UKPOL.CO.UK

Blog

  • Denis Healey – 1952 Maiden Speech to the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Denis Healey to the House of Commons on 14 May 1952.

    In rising to address the Committee for the first time, I am very conscious of the need for that indulgence which the Committee is accustomed to afford so generously to maiden speakers. I have noticed that long familiarity with this peculiar ritual of the maiden birth has given the Committee the somewhat clinical attitude of a midwife towards a maiden speech. But I can assure the Committee that for the initiate concerned the act of parthenogenesis is quite as painful an experience as any that he is ever likely to endure in his life. And I count myself very fortunate in enduring this agony at a time when the midwife is in a state of twilight sleep induced by an all-night Sitting the night before.

    Although I have chosen to speak on a subject which is bound to be controversial, I hope that I shall not be considered unduly partisan in anything I say, because I agree very much with the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvin-grove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) that opinion on the problem of Germany is divided irrespective of party lines, and I hope I may succeed in steering a course some way between the obvious and the offensive.

    The present policy of the Western world is to prevent a third world war by deterring Soviet aggression. I suggest that this policy will not be possible if the manpower and industrial resources of Germany are lost to the Western side and become available to the Soviet side, because if that happens, the balance of world power would shift to the Soviet side, and a third world war would become inevitable.

    The Western world might lose Germany either through force or through the free choice of the German people themselves. The immediate danger, of course, is that we should lose Germany through force, and it is because of that danger that we of the Western world are committed to build up on the ground in Europe sufficient armed strength to defend Western Germany; that means very heavy burdens on us now, and I fully agree with those hon. Members who have expressed the view that sooner or later the Germans themselves must carry their share of that burden.

    But we can also lose Germany to the Western camp through the free choice of the German people themselves, and we should be very unwise indeed to underestimate that danger when we look at the history of the last 30 years from Rapallo to the German-Soviet Pact of 1939 and watch the activities of the Soviet Union with certain nationalist and right-wing German circles at the present time.

    I do not think that it is sufficiently recognised in this Committee that the destiny of Germany, now that seven years have passed since the defeat of Hitler, is certain to be decided in the last resort by the German people themselves. The victorious Powers are no longer in the position of deciding the destiny of Germany against the wishes of the German people—indeed, Western Germany alone is already, in fact although not in law, the strongest single Power on the continent of Europe—and if and when Germany is united, as in my view is certain and is desirable, Germany will once again be a world Power of the same order as Britain herself.

    The problem we face in the Western world now is not, as once it was, to ensure that Germany will never be powerful again. The time for that has gone, if it ever existed. The problem we now face is how to ensure that a Germany, which is certain to become powerful, works with the Western side by its own free choice and not with the Soviet Union. As I say, it is only the German people themselves who can make that choice.

    No one has realised that better than the Soviet Government because its recent notes, although ostensibly addressed to the Western Powers, were in fact directed to the people of Germany herself. We should be unwise also to underestimate the difficulty of keeping Germany on the Western side. National unity will soon become the over-riding aim of the Western German people, and Germany will go to the side which offers her the best chance of getting national unity on acceptable conditions, and she will leave any side which denies her the chance of unity under conditions which she considers acceptable.

    In the long run, Russia holds all the cards because it is only Russia which can give back to Germany her unity, including not only the Soviet zone but also the provinces lost to Poland. And she would not hesitate to do so if she thought she could get an agreement with Germany.

    Moreover, we have to face the additional difficulty that any agreements we make now with the Western German Government are bound to be provisional. The Germans themselves do not regard the Federal Republic as a permanent affair any more than they regard Bonn as the permanent capital of Germany. Dr. Adenauer has recently stressed this point, greatly to the dismay of the French, that any agreement accepted by Western Germany will have to be negotiated again if and when Germany becomes united, even if unity comes about under the Basic Law, because we cannot bind 70 million people to agreements which were accepted by only a majority of 47 million people.

    On the other hand, the cards which Russia holds are by no means so strong at the present time, because Western Germany is extremely conscious of its weakness and its inability to defend itself. Hatred and distrust of the Soviet Union are the dominating emotions throughout Western Germany, and for that reason the German people would not at this time accept national unity if the price of national unity were the rupture of their lifeline to the West.

    Like the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove and other hon. Members, I also visited Germany recently and had an opportunity of discussing this question with members of all German parties. I was surprised to find that there was almost unanimity between the Government and the opposition on the fact that a united Germany at this time could not afford to be neutral, nor could Germany accept unity without the guarantee of security.

    The only thing I would suggest, and on which there is disagreement in Germany, is that we should not now commit ourselves to a united Germany having security in the form of a military alliance with the West. One criticism I would make, if it is permitted to a maiden speaker, of the reply to the Soviet note is the reference to the all-German Government being allowed to make “such defensive arrangements as it wishes.” I think that we would be unwise to insist on that, if the phrase means a military alliance. If, on the other hand, it means security against the possibility of a Soviet coup or invasion, we must insist on it, and the Germans would be united in supporting us in insisting on it.

    My conclusion is that, at the present time, German unity will only be acceptable to the German people on conditions that we ourselves would be the first to insist on. Indeed, as the Foreign Secretary has already said, the Western reply to the Soviet note in insisting on these conditions has been welcomed unanimously in Western Germany.

    I am extremely glad that I should be able to make my maiden speech on a day when all the doubts created by Western policy in the last few weeks have been dispersed by the reply to the second Soviet note. There has been a great danger that the Western Powers’ reluctance to enter on a new series of Palais Rose discussions with the Russians will be interpreted in Germany as a reluctance to see Germany united again. I would say that at this moment, above all, we can afford to take the offensive on the question of German unity. We shall gain much and lose nothing by doing so.

    There has been a good deal of discussion in the Committee this afternoon about the dangers in the delay of the carrying out of E.D.C., and there is no doubt that many people are concerned lest the delays inevitably imposed by talks with the Russians on German unity will lose us what is considered to be the last chance of getting an early German defence contribution to E.D.C. Here I come on to ground which may be considered very controversial, but I assure the House I have no intention whatever of being polemic or partisan, and I hope that my contribution will be received as a sincere effort to think the problem out.

    The first point is that if it is really true, as the Foreign Secretary seemed to suggest in his speech, that public opinion is moving so rapidly against E.D.C. that unless we can get the agreement in the bag within the next 12 months we shall lose the chance for ever—if it is a question of now or never—then the agreement will be worthless even if we get it. I apologise if I have misinterpreted the Foreign Secretary’s remarks on that matter.

    The second point is that both the demand for an early German defence contribution and the agreement to treat E.D.C. as the right framework for a German defence contribution—I hope it is not impertinent to remind the Committee of this—were accepted against the will of the British Government of the day and only under very heavy pressure from our Allies.

    The decision taken by N.A.T.O. in 1950 to seek an immediate German defence contribution at a time when almost none of the European peoples wanted it, including the Germans themselves—the only exceptions were the Dutch and the Danes—would never have been taken then had it not been for very strong and insistent—and legitimate—American pressure. The agreement last September to treat the European Defence Community as the right framework for a German contribution would never have been accepted by N.A.T.O. had not our French ally said that they would not accept a German defence contribution in any other framework.

    I hope it is not impertinent to remind the Committee of that fact, because my view is that the present commitment of the Western world to E.D.C. and to an immediate German defence contribution arises out of the panic induced by Korea. It represents a false start in solving the German problem, and we should be prepared to welcome the pause imposed by events in order to get back on the right road.

