High Sheriff.

Lord Mayor.

My lords, ladies and gentlemen.

Let me start by thanking the Senior Warden for being so forthright in his remarks.

I always knew Yorkshiremen were direct!

But I was genuinely interested in what John had to say.

Because I’m not just here tonight to talk.

I’m here to listen.

After all, good friends are open and honest with each other.

And I hope that, 20 minutes from now, you’ll appreciate that I’ve been candid with you too.

I know that might not be easy for all of you.

I can think of a few reasons why not everyone in Sheffield will be delighted to hear from me this evening!

For one thing I’m a proud member of the Conservative Party.

It’s OK, you can boo if you want.

I’m also a big fan of the late Lady Thatcher.

When she spoke at this dinner 33 years ago she was greeted by 2,000 protesters being held back by mounted police.

It was one of the warmer welcomes she received in the north of England!

But if all that wasn’t bad enough, I have one more sin to confess to the good people of Yorkshire.

I come, originally, from a distant, foreign land.

A place many of you will find strange.

A little primitive.

Even a little scary.

That’s right.

I’m a Lancastrian.

I was born under the Red Rose, in Rochdale.

And the highlight of my year as Secretary of State for Sport was walking out from the pavilion at Old Trafford.

For that, I can only beg your forgiveness.

More than 400 years ago, calligrapher Peter Bales wrote that “for a good knife … Sheffield is best”.

That was back in 1590, half a century before the Cutlers’ Feast became an annual event.

Yet even then Sheffield’s name was forged into the public imagination as a byword for quality in manufacturing.

In 2016 that’s still the case.

The companies represented in this hall tonight are some of the finest engineers and metalworkers not just in Yorkshire or Britain but in the world.

But that doesn’t mean Sheffield itself has remained unchanged for half a millennium.

Ask many young people what this city means to them and they won’t mention heavy industry at all. They’ll talk about the offbeat nightclubs. The Devonshire Quarter. Warp Records.

Business leaders will talk about the cutting-edge R&D and world-class universities.

Elite sportsmen and women will tell you about Ponds Forge or the Olympic Legacy Park.

Sheffield’s story has always been one of regeneration, reinvention and renewal.

Not forgetting the past or ignoring it, but building on it.

Learning from it.

Shunning conventional wisdom and focusing on what works.

That’s what makes this city so successful.

That’s what makes your businesses so successful.

And at risk of blowing my own trumpet, that’s what’s made our government’s support for industry so successful too.

That’s why I was slightly puzzled by the Senior Warden’s suggestion that Britain is crying out for an industrial strategy.

Because we already have one.

You can argue about what it should contain, what it should seek to achieve.

But you can’t deny that it exists.

My department has had a fully functioning industrial strategy for several years now.

Working with business we’ve taken real action to put in place the strategic support that British industry needs.

We’ve set up the Aerospace Technology Institute.

The Advanced Propulsion Centre.

The Automotive Investment Organisation.

The Infrastructure and Projects Authority.

Today I visited the Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre, which we’ve supported with hundreds of millions of pounds.

There’s the Nuclear Industry Council and the Offshore Wind Investment Organisation.

We’ve launched Catapult Centres, Innovation Centres and Catalyst Funds.

A short walk from Cutlers’ Hall stands the headquarters of the British Business Bank.

That is what an industrial strategy looks like.

And the results are clear to see.

Manufacturing employment is up.

Manufacturing exports are up.

Manufacturing output is up.

All that in the face of an intensely competitive global market.

So I believe in industrial strategy all right.

I just think one that delivers growth and jobs is better than one delivers stagnation and decline.

And that applies to ALL industries, not just a chosen few.

Sheffield is still a manufacturing city in the UK’s manufacturing heartland.

But it’s also a city of vibrant, thriving cultural industries.

It’s home to a rapidly growing tourist industry.

To a retail sector that, from Meadowhall to Fargate to Division Street, employs tens of thousands of people.

And all those sectors deserve our support too.

So the old industrial strategy’s closed shop has been replaced with an open door.

We’re still supporting the 11 key sectors Vince Cable identified, that’s not changed.

But I’m not going to ignore a multi-billion pound part of the economy simply because its name’s not on the list.

Britain’s business leaders deserve a strategy as wide-ranging as the economy you serve so well.

A strategy of deeds, not words.

And that’s exactly what you’re getting from this government.

We’re cutting Corporation Tax to the lowest level of any major industrialised nation.

So more of your hard-earned profits stay right here in Yorkshire rather than being sent off to Whitehall.

We’ve raised the investment allowance to its highest-ever permanent level.

So you don’t get penalised for putting money back into your businesses.

We’ve lifted thousands of smaller companies out of Employer National Insurance Contributions.

So you don’t get taxed for creating jobs.

We’ve passed the Enterprise Act, cut billions of pounds of red tape and protected funding for science technology, innovation and the future of manufacturing.