    On the question of a German contribution, I believe that General Eisenhower was quite right in his immediate and instinctive response to the suggestion when he took up his command, when he said, “I do not want any unwilling soldiers under my command.” It is the case that, for whatever reasons—and for very many varied reasons—at present the majority of the German people, and the overwhelming majority of the Germans of military age, do not want a German defence contribution. Incidentally, the Western Powers have got into appalling difficulties by treating the Contractual Agreement, as the Foreign Secretary said, as a sort of bribe in order to buy unwilling German soldiers. We should have got the agreement through without the slightest difficulty if it had not been tied to the European Defence Community.

    On the other hand—I disagree with some of my hon. Friends on this point—although public opinion in Germany is at present opposed to a defence contribution, public opinion will change very rapidly and very dramatically, possibly within the next 12 months, and once the Germans want to re-arm we shall not be able to stop them even if we want to. In other words, German re-armament in the short run is impossible; in the long run it is inevitable. It is entirely a matter of timing. “Ripeness is all” in the case of the German defence contribution.

    What I suggest we should do is use the time still available to us, before the Germans want to make a defence contribution, in order to consider very seriously and quietly, and not in a panic, what framework will be best suited to contain a German defence contribution. No one can fail to recognise that, although a German defence contribution would bring great gains to the West, it would also carry very great dangers. We must choose a framework which will be strong enough and large enough to attract the Germans and to hold them for good. It is no good trying to force Germany now into a mould which she will crack when she becomes stronger.

    Last September the Western Powers agreed to use E.D.C. as the framework for a German defence contribution only because France would accept no other. However, I suggest that it is becoming quite clear that the French themselves, who were the only people who wanted it in the first place, have now lost faith in E.D.C. as a means of controlling German re-armament.

    E.D.C. can control a German defence contribution only if the non-German components are stronger than the German components. It is already evident that Western Germany alone would be stronger in E.D.C., in fact if not in form, than France, because of France’s great commitments outside Europe in Indo-China, and, indeed, stronger than all the other members of E.D.C. put together. The result is that the French are beginning to realise that E.D.C., which they first saw as an instrument to control Germany, will turn out to be an instrument by which Germany can militarily dominate Western Europe.

    In any case E.D.C. cannot offer a longterm solution to the German problem because, as Dr. Adenauer has said, when Germany is united she will have to renegotiate all the agreements which she has made, whether E.D.C. or otherwise, and it would be very dangerous if we got into a position where the importance of a German defence contribution through E.D.C., once it was set up, became such that we were compelled to oppose German unity for fear of losing that contribution under those conditions.

    There is a French proverb—I shall not try to give it in French—which says, “There is nothing which lasts like the provisional.” That proverb will not be very popular in Germany, and there is a very great danger in creating at this stage vested interests in a provisional solution which cannot possibly last into the future

    The French see only one way out of their dilemma, and that is to get Britain into E.D.C. to balance the power of Germany. But Britain cannot join E.D.C., first, because of its federal structure and secondly, because it has become a cardinal principle of British policy since the war not to accept additional commitments in Europe which might be treated by America as an excuse for reducing American commitments. That principle can be differently expressed as “We should try to avoid accepting new commitments in Europe which we cannot get the Americans to share.”

    The French are quite right in thinking that, if Germany is to be controlled in the future, Britain and America must have a hand in the controlling, but a guarantee from Britain and America to E.D.C. of such a nature as to prevent a German secession would be both impossible to frame and impossible to fulfil. There is only one way by which the French can get what they want, and that is by having Germany re-armed within the only framework in whose integrity Britain and America have a direct and vital interest, and that framework is the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

    I see the Foreign Secretary pursing his lips. He is right. That prospect at the moment dismays the French. But surely it is not beyond the resources of the Foreign Secretary’s diplomacy to show the French that, if they really want Britain and America involved in the longterm control of re-armed Germany, they must put Germany into the organisation in maintaining whose integrity Britain and the United States have an absolutely vital and permanent interest.

    I do not suggest that we should now invite the Germans to enter the Atlantic Pact. This is entirely a matter of timing. It will be some time before the Germans themselves want to be re-armed under any circumstances. What I suggest is that we should use that time to strengthen N.A.T.O. so that it is capable of receiving this formidable new recruit. On the other hand, we must have more N.A.T.O. troops in Europe and, in particular, more French troops; and, on the other hand, we must tighten and more closely integrate the structure of N.A.T.O. I personally would not exclude tightening the military structure of N.A.T.O. in S.H.A.P.E. on the technical lines already found practical in E.D.C. That is the only way out of the problem.

    To sum up, the problem of keeping a united Germany in the Western camp and out of the Soviet camp is the most crucial and urgent problem facing the whole of the West for many years ahead. In my opinion, in the panic following Korea, the Western Powers made a false start; but a pause is now imposed by events. It is our duty to make it creative. I am one of those who believe that the ever closer unity of the Atlantic peoples is one of the most fruitful developments of the postwar era. And I am convinced that it offers to us the one real chance of solving the perennial problem of Germany.

  • Margaret Thatcher – 1983 Statement on Falkland Islands Report

    margaretthatcher

    Below is the text of the statement made by Margaret Thatcher, the then Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 18 January 1983.

    With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the report of the Falkland Islands review committee.

    The House will remember that I announced the setting up of the review committee in July 1982, after consultation with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and with leading Privy Councillors in other parties. At that time I expressed the hope that the committee would be be able to complete its work within six months.

    The committee has justified that hope. I received its report on 31 December 1982, and I am presenting it to Parliament as a Command Paper this afternoon. Copies are now available in the Vote Office.

    I should like to express the Government’s gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Franks, and to his colleagues for the amount of time and effort which they have devoted to producing such a thorough and comprehensive report in so short a time.

    The report makes it clear that the committee was provided with all the papers relevant to its terms of reference, including a comprehensive collection of reports from the intelligence agencies. The committee’s report contains a number of references to intelligence matters which would not in other circumstances be divulged. These references are essential for a full understanding of the matters into which the committee was asked to enquire, and the Government have agreed that the public interest requires that on this occasion the normal rule against public reference to the intelligence organisation or to material derived from intelligence reports should be waived.

    The Government have, however, agreed with Lord Franks amendments to certain of the references to intelligence reports with a view to minimising potential damage to British intelligence interests. Lord Franks has authorised me to tell the House that he agrees that, first, all the references to intelligence reports included in the committee’s report as submitted have been retained in the report as presented to Parliament, most of them without amendment; secondly, none of the amendments that have been made alters the sense, substance or emphasis of the reference to the intelligence report concerned, or removes anything of significance to the committee’s account of the matters referred to it or to its findings and conclusions; thirdly, apart from those agreed amendments, no other deletions or amendments have been made to the committee’s report as submitted.

    The report is unanimous and is signed by all the members of the committee without qualification. It falls into four chapters. The first gives an account of the dispute from 1965—when the issue was first brought formally to international attention by a resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations—to May 1979.

    The second chapter covers the period from May 1979 to 19 March 1982. The third deals with the fortnight from 19 March to 2 April 1982, which included the South Georgia incident and which led up to the Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands. The fourth and final chapter deals with the way in which the Government discharged their responsibilities in the period leading up to the invasion. There are six annexes, the first of which deals with 10 specific assertions that have been made by some who have commented on the matters in question.