And we’re continuing to take serious, sustained action to support the British steel industry.

Of course, there are some things no national government can do.

We cannot change the global steel price.

But that doesn’t mean we’re standing by and doing nothing.

We were the first government to implement new guidelines making it easier for the public sector to buy British steel.

We have paid out tens of millions of pounds to compensate energy intensive industries, and we will be exempting them from renewable policy costs.

We’re working hard to help Tata find a buyer for its strip products and speciality steel division – I was at Stocksbridge just today.

We’ve made it clear that we’ll offer financial support to help secure a deal.

And, despite what some political point-scorers would have you believe, we are consistently fighting for British steel in Europe.

I pushed for and secured an emergency meeting of the EU Council to co-ordinate a continent-wide approach.

I secured flexibility over new emissions rules so that steel companies aren’t faced with even higher bills.

I have led calls for the speeding up of trade defence investigations.

And I have repeatedly supported tariffs on unfairly traded steel.

All have led to a significant drop in Chinese imports.

I’m not a fan of tariffs and duties.

I certainly don’t believe in protectionism.

But I’m even less keen on unfair trading.

And where the rules of the free market are being flouted, I won’t hesitate to step up and demand action.

Because I am a Business Secretary who is not afraid to fight for British industry.

Yes, I believe in the transformative power of capitalism.

Yes, I believe in free markets.

But, unlike some, I’m not bound by ideology.

I’m interested in doing what works, even if it means government stepping in to help.

That’s why I’m proud to have introduced the National Living Wage.

That’s why I’m proud to be introducing the Apprenticeship Levy.

And that’s why I’m proud to play a role in creating a Northern Powerhouse.

I’m committed to it, and the government is committed to it.

It’s not just rhetoric.

It’s not just some short-term marketing campaign.

It’s a serious vision for the future of the North.

And it’s a vision that we’re working hard to turn into reality.

For too long, the north was neglected by successive governments.

As a result, productivity is lower than average.

Skill levels are lower.

In the region that gave the world the railways, transport infrastructure has been allowed to decay.

Repairing that damage will take time.

It won’t happen overnight.

But we’re in this for the long-haul.

Last autumn we pledged to invest £13 billion in northern transport over the course of this Parliament.

Sheffield will be connected to Britain’s new high speed rail network, linking this great city to its counterparts in the north, south and Midlands.

One of the National Colleges for High Speed Rail will be based in Doncaster.

Last year I took 50 companies to Singapore and Malaysia in the first-ever Northern Powerhouse overseas trade mission.

It was a huge success, helping employers from across the region build business links that will pay off for years to come.

Now the Senior Warden raised the Master Cutler’s forthcoming trade mission to Canada.

I can promise that I’ll be looking into that. What we can still do to help, both before you set off and once you’re on the ground.

It’s the kind of project the government should be supporting.

And it’s exactly the kind of thing we have supported in the past.

Since 2012 we’ve offered financial assistance to at least 3 South Yorkshire International Trade Forum trips.

Back here at home we’re investing £14 million in Sheffield’s Advanced Wellbeing Research Centre.

We’re investing £11 million in tech incubators here and in Manchester and Leeds.

£250 million will help support the region’s Centre of Nuclear Excellence.

More than £300 million is coming to the Sheffield City Region through the local growth deal.

There’s £8 million to build the digital infrastructure that all 21st century businesses rely on.

£14 million for the Enterprise Zone at Markham Vale.

All this is possible because we believe that government should be investing in business, not in more government.

That we can’t go on spending and borrowing, manufacturing nothing but an ever-larger public sector.

That we cannot and should not leave a huge burden of debt for our children and grandchildren to pay off.

That’s why I told my department to find £350 million of savings over the next 5 years.

I want BIS to be leaner.

I want it to be more efficient, more flexible, more focussed, just like the businesses it serves.

I want us to be spending money where it can really make a difference.

Those £350 million savings are being found in lots of ways.

We’re cutting our headcount related to operating expenses by up to 40%.

We’re halving the number of public bodies.

And we’re reducing our number of offices.

The proposal to close our Sheffield office is one part of that.

This hall is full of business leaders.

You know that no employer ever takes pleasure in proposing redundancies, however necessary they may be.

It’s painful, it’s difficult.

And it’s certainly not a reflection of the quality of work being done at St Paul’s Place.

Nor is it a sign that we’re turning our backs on the north and hunkering down in London.

Even if all of the proposed restructuring goes ahead, more than 80% of BIS staff will still be based outside the capital.

We’re also reducing the size of our London footprint, both in terms of office space and headcount.

Above all, we’re doing more with less so that we can really focus on what matters most.

Delivering for businesses across the country, across Yorkshire, and right here in Sheffield.

But the Northern Powerhouse has never been just about investment in infrastructure.