    In the fourth chapter of the report—that is, the one that deals with the way Government discharged their responsibilities—the committee notes a number of points where, in its judgment, different decisions might have been taken, fuller consideration of alternative courses of action might have been advantageous, and the machinery of government could have been better used. That chapter defines and addresses itself to two crucial questions: first, could the Government have foreseen the invasion of 2 April 1982; secondly, could the Government have prevented the invasion?

    The committee emphasises that its report should be read as a whole. At this stage, therefore, I shall do no more than quote the committee’s conclusions on those two crucial questions. On the first question, whether the Government could have foreseen the invasion of 2 April, the committee’s conclusion is: In the light of this evidence, we are satisfied that the Government did not have warning of the decision to invade. The evidence of the timing of the decision taken by the Junta shows that the Government not only did not, but could not, have had earlier warning. The invasion of the Falkland Islands on 2 April could not have been foreseen. I have quoted the whole of paragraph 266.

    On the second question, whether the Government could have prevented the invasion, the committee’s conclusion, contained in the final paragraph of the report, is: Against this background we have pointed out in this Chapter where different decisions might have been taken, where fuller consideration of alternative courses of action might, in our opinion, have been advantageous, and where the machinery of Government could have been better used. But, if the British Government had acted differently in the ways we have indicated, it is impossible to judge what the impact on the Argentine Government or the implications for the course of events might have been. There is no reasonable basis for any suggestion—which would be purely hypothetical—that the invasion would have been prevented if the Government had acted in the ways indicated in our report. Taking account of these considerations, and of all the evidence we have received, we conclude that we would not be justified in attaching any criticism or blame to the present Government.

    May I finish the conclusion of the Franks Committee? It was its conclusion and has nothing to do with the Government. It said: we conclude that we would not be justified in attaching any criticism or blame to the present Government for the Argentine Junta’s decision to commit its act of unprovoked aggression in the invasion of the Falkland Islands on 2 April 1982. I have quoted in full the final paragraph of the Franks report.

    Time will, of course, be found for an early debate, and that will be discussed through the usual channels. The Government will welcome an early opportunity of discussing the matters contained in the report more thoroughly than is possible this afternoon.

  • Margaret Thatcher – 1999 Statement on General Pinochet

    margaretthatcher

    Below is the text of the statement made in the House of Lords by Baroness Margaret Thatcher on 6 July 1999.

    My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lamont has done the House a service by initiating this short debate on a matter of great importance to Britain’s reputation, to Chile’s stability and to the orderly conduct of international relations. I shall try to deal with each of those matters while seeking to avoid remarks about the case itself.

    Britain’s reputation should be of vital importance to the government of the day. Our reputation sustains our interests. The Pinochet case has sullied that reputation. Senator Pinochet came here last September as a long-standing friend of Britain. Though I shall not go into the details, I can say that without President Pinochet’s considerable practical help in 1982, many more of our servicemen would have lost their lives in the South Atlantic. The country thus owes him a great debt.

    After leaving power he was accordingly received here as an honoured guest on a number of occasions. Similarly, on 22nd September last year, when he entered Britain on a diplomatic passport charged with a special mission by the current Chilean President, he was accorded all the privileges of an ambassador, including the protection of the Metropolitan Police Diplomatic Protection Squad.

    However, some weeks later the general was arrested in hospital at dead of night, when under heavy sedation following a serious back operation. There is a widespread suspicion that there had been collusion between the British and Spanish authorities prior to the arrest, when the Chileans were not given the warning they might have expected about the imminent risk. That inhumane arrest was in any case made on the basis of an unlawful warrant. Senator Pinochet was then held for six days illegally under that warrant. Those circumstances left Britain’s reputation for loyalty and fair dealing in tatters.

    Secondly, I want to speak about the situation in Chile—this country’s oldest and truest friend in Latin America. The great majority of Chileans, even the political opponents of Senator Pinochet, feel wounded at the way we and the Spanish have treated them. They are right to do so. Until the Senator’s arrest last October, Chile had achieved three remarkable successes, all of them in large measure due to former President Pinochet.

    First, it had seen the total defeat of communism at a time when that ideology was advancing throughout the hemisphere. As Eduardo Frei, the former Christian Democrat president of Chile put it: “The military saved Chile”. Secondly, Chile has seen the establishment of a thriving, free-enterprise economy which has transformed living standards and made Chile into a model for Latin America. Thirdly, Chile is also remarkable because President Pinochet established a constitution for a return to democracy, held a plebiscite to decide whether or not he should remain in power, lost the vote (though gaining 44 per cent support), respected the result and handed over power to a democratically-elected successor.

    Chile thus enjoyed prosperity, democracy and reconciliation—until we and the Spanish arrogantly chose to interfere in her affairs. So far, the Chileans have behaved with great restraint. But we should not assume that this will continue, particularly if Senator Pinochet, who is not now in the best of health, were to die in Britain or is taken to Spain. Anything that happens then will be the direct responsibility of this Government and, in particular, of the Home Secretary.

    My final point concerns the implications of the Pinochet case for the conduct of international relations, which are essentially based on trust between nation states. This trust has now been shattered by the prospect of the courts in one country seeking the extradition of former heads of government from a second country for offences allegedly committed in a third country.

    Senator Pinochet is, of course, being victimised because the organised international Left are bent on revenge. But on his fate depends much else besides. Henceforth, all former heads of government are potentially at risk; those still in government will be inhibited from taking the right action in a crisis, because they may later appear before a foreign court to answer for it—

    Lord Carter My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness would be kind enough to give way.

    Baroness Thatcher My Lords, I am nearly at the end of my speech.

    Lord Carter My Lords, I should just like to remind the noble Baroness that this is a timed debate and the limit for each speaker is four minutes. The noble Baroness is now in her seventh minute. I wonder whether she could now bring her remarks to a close.

    Baroness Thatcher My Lords, I am very close to the end and I very rarely take up the time of this House. It will now take me longer because the noble Lord interrupted me in the middle of a sentence.
    Henceforth, all former heads of government are potentially at risk; those still in government will be inhibited from taking the right action in a crisis, because they may later appear before a foreign court to answer for it and—this is where I was when I was interrupted—in a final ironic twist, those who do wield absolute power in their countries are highly unlikely now to relinquish it for fear of ending their days in a Spanish prison. This is a Pandora’s box which has been opened—and unless Senator Pinochet returns safely to Chile, there will be no hope of closing it.

  • Edward Heath – 2001 Personal Statement

    tedheath

    Below is the text of the personal statement made by Edward Heath in the House of Commons on 9 May 2001.

     

  • Clement Attlee – 1945 Humble Address after Second World War

    Clement_Attlee

    Below is the text of the speech made by Clement Attlee, the then Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 15 August 1945.

    I beg to move, That a humble Address be presented to His Majesty as followeth: Most Gracious Sovereign, We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, would humbly convey to Your Majesty our congratulations on the achievement of final victory over Your enemies. The enemy in Asia has followed the enemy in Europe into complete defeat and submission to the will of the victorious nations which have pledged themselves to free the world from aggression. We would rejoice with Your Majesty in the liberation of our fellow subjects in those lands which for more than three years have been subject to the ruthless oppression of the Japanese and in the removal of the peril of invasion from Your Dominions of Australia and New Zealand, Your Indian Empire and the eastern territories of Your Colonial Empire. We would humbly acknowledge the great debt which Your peoples owe to Your Majesty and to Your most Gracious Consort for the courage with which You have sustained them and the sympathy which You have shown them, reaffirming their love and their loyalty during the dark years in which You shared their afflictions. On this occasion of national rejoicing, we would pay especial tribute to Your Majesty’s Forces from all parts of the British Commonwealth and Empire who, fighting side by side with the Forces of Your Majesty’s Allies, have bought with their blood and toil the return of peace to the world. Nor at this time would we forget our gratitude to the Merchant Marine, the Civil Services, the Civil Defence Services and Police, and to all those who in home, office, industry or agriculture have contributed to victory. It is now our most earnest prayer that the clouds of war which have overshadowed Your Majesty’s reign will lift for ever and that the splendour of the victory which, by God’s providence we celebrate to-day, may be matched by the glory of Your peoples’ achievements in the constructive work of peace. We have just returned from giving thanks to Almighty God for the deliverance of this country from the manifold perils which have beset her so long, for the victory vouchsafed to the Forces of the United Nations against the Japanese aggressor and for the surrender of the last of our enemies. It is, I think, altogether fitting that our first action should be to express our loyalty and gratitude to the Sovereign. It is exactly three months to the day since in this House the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Gentleman opposite me, moved a Motion similar to this on the occasion of the end of the German war. In that Address to the King the House pledged its resolute support to the prosecution of the Japanese war. I imagine that few Members on that occasion thought that the end would come so soon. Few envisaged the changed conditions in which this Motion would be brought forward. We have had a General Election which has brought great alterations in the composition of this House. We have had a change of Government; but in the midst of change there are things which remain unaltered. Among those are the loyalty and devotion of the House of Commons to His Majesty. It is the glory of our democratic Constitution that the will of the people operates and that changes which, in other countries, are often effected through civil strife and bloodshed, here in this island proceed by the peaceful method of the ballot box.
    The institution of the Monarchy in this country, worked out through long years of constitutional development, protects us from many of those evils which we have seen arise in other countries. I believe that the peaceful transfer of power from one political party to another, during these last few weeks, so smoothly and with such acceptance, has been a valuable demonstration to the world of the working of real democracy. My right hon. Friend in his speech three months ago, with an eloquence which I cannot emulate, drew a picture of the position of the King as a symbol of unity not only to his subjects in these islands, but to all the many nations which are united in the British Commonwealth and Empire. He spoke with the general assent of all parties in this House and I shall not, this afternoon, attempt to traverse the ground which he covered; but in rendering our congratulations and thanks to His Majesty we pay tribute to something more than the institution of kingship.

    His Majesty the King and his gracious Consort the Queen have shared our anxieties, our tribulations and our sufferings during the war, and the shadow of bereavement has fallen on them as it has fallen on the homes of their people. The King and Queen have throughout set us an example of courage and devotion which will not be forgotten. By this, and by their sympathy, they have strengthened the bond uniting them to their people. This bond is no mere constitutional formality, but the basis of the deep affection and understanding which, I believe, have been strengthened by the experiences through which we have passed.

    However well and skilfully constitutions may be framed they depend in the last resort on the willingness and ability of human beings to make them work. Our British Constitution, in war and peace, works because the people understand it and know by long experience how to operate it. A constitutional monarchy depends for its success to a great extent on the understanding heart of the monarch. In this country we are blessed with a King who, as my right hon. Friend said, combines with an intense love of our country and all his people, a thorough appreciation of our Parliament and democratic Constitution. In the difficult times ahead I believe that the harmonious working of our Constitution, in which the people’s will is expressed by King and Parliament, will be an example of stability in a disordered world. It is, therefore, to my mind, a fortunate thing that this new Parliament, like its predecessor, should, in this Address, have the opportunity of expressing its feeling, and of giving thanks to the Sovereign.

  • Clement Attlee – 1945 Announcement of Japanese Surrender

    Clement_Attlee

    Below is the text of the speech made by Clement Attlee, the then Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 15 August 1945.

    Mr. Speaker, at midnight last night the terms of the Japanese surrender were announced to the world. The House will, I trust, bear with me while I repeat them, for I feel that it is fit and proper that they should be for ever on record in the annals of this ancient and honourable House. They are as follow:

    “With reference to the announcement of 10th August, regarding the acceptance of the provisions of the Potsdam Declaration and the reply of the Governments of the United States, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and China, sent by Secretary of State Byrnes on the date of 11th August, the Japanese Government has the honour to communicate to the Governments of the four Powers as follows:

    (1) His Majesty the Emperor has issued an Imperial rescript regarding Japan’s acceptance of the provisions of the Potsdam Declaration.
    (2) His Majesty the Emperor is prepared to authorise and assure the

    signature by his Government and the Imperial General Headquarters, of the necessary terms for carrying out the provisions of the Potsdam Declaration.

    (3) His Majesty is also prepared to issue his command to all military, naval, and air authorities of Japan and all the forces under their control, wherever located, to cease active operations, to surrender arms, and to issue such other orders as may be required by the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces for the execution of the above-mentioned terms.’—(Signed) Togo.”

    Thus the long, grievous war is at an end, and peace on earth has been restored. To each of us at this time there will come many memories and thoughts; to each of us at this time there will also come the wish to pay our tributes to those who have, in a lesser or greater degree, contributed to this final and complete victory. There will be time and occasion for these, but one feeling, I am sure, predominates in all our hearts, the feeling of gratitude to Almighty God for this great mercy. I think, therefore, that the House will wish forthwith to go to the Church of St. Margaret’s to render thanks, and I propose to submit to the House a Motion to this effect a little later.

    But this departure from our time-honoured procedure involves certain alterations of Business. Instead of taking into consideration the Gracious Speech from the Throne to-day, I suggest that we should, on returning, after Mr. Speaker has read the Gracious Speech, consider an Address of Congratulation to His Majesty which I will propose. Following that, we shall ask the House to consider a Motion to alter the hours of sitting so that we may meet to-morrow at 2.15 p.m. I may say that for the present we propose to continue the arrangements which were in operation towards the end of last Session. To-morrow, after the Sessional Orders have been read and passed, the Address in reply to the Gracious Speech will be moved and seconded, and Debate will arise.

    I must also inform the House that it is the intention of the Government to propose a Motion to take the whole time of the House for Government Business, and to provide for the presentation of Government Bills only. We suggest that the Debate on the Address be adjourned about 6 p.m. to-morrow in order to consider this Motion which, but for the alteration of the arrangements, would ordinarily have been taken as the first Order that day.

    I beg to move, That this House do now attend at the Church of St. Margaret, Westminster, to give humble and reverent thanks to Almighty God on the victorious conclusion of the war.

  • Clement Attlee – 1922 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Clement_Attlee

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made in the House of Commons by Clement Attlee on 23 November 1922.