It’s about giving the people of the north the tools they need to succeed, and the freedom they need to do so.

Nobody knows this part of the world better than you, and nobody is better-placed to build a better future for it.

That’s why a core plank of the powerhouse is devolution.

Next year the people of the Sheffield city region will vote for their first ever directly elected mayor.

Breaking down barriers between counties, cities and local authorities, allowing the people of the region to come together and work together to deliver success.

London, Bristol and Liverpool have been revolutionised by single elected mayors.

Now it’s your turn.

Of course, it’s not the only vote that’s coming up.

As you may have noticed, there’s the small matter of the EU referendum to deal with too!

As the Senior Warden said, the uncertainty is already causing problems for businesses here in Sheffield.

That’s something I’m hearing from businesses right across the UK.

But if on the 23 June we vote to leave the EU, we won’t wake up the next morning and find the uncertainty has evaporated.

British businesses will be looking at years of it while we unpick existing trade agreements and negotiate new ones.

I spent enough time in business to know that uncertainty, doubt and fear stops investment and kills jobs.

That’s the last thing Sheffield needs right now.

I recognise that the EU is a long way from perfect.

I share the Senior Warden’s concerns about the gold-plating of directives, something I’m personally leading the fight against in Whitehall.

So I’m certainly not some born-again Europhile.

But I do love British business and British industry.

I want them to succeed, I want them to thrive.

And that’s why I’d urge you all to head to the polling stations next month and vote for Britain to remain a member of the European Union.

Master Cutler, in centuries past this feast used to go on for up to two weeks.

I can’t imagine what that did to local productivity levels!

But times have changed, and I fear I’ve already spoken for too long.

So let me finish by saying this.

These are exciting times for Sheffield.

And I’m not just talking about Wednesday making the play-off final!

Thanks to your ceaseless efforts and this government’s unstinting support, the number of jobs in and around Sheffield has risen by 60,000 since 2010.

More people are working, fewer are claiming benefits.

The city region has got more productive.

More than 20,000 young people have started an apprenticeship.

The challenges facing business are many.

However, Sheffield is responding by doing what it has always done.

Adapting, innovating, doing things nobody else can do.

And as long as you do that, as long as you strive to succeed through honest endeavour, I will be proud to stand alongside you.

I will do everything I can to help nurture and support that success.

And I will always be ready to listen.

300 years ago Sheffield steelworkers kept trying to take their trade secrets and set up shop on the continent.

I’m told the company spent a small fortune stopping them.

But the fact is that Europe and the world wanted the ideas and the products that only Sheffield could produce.

That’s what made ‘Made in Sheffield’ a badge of honour in the first place.

And that’s why this city continues to thrive today.

So I’m not going to stand here and say “Sheffield was great and can be great again”.

Because I know that Sheffield IS great.

And together we can make it greater still.

My lords, ladies and gentlemen: “The manufacturing industries of Hallamshire”.

May 20, 2016
Henry Labouchère – 1885 Speech on Homosexuality

Below is the text of the speech made by Henry Labouchère, the then Liberal MP for Northampton, in the House of Commons on 6 August 1885.

This intervention was important as it became known as the Labouchère Amendment, a controversial measure added to the Criminal Law Amendment Bill in 1885. Charles Warton, the then Conservative MP for Bridport, questioned the relevance of this additional amendment, but it was approved by the Speaker, Arthur Wellesley Peel.

MR. LABOUCHERE said, he rose to move a clause he had put upon the Paper——

MR. WARTON rose to Order, He wished to ask whether the clause about to be moved by the hon. Member for Northampton, and which dealt with a totally different class of offence to that against which the Bill was directed, was within the scope of the Bill?

MR. SPEAKER At this stage of the Bill anything can be introduced into it by leave of the House.

MR. LABOUCHERE said, his Amendment was as follows:—After Clause 9, to insert the following clause:— Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or is a party to the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and, being convicted thereof, shall be liable, at the discretion of the Court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding one year with or without hard labour.

That was his Amendment, and the meaning of it was that at present any person on whom an assault of the kind here dealt with was committed must be under the age of 13, and the object with which he had brought forward this clause was to make the law applicable to any person, whether under the age of 13 or over that age. He did not think it necessary to discuss the proposal at any length, as he understood Her Majesty’s Government were willing to accept it. He, therefore, left it for the House and the Government to deal with as might be thought best.

New Clause (Outrages on public decency,)—(Mr. Labouchere,)—brought up, and read the first and second time.

May 20, 2016
Henry Labouchère – 1886 Speech on the Loyal Address

Below is the text of the speech made by Henry Labouchère, the then Liberal MP for Northampton, in the House of Commons on 23 August 1886.