    I want to call the attention of the House to one or two matters, which I think are matters of omission, in connection with the speech to which we have just listened. I did not notice that there was any mention of economy. We have had a great deal of talk about economy up and down this country, and we have had a great deal of talk about waste. But there is one particular waste that is never mentioned, and that is the waste of the man-power of this nation. When I throw my mind back to the War period, I remember how we were told that every man in this country was valuable, how we were told that every man was wanted either in munitions or in the trenches—men of every character, men of every capability. I heard of men who usually would not be considered sufficiently good to do any work, but who were sent to us in the trenches, because they were said to be serviceable for fighting. At that time— I think the only time in 500 years of English history—we were practically without any unemployment at all. In the district from which I come, the borough of Stepney, we always have unemployment. You may have a Free Trade system, or such a system as we have at the present time under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, which practically amounts to high Protection; but you will still have unemployment in East London. In East London we stand at the gate of England. Wealth flows through our borough up to London, but precious little stays there. We always have unemployment. The only time when unemployment was practically non-existent was the time of the War; and, despite all the rationing, despite all the food substitutes, on the whole the living conditions of our people were actually better during the War period.

    I am speaking of waste from the point of view of the waste that is going on to-day of our man-power and woman-power, and of the children who are going to be the men and women of the future. In my district every day men are coming to me whom I have known years ago, and I see how they have fallen off through unemployment. You see men who were fit to be sergeant-majors in the Army —fine, upstanding men—reduced to dragging along the streets with their hands out for anything they can get. That is an enormous waste. It is not only waste, but absolute folly. We are told, and I believe it, that there is sympathy on the other side with the unemployed. I do not suppose that anyone on the benches opposite is going to get up and say that he is prepared to put the unemployed men, and their wives and families, into a lethal chamber and kill them. I think that everyone on all sides is agreed that they are to be kept alive, and the only question we have to face is whether they are going to be kept alive in fine and fit condition, or upon a dole which means that they are going steadily downhill.

    The true wealth of this country is its citizens, and the finest of them, the very cells that build up our community, are the families that have a certain standard of life. Such a man, with his wife and family, with their home, represent, after all, the basis of our society, which is based upon the family. If that man falls out of work, if he comes down to a miserable wage, it means that his home is broken up, and his whole standard of life goes down and down. What you are doing with our industrial machine is allowing the spare parts to be absolutely wasted and rusted. I daresay there are hon. Members opposite who have motor cars. Perhaps they keep spare parts for them, and I expect that they look after and care for them, or their chauffeur does. The Stepney wheel is cared for as much as that which is on the car. I represent, so to speak, the Stepney wheel, the wheel which is temporarily unemployed, but which you will require in the future. My claim is that we have got to see that that reserve of labour is kept fit. When we were in the Army during the War we did not have our rations docked because we went into the supports or reserves. Our rations were the same whether we were in the front line or in the supports.

    That is the first item of waste. The second great item is the loss of the services of these 1,300,000 men who are unemployed to-day. These men are capable of productive work, and there is productive work that wants doing. In my borough, which is a borough of 250,000 inhabitants, we had a very close inspection of the houses. We endeavoured to get our housing conditions bettered, and we were told that over two-thirds of our houses were not repairable in any true sense of the word. Under such powers as we had we insisted that every landlord should put his house in repair, but those houses are so utterly worn out that they cannot be repaired, but must be replaced. At the present time the country is supporting out of public funds, either national funds or local funds or funds provided by the contributions of employers and employed—I care not which you say it is; it is all coming out of the productive powers of the nation—some 100,000 men in the building trade who are not allowed to build, who are actually being paid not to build. We are almost following the bad example of the London County Council, who got out a housing scheme and then paid the contractors a sum of money in respect of every house which they did not build. We are keeping these people, though not in a state of efficiency, when we have this urgent need of housing.

    The hon. Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) quite properly stressed that point of housing and the intimate way in which housing is bound up with morality. We know it very well down our way. We know, too, the results of the census, which showed that in the London area alone there are 600,000 persons who are living in one-room tenements. You are not going to get an A1 nation under those conditions: you are not going to get a moral nation under those conditions; you are not going to get a sober nation under those conditions. I quite realise why the hon. Member for Dundee made the speech that he did, because, with his heart bound up with the temperance question, he knows, as we do, that we have to deal with these causes. You may produce a case here and there of abuse of the dole: you may produce an occasional man who marches with the unemployed and has a bad record; but every Member of this House who has been in a contested election and has come into personal contact with the unemployed knows that the great mass of unemployed men are those same men who saved us during the War. They are the same men who stood side by side in the trenches. They are the heroes of 1914 and 1918, though they may be pointed out as the Bolshevists of to-day.

    Why was it that in the War we were able to find employment for everyone? It was simply that the Government controlled the purchasing power of the nation. They said what things should be produced; they said, “We must have munitions of war. We must have rifles; we must have machine-guns; we must have shells; we must have ammunition; we must have uniforms; we must have saddles.” They took, by means of taxation and by methods of loan, control of the purchasing power of the nation, and directed that purchasing power into making those things that were necessary for winning the War. To-day the distribution of purchasing power in this nation is enormously unequal. I recall a speech by the present Prime Minister, in which he said that one of the greatest reforms in our national life would be a better distribution of wealth among the individuals composing this nation. I entirely agree with him. While the purchasing power of this nation is concentrated in the hands of a few, there will be production of luxuries and not of necessaries. It was found necessary during the War for the Government to take hold of the purchasing power—which, after all, determines what goods shall be made—and deliberately to say that certain things were essential because we were at war, and that those things and no others should be made. They said to those who were running industry that their factories must be turned away from producing luxuries and must produce those sheer necessities. That is what we are demanding shall be done in time of peace. It is possible for the Government, by methods of taxation and by other methods, to take hold of that purchasing power, and to say that, exactly as they told manufacturers and workers that they must turn out shells and munitions of all sorts to support the fighting men, so they must turn out houses and necessities for those who are making this country a country of peace.

    As the nation was organised for war and death, so it can be organised for peace and life if we have the will for it. That is why we reject all these facile assumptions that you can wait until trade is a little better. You cannot wait. The waste is going on all the time. You have only to look at the state of the children in our streets to see how that waste is going on; and if, as I hope may never happen, we should have another war in 20 years’ time, and if the Government should begin, as they did, by calling up for various years, when you come to these last three years and look at the classes of 1920, 1921 and 1922, you will not be surprised to find that a very large proportion of them are C.3. But it will be too late for yon then to complain; it will have been by your policy of tranquillity that these classes have been produced. I am not, however, concerned with producing men for war; I am concerned with producing citizens for life. I stand for no more war, and for development in peace; and I say that you are to-day in this country ruining future generations as you have ruined the present generation. It is not the fact that character is formed by unmerited suffering and privation. It simply means what I have seen for 17 years in the borough of Stepney—the boy or the man getting unemployed and sinking, sinking, sinking right down to the unemployable. We do want an economy campaign, but it must be a true economy campaign—economy in mankind, economy in flesh and blood, economy in the true wealth of the State and of the community, namely, its citizens. That can only be brought about by deliberately taking hold of the purchasing power of the nation, by directing the energies of the nation into the production of necessities for life, and not merely into the production of luxuries or necessities for profit.

  • Benjamin Disraeli – 1868 First Statement as Prime Minister

    bendisraeli

    Below is the text of the first statement made in the House of Commons by Benjamin Disraeli after he had become Prime Minister. The statement was made on 5 March 1868.