MR. LABOUCHERE said, that at present they were in a somewhat curious political situation. They had a Tory Ministry in power without a Tory majority of their own supporters. Upon the Opposition side of the House they had Gentlemen whose policy was not to oppose the Tory Ministry, and the Tory Ministry were dependent for their maintenance in Office on Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House who disagreed with some of their own Party. They were engaged in thanking Her Majesty for Her Gracious Speech. Certainly, considering that the Speech contained absolutely nothing, they were grateful for exceedingly small mercies. It was well known that the Speech was only nominally that of Her Majesty; in reality it was the Speech of the Ministry, and he should, therefore, not be wanting in respect if he said that the Speech seemed to him to be conceived in the spirit of the demand of the footpad—”Give me your purse, and say nothing whatever about it. Don’t venture to talk.”

That wonderful Speech had been very short; but it had been supplemented by the speech of the noble Lord the Leader of the House, who had said that the policy of the Government was a policy of immense deliberation. Well, but the gifted beings who ruled over them had deliberated. They contemplated the appointment of a certain number of Commissions in Ireland; and in the meantime they had sent a Major General there to look after the Irish, and they assured the Irish landlords that if that Major General was not successful in enabling them to obtain their full rents, they would ask the British taxpayer to make up the difference to them. The Dissentient Liberals on his side of the House were silent. He did not know whether silence gave consent to the policy of Ministers. All they knew respecting the opinions of those Gentlemen was that they had opposed the Statutory Parliament proposed by the late Prime Minister, and if he were to judge from their Election orations they were as strongly opposed to the Land Purchase scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They appeared to have preferred that the destinies of the country should be in the hands of the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer, rather than in those of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian, because of their disapproval, not only of the Statutory Parliament, but of the Land Purchase Bill of the late Government.

Their objections to those plans must have been very strong to lead them to support the Tory Party during the late Elections, and particularly to have supported the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who put forward an Electioneering manifesto, which, might be taken, from the noble Lord’s position in the Party, to be the manifesto of the Party of which he was now the Head in that House. In that manifesto the noble Lord spoke of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian as having been guilty of a conspiracy more base than any of the designs and plots which he had conceived for the last 25 years—referred to the right hon. Gentleman’s plans as the outcome of political hysterics and worthy only of Colney Hatch or Bedlam. This “tissue of absurdities,” as the noble Lord termed the Prime Minister’s Bill, was produced for no other reason than “to gratify the ambition of an old man in a hurry.” [Ministerial cheers.] He could understand hon. Members opposite cheering that manifesto, but every Radical must regard it as an insult to the whole Radical Party. He did not believe that manifesto was approved by the Liberal Dissentients. He was surprised that they had not taken the first opportunity of addressing to the public, through their constituencies, a protest against its terms. But who were these Dissentients?

According to themselves and their admirers, they were the flower of the Liberal Party. It was said the other day in one of their organs, or one of the organs of the Conservative Party, which he supposed was the same thing, that everyone would admit that they contained nine-tenths of the ability, reputation, and intelligence of the Liberal Party. Now, he had observed the same sort of thing in a great many newspapers; but newspaper editors had an unfortunate habit of making their standard of intelligence in agreement with themselves. It appeared that the great body of the Liberal Party had sinned against the light. They had no business to have opinions. It was their duty to subordinate their views to their political superiors. But he should take the liberty to make a slight comparison between the flower of the Liberal Party and other Gentlemen who also sat on that side of the House. They had on his side the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone). Surely the right hon. Gentleman was equal, he would not say for a moment superior—he would not say anything invidious—to the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington). Then there was his right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt). Perhaps his right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) would excuse him for saying that the right hon. Member for Derby was his equal.

They all recognized the great ability and intelligence of the right hon. and learned Member for Bury (Sir Henry James). Still, he thought the late Attorney General (Sir Charles Russell) was the equal of that right hon. and learned Member. Then there was the right hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage). He would not venture to pit any single individual against a Gentleman of such masterly intelligence; but he did almost think that the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. John Morley), the late President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Mundella), and the late Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) and other Gentlemen who sat on that Bench, were perhaps almost the equal in intelligence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grimsby. The majority of the Dissentients were Whigs. Now, whatever the Whigs might have been once, they were now a small aristocratic body with exceedingly few followers in the country; they had almost all gone over to the Conservative side. They never had a majority in the House. But they always exercised a weight out of all proportion to their numbers in the Liberal Party, because they had always managed in some way to get in large numbers upon the Executive. They might well use the words, Sic vos non vobis. They always got into Office and kept themselves in Office. In this art they were, of course, the superiors of the Radicals. There was nothing in the alliance of the Whigs with the Tories.

To the Whigs, politics were nothing but a game between two rival aristocratic bands, with Office as the stakes. They had always been ready to ally themselves with the Tories when they thought the Democratic coach was going too fast. He did not blame them for it; but he protested against the prescriptive right which those Gentlemen seemed to think they had to be the Leaders of the Liberal Party, and against the opinion they seemed to entertain that when they spoke Liberals were to hear and obey. Besides this Whig gang and some other non-descripts here and there, there was what perhaps he might term the Birmingham gang. The Head of the Birmingham gang was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. The gang consisted mainly of the family of the right hon. Gentleman and the present and ex-Town Councillors and Aldermen of Birmingham.

No doubt, the people of Birmingham owed these Gentlemen gratitude for their municipal services; but at the Elections they appear to have subordinated Imperial interests to municipal gratitude. In the country and beyond Birmingham he thought these Birmingham Gentlemen had no sort of influence, and that was not surprising, for the views of the right hon. Gentleman on Ireland had frequently been before the public, and the right hon. Gentleman had never made a speech on the subject without proposing some new plan and contradicting some previous speech of his own. It seemed to him that the basis of the right hon. Gentleman’s policy in regard to Ireland was that no scheme was to be judged on its merits, and that no scheme could possibly be good of which he himself was not the author. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman’s policy was to reverse the words of Dickens—”Short’s your friend, not Codlin.”

The Radicals in the country, as soon as they perceived that the right hon. Gentleman desired to establish a Dictatorship for himself in the Radical Party, protested against it; but they were still more indignant when they found the right hon. Gentleman calling in the Tories as allies in order to force that Dictatorship upon them. He wished to point out that no Dissentient Liberal who had had to submit to a contest at the Elections had been returned by Liberal votes. There was a majority in favour of the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian in Scotland and Wales, and in Great Britain 1,300,000 Liberal electors voted in favour of it. The Dissentient Liberals were not convinced by the argument of figures, and attributed the votes given in favour of the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian to a temporary aberration of intelligence on the part of the electors. But there was no doubt that the policy of the Liberal Party must be the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian. Still these Whig Gentlemen met at Devonshire House. They deposed the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian and chose the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale as their Leader, declared themselves to be the Liberal Party, and proceeded to state what were the views of this Party—namely, to keep the Tories in Office until the recalcitrant Liberals accepted their Leaders. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham was at that meeting.

Not long ago the right hon. Member for West Birmingham denounced the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale as a Rip van Winkle; and the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale pointed out that the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, with his doctrine of ransom, was little better than a bandit. He was very curious to know what concessions on the one side or the other had brought these two hon. Members together. He deplored the fall of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was worthy of better things than to become a mere Whig henchman and to elaborate policies for the Liberal Party in a ducal drawing-room. When the Doge of Genoa visited Louis XIV. at Versailles he was asked what was the most strange thing he had seen at Versailles, and he answered, “Myself.” If the right hon. Gentleman had been asked what was the most strange thing he had seen at Dovonshire House, and had answered sincerely, he would have said, “Myself.” Facilis descensus Averni; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would pause in his downward career. If not, the next thing that would be heard of would be that the right hon. Gentleman had been gazetted Lord Chamberlain, and the right hon. Gentleman would produce a genealogy—certified to by the Somerset Herald-at-Arms—that he was descended from the Sire de Chamberlain, who came to England with the Sire de Brassey at the time of the Norman Conquest.

The Radicals did not for a moment ignore the great qualities of the right hon. Gentleman, and would always be glad to receive him as one of their Leaders; but as a Dictator forced upon them by an illustrious family and Tory votes the Radicals would never accept him. He believed that the majority of the electors were in favour of Home Rule, and that the Land Purchase Bill lost the Election. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Mid Lothian introduced that Bill, not that he particularly approved of it, but to conciliate the Tories. The right hon. Gentleman did not conciliate the Tories, and alienated a considerable number of Radicals. The fact was that Democrats had no sort of sympathy with landlords in this country, and they had still less sympathy with landlords in Ireland. They considered that the distressful state of Ireland was mainly due to the oppression and iniquities of the Irish landlords; and far from wishing to buy them out they were perfectly ready to leave them to the tender mercies of an Irish Parliament. He had no doubt they would receive justice; and no doubt useful precedents would be established for Democrats dealing with landlords in this country.

He did not envy the position of Her Majesty’s Government. The position of Dissentient Liberals in the House was sufficiently humiliating; but not so humiliating as the position of the Government, who were obliged to bow the knee to the Whigs. He looked upon the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a sort of Sinbad, with the Whigs upon his back, and the Whig bridle in his mouth, and he wished him joy of them. At the same time, he (Mr. Labouchere) was anxious to conciliate. He was always in favour of a fatted-calf policy, and if the Dissentients would come back the rest of the Party would be ready to receive them with open arms. But he did not think even the Prodigal Son would have been received with open arms if he had returned to his father with a band of the companions of his debaucheries to knock at his father’s door. If he had wished to dislodge his father from his seat at the head of the table, and had told the decent, respectable friends of his father that they were to wait on this prodigal son and his companions, he suspected there would have been very little fatted calf for them.