    Sir, I have to ask the House to allow me to make a few remarks in consequence of the change which has taken place in my relations to the House since I last had the honour of addressing it. The retirement of Lord Derby from the chief conduct of affairs was unexpected. Personally, as well as politically, devoted to him as were his Colleagues, they were unreasonable in their expectations, and shrank from realizing the immense loss they must experience from being deprived of his guidance and his services. I have no language which can describe my sense of those services, but I will not attempt for an instant to dilate on the career or character of Lord Derby. I feel that it would be a great want of propriety, both in taste and sentiment, were I to do so. I hope and believe that Lord Derby will be restored to health, and not only to health, but to enduring health; and in that case he must always exercise in this country that influence over public affairs which is the consequence of his great position and greater character. Least of all should I think it necessary to touch on that character in this House. It is our pride and boast that he lived long among us, and that this is the arena in which were disciplined that political experience and those Parliamentary accomplishments for which he is so distinguished. I might add that I am here surrounded by many who have a personal recollection of that brilliant perception and that fiery eloquence which he certainly possesses more than most of the men I have been acquainted with. If I were—which I will not—to touch on any characteristic of Lord Derby, there is one which I should notice, because it is one of the principal causes of the great grief which his late Colleagues experience at this moment, and because it is a trait in his character little known to the world, I mean his great capacity for labour. He was always the most hardworking member of his Cabinet; nor do I think that any more lucid master of details ever existed. On the retirement of Lord Derby Her Majesty was most graciously pleased to intrust to me the office of forming a Government. Under any circumstances, I should think no one, when such a trust has been proposed to him, would not feel that if accepted he must incur a great burden and encounter great difficulties; and though in my case there are personal and peculiar reasons which aggravate that burden and multiply those difficulties, yet I did not think that I could, with self-respect, refuse an offer of such a character. I trusted to the support of my Colleagues; I trusted to the sympathy of a generous party; and, perhaps I may be permitted to say, I trusted to receiving fair and impartial treatment from a House of Parliament in which I have now passed half of my existence. Under these circumstance I have presumed to undertake the office; and I am bound, in gratitude to all of those who are now my Colleagues, to express my sense of the generous manner in which they have granted me their assistance.
    In circumstances of this nature, when a new Government is formed, it is not unreasonable that the House of Commons should expect some intimation of the principles on which the new Administration is established. But I apprehend that in the present instance that desire will be limited and modified; because it is known that in succeeding to the position of Lord Derby I have succeeded to the policy which he inaugurated when, somewhat less than two years ago, he acceded to power. For twenty years I enjoyed his unbroken and unreserved confidence. Twenty years were passed by us in confidential co-operation without a cloud—absolutely without a cloud—and I must, therefore, be cognizant of his opinions and his policy on all the great questions of the day.

    With respect to the foreign policy of the present Administration, we shall follow that course which has been pursued under the guidance of my noble Friend near me (Lord Stanley), I believe I may say, with the approbation of Parliament, and, I think I may add, with the confidence of Europe. That policy is a policy of peace—not of peace at any price, not a peace sought for the mere interests of England, but a policy of peace—from the conviction that such a policy is for the general interests of the world. We do not believe that that policy is likely to be secured by a selfish isolation on the part of this country [Mr. J. STUART MILL: Hear, hear!] but, on the contrary, we believe it may be secured by sympathy with other countries, not merely in their prosperous fortunes, but even in their anxieties and troubles, If such a policy be continued, I have no doubt when the occasion may arise—and periodical occasions will arise when the influence of England is necessary to maintain the peace of the world—that influence will not be found to be inefficient, because it is founded on respect and regard.

    With reference to our domestic policy, I say at once that the present Administration will pursue a liberal policy. [Cries of “Hear!”] I mean a truly liberal policy—a policy that will not  shrink from any changes which are required by the wants of the age we live in, while, at the same time, we will never forget that it is our happy lot to dwell in an ancient and historic country, rich in traditionary influences that are the best security for order and liberty, and which form the most valuable element of our national character and our national strength. Speaking of our domestic policy, I must express the deep mortification which this Administration feels, and the late Administration felt, that in one of the most interesting and important portions of the United Kingdom we are obliged still to maintain the suspension of the most influential security for the personal liberty of the subject; but, Sir, upon the question of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus in Ireland, I will express the same opinion Lord Derby did when he was at the head of affairs. We look upon that measure not as directed against the Irish people, but as a means of protecting the Irish people from the machinations of an unprincipled foreign confederacy. And, Sir, though I do not for a moment pretend to conceal my deep regret at still continuing the suspension of that Act, I think that Parliament—that the country—that all sides—must find great consolation in this—namely, that in the enlightened age of tempered opinion in which we live, the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, the greatest security for the freedom of the subject, has yet been found consistent with a due, an impartial, and even a lenient administration of the law. I trust and believe that the agitations which have prevailed in Ireland are disappearing, and will soon altogether disappear. Then the House will proceed with increased zeal to undertake and carry such measures (as it has already done during this generation in many memorable instances) for the amelioration of the condition of that country; and I doubt not, if they proceed with circumspection—if they proceed with an anxious desire to concilate the enlightened and temperate opinion of all parties—they may be successful in greatly advancing the prosperity of that country and the happiness of its people. Sir, I will not dwell at this moment in detail upon this subject, because I know that the few observations I can venture to make on an occasion like the present may be misapprehended, and because I am aware that the interest which the House feels on such an occasion ought not to be frittered away. We have  now immediately at hand an important debate on the whole condition of Ireland. I should have been happy to facilitate its introduction by giving the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Maguire), who has taken up the question, a day for bringing it forward; but that opportunity he already enjoys, and therefore my exertions can only be limited to facilitating the progress of the debate when it is brought on. Upon that occasion my noble Friend the Chief Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant will take an early occasion in the debate to state our general policy with regard to Ireland; and, if that policy be impugned, I and my Colleagues shall be prepared to vindicate it.

    There is only one topic on which I think the House will permit me to touch before I sit down. It has been stated in my absence, and with great justice, that there has been unfortunate delay from concurrent circumstances in the progress of business during this Session. No doubt, the occurrence of an autumnal Session, and the unfortunate change that has taken place in the Government, have rendered such delay unavoidable. But I can only say that, so long as I continue to conduct its business, this House may rest assured that there shall be no luck of energy and no want of labour on the part of the Government in conducting the public business; while, at the some time, I may be permitted to add that it will be always most agreeable to me, so far as the position of that public business will permit, to facilitate the course of hon. Gentlemen opposite in bringing forward their Motions, and advancing those measures which they wish to bring under discussion in the House.

  • Charles Clarke – 2004 Speech on Five Year Children Strategy

    Below is the text of the speech made by Charles Clarke, the then Secretary of State for Education, in the House of Commons in London on 8 July 2004.

    Today, I am proud to publish the Government’s five-year strategy for education and skills and for children’s services.
    Since 1997, substantial new investment and significant reform have brought education, skills and children’s services to the centre of our national life. A powerful alliance now exists for higher standards, embracing parents, our schools, colleges and universities, the voluntary sector, local authorities and employers. Improvements can be seen across the board: nursery education is now available for all three to four-year-olds; our 10-year-olds are among the best readers in the world; specialist schools are producing our best-ever results in secondary education; record numbers of young people are going on to university; and adults at work are gaining new skills.

    That progress has reversed years of under-investment and complacency; but more than that, it has lifted expectations in communities all over the country where educational failure had become entrenched. People know that education provides the key to lifelong achievement, and they now believe that it can be for them and for their children. They are right to have those expectations, challenging though they are to all of us in Government. Most parents do not want good schooling to depend on the ability to pay or to be rationed by admissions to selective schools. For many years, a quality education was the prerogative of the few: it must now become the entitlement of all.