The direct issue at the Elections was the question of Ireland, yet there was no mention of Ireland in Her Majesty’s Speech. That was, however, supplemented by the statements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in that House, and of a noble Lord in “another place,” and their declaration was that there was to be no Statutory Parliament for Ireland. That was perfectly natural; but when they went on to say that the question was finally settled they went entirely beyond the mark. Did they imagine for one moment that the Irish people would consider the question was finally settled until they had achieved their right to self-government? It was no longer a question between the millions of Great Britain and the population of Ireland, but it was a question between the Radical Democracy and the privileged classes.

It was a new and monstrous doctrine to contend that the Liberal Party when defeated on a great question like that of Home Rule should humbly acknowledge the defeat and declare that they would cease to strive for the ends which they held desirable. How many reforms would the Liberal Party have carried if they had allowed themselves to be ruled by a doctrine of that kind? He trusted that the Irish would not abate one jot or tittle of their demands, and that in the prosecution of their object they would adopt every means which was legitimate in the case of a nation wrestling to be free. He honoured them for their dogged resistance. The vilest of slavery was the slavery of race to race. There were Irishmen all over the world, driven out of their country by oppression and misery, and it was a magnificent sight to see them still united with their brethren in Ireland in their tireless effort to obtain self-government for their unhappy island.

For centuries they had struggled against servitude, for centuries they had clung to their nationality, and now, when the cup was within reach of their lips, they were asked to abandon their design. It had been said that the Chicago Convention would lead to a split; it had done nothing of the kind, but had resulted in an expression of undiminished confidence in the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell). The Irish might well be proud of their Leader, who was conspicuous for energy, ability, tenacity of purpose, and for the possession of the mens aequa in arduis. His contempt for the insults which were heaped upon him by the English Press also compelled admiration. When silent, he was told that he did not dare to speak, and that he was a coward; when he spoke, he was told that he could not be believed, because he was a liar. Sometimes he was even called an assassin; but he could treat all these attacks with contempt, because he had gained the love of his countrymen and the respect of every Englishman whose respect was worth having. It had been said that Jefferson Davis had “made a nation; “but it might with even more truth be said that the hon. Member for Cork had made the Irish nation.

It was a curious fact of journalism that the two men most grossly abused were the two men most popular in their respective nations—the hon. Member for Cork and the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian. Hon. Members opposite called the followers of the hon. Member for Cork a mercenary band, because they were supplied with money from America for Party purposes. That Irishmen abroad should send over money to enable Ireland to achieve what she desired showed their ineradicable love for their country. The sneer came with exceedingly bad grace from representatives of the privileged class. How many Gentlemen sitting opposite, he should like to know, had had their Election expenses paid out of funds subscribed by Dukes and Marquesses? It would appear that while it was a dishonourable thing for a poor Member to receive help from his country, it was an honourable thing for Gentlemen opposite, and perhaps some Dissentients on his own side of the House, to sit as the henchman, sycophants, and followers of some noble Duke or other.

The intention of the present Government in regard to Home Rule was perfectly obvious. It was that nothing in the shape of local self-government should be given to Ireland. He knew that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had talked vaguely of some scheme which should apply equally to England, Scotland, and Ireland; but no good could come of any identical scheme for the three countries, because a plan suited to England would not be suited to Scotland, and certainly not to Ireland. Like some of his Predecessors, the noble Lord the Leader of the House had already begun to juggle with the figures relating to agrarian crime. When it served their purpose Ministers declared that there was no agrarian crime, and when the contrary served their purpose better they said that there was a vast amount of it. The noble Lord had said that this kind of crime had increased, and he doubtless hoped that it would increase to a still greater extent.

Winter was coming on, evictions were becoming more in number, and the noble Lord was about to commission the military to aid in carrying them out. That was what he called “maintaining order.” Was it possible to suppose that when men should see their wives and children driven from their homes there would be no disturbance in Ireland? [An hon. MEMBER: Hear, hear!] An hon. Member opposite said “Hear, hear!” He should despise the Irish if in such circumstances they were to remain passive.

Well, these disturbances would serve the Government as an excuse for not granting any kind of Home Rule, and then would come the Salisbury policy—the Hottentot policy—of “20 years’ firm government.” At the end of that period, if the Irish kissed the rod, they would then perhaps have some small modicum of local self-government given to them. It had been the object of the Tory Party to show that if Home Rule were granted there would be disturbances in many parts of the country, and with that view the noble Lord proceed to Belfast, and there fanned the flames of religious bigotry, and when his efforts had been crowned with success, and when disturbance did break out, he and his Friends came forward saying—”We have proved our case, for you see the bare idea of Home Rule has been the cause of serious disturbances.”