    Five key principles of reform will underpin our drive for a step change in children’s services, education and training: first, greater personalisation and choice, with children, parents and learners centre stage; secondly, opening up services to new and different providers; thirdly, freedom and independence for front-line head teachers and managers, with more secure streamlined funding arrangements; fourthly, a major commitment to staff development, with very high-quality support and training; and fifthly, partnerships with parents, employers, local authorities and voluntary organisations to maximise the life chances of children, young people and adults.

    Our five-year strategy is ambitious for children and learners at every stage of life. In the early years, all parents will be able to get one-stop support through children’s centres that provide a combination of child care, education, health and advice services, and there will be a flexible system of “educare” that joins up education and childcare to provide twelve and a half hours of free support a week for three to four-year-olds before they start school, with more choice for parents about when they use it. Local authorities will play a major new role, through children’s trusts, in joining up all local services for families and children.

    In primary schools, we will continue to drive up standards in reading, writing, numeracy and science, but also to enrich the school curriculum and to give every child the chance to learn a foreign language and to take part in music and competitive sport. We will develop more dawn-to-dusk schools offering child care and after-school activities to help children and busy parents.

    Those extended schools, as they are called, will combine with early years and with family learning providers to provide a genuine educational centre to every local community.

    In secondary education, we will build on the achievements of the past seven years to increase freedoms and independence, accelerate the pace of reform in teaching and learning and extend choice and flexibility in the curriculum. Driving our reform will be a system of independent specialist schools—not a new category of school, but more independence for all schools.

    Independence will be within a framework of fair admissions, full accountability and strong partnership. We will never return to a system based on selection of the few and rejection of the many. The strict national requirement for fair admissions will remain and we will not allow any extension of selection by ability.

    We will put in place eight key reforms. First, real freedom for schools will come only with secure and predictable funding in the hands of head teachers. Every penny meant for schools must get to them. We will therefore introduce guaranteed three-year budgets for every school from 2006, geared to pupil numbers, with a minimum per pupil increase for every school each year. That dedicated schools budget will be guaranteed by national Government and delivered through local authorities. We will consult in the autumn on the practical arrangements and on ensuring there are no adverse effects for other local government services.

    Secondly, we expect all secondary schools to become specialist schools with a centre of excellence. They will now be able to take on a second specialism. High-performing specialist schools could become training schools or leaders of partnerships.

    Thirdly, every school will have a fast-tracked opportunity to move to foundation status, which will give them freedom to own their land and buildings, manage their assets, employ their staff, improve their governing bodies and forge partnerships with outside sponsors.

    Fourthly, there will be more places in popular schools. There is no surplus places rule. We already enable popular and successful schools to expand—we have a special capital budget for that. Now we will speed up and simplify the means to do it. There will be more competitions for new schools, which will enable parents’ groups and others to open up schools.

    Fifthly, a new relationship with schools will be established to cut red tape without abandoning our ambitious targets for school improvement or intervention in failing schools. We will halve the existing inspection burden on schools, with sharper short-notice inspection. Schools will have a single annual review carried out by a “school improvement partner”—typically, a serving head teacher from a successful school.

    Sixthly, in areas where the education service has failed pupils and parents, sometimes for generations, we will provide for 200 independently managed city academies to be open or in the pipeline by 2010. About 60 of those new academies will be in London.

    Seventhly, through the “Building Schools for the Future” programme, and a sevenfold increase in the capital budget for schools since 1997, we will refurbish or rebuild every secondary school to 21st century standards in the next 10 to 15 years.

    Eighthly, foundation partnerships will enable schools to group together to raise standards and take on wider responsibilities, such as special educational needs or hard-to-place pupils.

    Local authorities will play a key part as champions of pupils and parents, setting a strategic vision for services in their area, encouraging and enabling strong partnerships of schools, holding schools to account and intervening where standards are at risk.

    In each school, every pupil should have the personalised teaching they need to succeed, backed by excellent training for teachers, a broad and rich curriculum and more sport, clubs, societies and trips. We will continue to crack down on truancy and poor behaviour wherever it occurs, giving new powers to schools and local authorities.

    From the age of 14 onwards, there will be a much wider choice of subjects, with better vocational options delivered in close collaboration with employers, and the opportunity to start an apprenticeship at 14. There will be more choice after 16, with high-performing specialist schools opening more sixth forms where there are not enough.

    There will be a new framework for the curriculum and qualifications following the Tomlinson review. I appreciate the Conservative party’s support in working with us. That will help the reform process. I also appreciate the strong support that the director general of the Confederation of British Industry gave yesterday for working together. That is a positive step.

    In the autumn, we will publish a Green Paper on bringing together activities and services for young people. The structure of what is currently offered to young people is too complicated and unclear, and we will tackle that.

    For adults developing their skills, there will be free tuition for basic skills and for those going on to level 2 qualifications, which is equivalent to five good GCSEs. There will be a leading role for employers through sector skills councils and a reformed further education sector, rewarding success and closing weak courses and colleges. For those going on to university, there will be grants for students who need them, an end to up-front fees and a fair system for graduates to contribute to the cost of their course. There will be foundation degrees in vocational subjects, designed with and for employers, and world-class research to maintain our leading edge, particularly in science and technology.

    This ambitious programme of reform is backed by the further investment announced by the Chancellor in his Budget statement in April. Spending on education will rise by more than £11 billion to £58 billion by 2008 and—through the efficiency review and the 30 per cent. reduction in the Department’s main staff—will be focused more than ever on front-line services.

    The dividing lines for the future of children and schools are clear: whether we select a few, or raise standards for all; whether there is no role for local authorities, or a new role for local authorities; whether we take funding out of public services, or put it in; whether there is freedom for all, or a free-for-all; and whether some children matter, or every child matters. On this side of the House, we have made our decision: for excellence, for opportunity, for choice, but, importantly, for all.

  • Nick Gibb – 2011 Speech to the 100 Group

    Nick Gibb – 2011 Speech to the 100 Group

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nick Gibb, the Minister of State for Schools, at the Guildhall in London on 10 February 2011.

    Thank you Richard. It’s a pleasure to join you all in the Guildhall.

    I just wanted to begin, if I may, by thanking the 100 Group for inviting me to take part in today’s debate…

    … and can I especially thank those of you, including Richard and his team at Brighton College, who’ve taken time out of very busy schedules to show me round your schools in the last year.

    We’re very fortunate, of course, to have many excellent headteachers in this country – and I know that both myself, and the Secretary of State, have found their advice and support very useful over the past nine months as we’ve been working on the Education White Paper and the curriculum review.

    Indeed, the Government’s vision for building a truly world-class education sector that attracts the very best teachers, allows school leaders greater autonomy and reduces the attainment gap between the richest and poorest students, owes a huge amount to the example of great schools like Mossbourne, Kingsford Community School and indeed Brighton College.

    For the purposes of today’s debate however, I’m going to concentrate, if I may, rather more on the international influences that have shaped that vision than on the domestic ones…

    … Because right from the very start of our reform programme, we’ve always been clear that if you’re serious about constructing an education system that’s capable of meeting the demands of the global economy in 2011, it has to draw on international best practice.

    In doing that work though, what’s become increasingly clear is that our children’s education has been suffering in relation to their peers over the last decade.