He thought, for his own part, from their experience of the noble Lord and his Friends and their manœuvres in regard to Belfast that they were most anxious and would do their best in order that there should be disturbances throughout Ireland. The fact was the Tories—the privileged classes—did not want this Irish Question settled. They were not such fools as to kill the hen that laid the golden eggs. Ireland was the best card in their hands. They knew that there was a strong feeling in the country against the privileged classes and their privileges, and they considered it good policy to divert attention from them by stirring up ill-feeling and race animosity in Ireland. He rerejoiced at the declaration of the late Prime Minister that he would never cease to protest till Ireland had a Domestic Legislature. That pronouncement would be a message of peace and goodwill to Ireland.

The Unionists and the Conservatives declared they would never consent to the establishment of such a Legislature for Ireland, so that no compromise between them and the Radicals was possible. But if the Liberal Party were true to Ireland, and the Irish were true to them, he had no doubt that the cause would win in the end. The policy of the masses would overthrow the policy of the classes. The noble Lord did not limit himself to a negative policy, but announced that a certain General would be sent to Ireland. No doubt this General was a brave and brilliant soldier, but it was singular that in the exercise of his profession he had been mainly occupied in slaying and crushing the Nationalists of Africa. The late Secretary for Ireland (Mr. John Morley) declined to sanction the employment of the military and constabulary in the work of rent collecting, and it was owing to this that Ireland had been comparatively peaceful. He wished to know whether the Military Forces of the Crown were to be employed only in preventing outrages or also in aiding the landlords to collect their rents? If they were to perform the latter duty, it was vain to hope for peace or quiet in Ireland. Then the noble Lord had announced the proposed appointment of various Commissions. It seemed to him that this Government might fairly be described as one of Commissions and omissions. The first Commission was to be one for drainage and to be composed of men well known in engineering and contracting works; so contractors would benefit if nobody else did. But this work ought to be the work of an Irish Parliament.

The country had had Commission upon Commission, and the question was whether any real work was now to be done or not? The other Commission was to investigate the operation of the Land Act in Ireland. It had been admitted by all, he thought, with the exception of the noble Lord, that judicial rents were at present and must in the nature of things be too high owing to the fall in the value of produce. The noble Lord stated that the Commissioners in awarding the judicial rents had taken into consideration the possible fall of the value of produce. He never heard that stated before, and no one who was concerned in the forming of the Commission or the Commissioners themselves had any such idea. It should be remembered that there were 530,000 holdings in Ireland that could not possibly bear any rent at all and enable the tenants to live and thrive at the same time.

Therefore, the formation of this Commission was nothing more than a dilatory plea, and meant very little. But the Government went further, and stated their views with regard to the Land Act. The noble Lord on the Front Opposition Bench, and the noble Lord on the Ministerial Bench, had laid it down that the judicial rent was a final settlement of the whole question of rent with regard to the landlords. When the rent was reduced, the landlords, as he understood it, were guaranteed that they should not in any way suffer if the tenant was unable to pay the rent. The second proposition of the two noble Lords was that dual ownership in the land was undesirable in Ireland. The noble Lord opposite, on these two propositions, founded what he took to represent the policy of the Government—namely, that the State was bound to indemnify the landlords if they did not receive any rent, or a rent less than that which they had a right to under the award of the Land Commission; and that the State ought to buy out the landlords of Ireland. But it was not only that the State ought to buy out the landlords, but that it ought to buy them out not at the actual commercial price of the land now, but upon the value at which it stood in 1881.

Then he should like to know where the money was to come from for all this? He presumed that it was, if possible, to be screwed out of the Irish people; and if it could not be got in that way, it was to be drawn from the English people. In any case, it was obvious that the English would have to give a guarantee for it. In fact, according to the reasoning of the noble Lords, we had already given the Irish landlords a guarantee for the amount of the judicial rent, and if the landlords were bought out we should have to give a guarantee for the payment of £300,000,000. What was this but a Land Purchase scheme?

What was the difference between this and the Land Purchase scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian? The only difference was that they were to receive more money than they would get under the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman. He was glad that the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool had protested against such a scheme. He was glad that the hon. Gentleman and the Irish Convention had stated that the Irish people were not ready to sell their birthright for any such mess of pottage. As far as he could see if they did so they would be called upon to pay for the pottage. If we were mortgagees for the greater part of the land, and we guaranteed the rent to the owners of the rest, was it likely that we should grant the Irish Home Rule? It would be said that the enormous financial interests which, we had in Ireland gave us a right to remain there. They knew very well that this scheme was a simple mode of rendering Home Rule impossible. He should like to know what the Conservatives had to say to such a scheme, and what was the opinion of the Dissentient Liberals with regard to it? Liberal Members knew that their constituencies were placarded with great broadsheets denouncing them because it was said that if they were elected the English taxpayers would have to pay a vast sum of money.

The Conservatives and the Unionists in Northampton united to oppose him and his Colleague, and the result of the coalition of the two Parties was that they hired a donkey. This quadruped went about the streets with great placards on his back, stating that if he and his Colleague were elected the unhappy people of Northampton would have to pay their share of £150,000,000, which the late Prime Minister was going to take out of the pockets of the British taxpayers and give to the Irish. It appeared to him that this donkey represented the policy of the Unionists and of the Conservatives. The Dissentient Unionists, more than anyone else, protested against this scheme of Land Purchase, and sided with the Government. He thought that they should make some public announcement at once upon the subject. What had the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham to say to it?

The right hon. Gentleman distinguished himself by his declaration that the landlords and the privileged classes ought to pay ransom; but it would seem, according to this scheme, that the plan of ransom existed, but that the ransom ought to be paid to the landlords. Was the right hon. Gentleman in favour of the scheme, and did he propose to vote for it when it was brought forward? Both sides of the House had protested against any scheme of Land Purchase, and it was no part or parcel of the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian for the settlement of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman asked the constituencies merely to say whether they were in favour of a domestic Legislature for Ireland. If that was the case, and there was a majority in the House and in the constituencies against a Land Purchase Scheme, it would be perfectly monstrous if such a scheme were forced upon the House, and, by arrangements and intrigues, carried through. Before any such scheme was passed there should be an appeal to the country. He quite understood the dislike of hon. Gentlemen opposite to such an appeal. They were eager for an appeal in the last Parliament. But he should like to know whether the country had been consulted upon this Land Purchase Scheme?

So far as it had been consulted, it had pronounced against any such scheme; and he submitted that they ought to use every Form of the House in order to insist that before the country was pledged to a scheme involving, perhaps, £300,000,000, it should have an opportunity of expressing its opinion upon it.

May 20, 2016
Nick Gibb – 2016 Statement on Term-Time Holidays

Below is the text of the speech made by Nick Gibb, the Minister for Schools, in the House of Commons on 19 May 2016.

The High Court oral judgment represents a significant threat to one of the Government’s most important achievements in education in the past six years: improving school attendance. For this reason, the Government will do everything in their power to ensure that headteachers are able to keep children in school.

There is abundant academic evidence showing that time spent in school is one of the single strongest determinants of a pupil’s academic success. At secondary school, even a week off can have a significant impact on a pupil’s GCSE grades. This is unfair to children and potentially damaging to their life chances. That is why we have unashamedly pursued a zero-tolerance policy on unauthorised absence. We have increased the fines issued to parents of pupils with persistent unauthorised absence, placed greater emphasis on school attendance levels in inspection outcomes and, crucially, we have clamped down on the practice of taking term-time holidays. Those measures have been strikingly successful: the number of persistent absentees in this country’s schools has dropped by over 40%, from 433,000 in 2010 to 246,000 in 2015, and some 4 million fewer days are lost due to unauthorised absence compared with 2012-2013. Overall absence rates have followed a significant downward trend from 6.5% in the academic year ending in 2007 to 4.6% in the academic year ending in 2015.

These are not just statistics. They mean that pupils are spending many more hours in school, being taught the knowledge and skills they need to succeed in life. It is for this reason that we amended the 2006 attendance regulations in 2013. Previously headteachers were permitted to grant a family holiday during term time for “special circumstances” of up to 10 days per school year. Of course, the need to take time off school in exceptional circumstances is important, but there are no special circumstances where a 10-day family holiday to Disney World should be allowed to trump the importance of school. The rules must apply to everyone as a matter of social justice. When parents with the income available to take their children out of school go to Florida, it sends a message to everyone that school attendance is not important.

The measure has been welcomed by teachers and schools. Unauthorised absences do not affect just the child who is absent; they damage everyone’s education as teachers find themselves having to play catch-up. Because learning is cumulative, pupils cannot understand the division of fractions if they have not first understood their multiplication. Pupils cannot understand why world war one ended if they do not know why it started, and they cannot enjoy the second half of a novel if they have not read the first half. If a vital block of prerequisite knowledge is missed in April, a pupil’s understanding of the subject will be harmed in May.

The Government understand, however, that many school holidays being taken at roughly the same time leads to a hike in prices. That is precisely the reason that we have given academies the power to set their own term dates in a way that works for their parents and their local communities. Already schools such as Hatcham College in London and the David Young Community Academy in Leeds are doing just that. In areas of the country such as the south-west, where a large number of the local population are employed in the tourist industry, there is nothing to stop schools clubbing together and collectively changing or extending the dates of their summer holidays or doing so as part of a multi-academy trust. In fact, this Government would encourage them to do so.

We are awaiting the written judgment from the High Court and will outline our next steps in due course. The House should be assured that we will seek to take whatever measures are necessary to give schools and local authorities the power and clarity to ensure that children attend school when they should.

May 19, 2016