    The PISA rankings, for example, which I’m sure have already been debated today, show us falling from fourth to sixteenth in science, from seventh to 25th in literacy, and from eighth to 28th in maths.

    Even accounting for the fact that the number of countries in those rankings has changed, this shows a really worrying trend – particularly when taken in the context of the more general evidence, which shows:

    – in maths’ tests, Chinese 15-year-olds are now some two years ahead of students in this country

    – the reading level of our pupils is now nearly a year behind that of children in countries like Korea and Finland

    – and that just 1.8 per cent of 15-year-olds in this country ‘can creatively use information based on their own investigations and modelling of complex problem situations’. This is compared to some 25 per cent of pupils in Shanghai.

    Indeed, we’d argue that the malaise actually goes rather deeper than this. It’s not simply a case that our average results are falling behind other countries; it’s also the case that the gap between the opportunities open to wealthier students and poorer students has grown wider over the last ten years.

    Opportunity has, if anything, become less equal in comparison to the rest of the world.

    Children in wealthier areas, for example, are now twice as likely to get three As at A Level as children in poorer areas. And the number of our very poorest children – those eligible for free school meals – who’ve made it to Oxbridge, has actually fallen in recent times. In the penultimate year for which we have figures it was 45. And in the last year, 40 out of 80,000 pupils.

    In fact, very quickly we’ve got to the point where we now have one of the most unequal systems in the developed world – a truly worrying situation I’m afraid, and one that suggests we are, indeed, falling behind the competition. Or, as the OECD has said, that we’ve ‘remained stagnant at best’ while the rest of the world has surged past.

    The question we’ve had to answer is why this has been allowed to happen. Has it simply been because of a lack of investment by government? Or is it, perhaps, about a lack of political will?

    The international spending comparisons – which place us as the eighth highest per-pupil spender in the OECD – and the amount of energy that’s been invested into narrowing the attainment gaps between the richest and poorest students over the years, suggests it’s probably neither of these things actually.

    Instead, it seems to be about a more fundamental lack of national ambition. Too often in the past we’ve been too quick to level down our education system, rather than attempting the trickier task of levelling up – despite the fact that time and time again, when you look at the results of our best schools, they’ve shown that if you set your horizons high, children will perform consistently well regardless of background or parental income.

    And that, in turn, is forcing us away from what Joel Klein, New York’s former chancellor of education, described in America last year as the ‘culture of excuse’ – where variations in academic performance can be automatically blamed on a pupil’s individual background, rather than on their God-given ability.

    And that’s why, as I said at the start, we’re now placing so much emphasis on promoting that ambitious agenda of reform, based on the importance of teachers, on giving schools greater autonomy, and on ensuring the National Curriculum is a match for the very best performers like Singapore, Finland and South Korea.

    On the importance of teaching – in particular we have, as many of you will know, already introduced our Education White Paper into Parliament, which is geared towards bringing more talented people into our classrooms, towards reforming teacher training, devoting resources into getting top graduates in maths and science into the classroom, and towards expanding programmes like Teach First, Teaching Leaders and Future Leaders, which attract the best and the brightest into teaching.

    It’s an ambitious approach to teaching that will help us build on the wealth of talent that already exists in our schools and help us restore the very best traditions of teaching as one of the most respected of all the professions.

    On the second point, around greater autonomy for schools, we know there is a pressing need to increase the level of operational independence in our schools if we want to match what’s happening in the best education systems across the world. Particularly over issues like pay, staffing, timetabling and spending.

    And we’re delighted that well over 400 good and outstanding schools have already applied to take up our offer of academy status – with more than 200 parent, teacher and charity groups also applying to set up Free Schools.

    However, none of this reform can work independently of the systems that support it. And this is why the third of those areas – the review of the National Curriculum – is now so vitally important to our plans for an ambitious, and equal, system of education.

    Of all the areas, it is perhaps the easiest to compare and contrast with the international competition. And for that same reason, it’s also perhaps the most difficult to ignore.

    In the modern world, there is nowhere to hide for school leavers. Jobs can be transported across international borders in the blink of an eye, and having a curriculum that’s thin on content and overly prescriptive on teaching method is not doing our children any favours.

    This is why, as many of you will know, we owe Cambridge University’s Tim Oates a very substantial debt of gratitude for his invaluable analysis of international curricula and the lessons we can learn from them.

    Already we’ve announced that we’re introducing a new measure of accountability – the English Baccalaureate – which will show how many students in each school secured five good passes in the core academic subjects of English, maths, science, languages and one of the humanities.

    But as Tim has explained before, the best-performing education nations also deliberately set out to compare themselves against international benchmarks – learning from each other and constantly asking what is required to help all children do better.

    Hong Kong and Singapore, for example, have sought to maintain their pre-eminence by reviewing their national curricula, while Australia and US states are also looking to see how they can strengthen their curriculum offers.

    But while other countries have developed coherent national curricula that allow for the steady accumulation of knowledge and conceptual understanding, ours has, sadly, lost much of its initial focus.

    Originally envisaged as a guide to study in key subjects, which would give parents and teachers confidence that students were acquiring the knowledge necessary at every level of study to make appropriate progress, it has since developed to cover even more subjects, to prescribe more approaches to teaching, and to take up more school time than originally intended – more often in response to pressure groups than for sound pedagogical reasons.

    Now, the net impact of that has been the promotion of generic dispositions, the distortion of the core function of the National Curriculum, and the dilution of the importance of subject knowledge.

    For example, at the moment the art and design curriculum at Key Stage 3 patronises teachers horribly by telling them that they need to ‘develop ideas and intentions by working from first-hand observation, experience, inspiration, imagination and other sources’.

    Meanwhile, for Key Stage 3 history, it says that ‘the study of history should be taught through a combination of overview, thematic and depth studies’.

    Now, as far as I can see it, this isn’t much different from advising a surgeon to consider using a knife during surgery. Not only is it staggeringly obvious, it’s also an insult to professional intelligence.

    What is really needed, as Tim Oates says, is to identify the essential knowledge that pupils need, including the crucial concepts and ideas that each year group should learn.

    So, in undertaking this review, our primary objective is to make the curriculum more focused than it currently is, and to hand control back to teachers.

    Research carried out by the Prince’s Teaching Institute, for example, shows that good subject knowledge, and the ability to communicate it, are the most important attributes of successful teachers.

    But unless the curriculum affords them the space and flexibility that they want and need, teachers simply cannot do that – and teaching can become far too rigid, far too prescribed and far too formulaic.

    This is why we want to return the National Curriculum to its fundamental purpose of setting out the essential knowledge that all children should acquire, organised around subject disciplines.

    And it’s why we want it to be slimmed down, so that it properly reflects the body of essential knowledge in core subjects and does not absorb the overwhelming majority of teaching time in schools.

    In short, individual schools should, we think, have much greater freedom to construct their own programmes of study in subjects outside the National Curriculum, and to develop approaches to teaching and study that complement the academic core.

    However, as we look to do all this, it remains absolutely critical that we learn from best practice overseas and this review will, for the first time, require explicit benchmarking against the most successful school systems in the world – so that standards and expectations for pupil attainment measure up to those of the highest performing jurisdictions.

    An ambitious, challenging and rigorous curriculum like this works for the very widest range of pupils, ensuring that all children – not just those who can afford it – can access the best possible education.

    The new National Curriculum will, in essence, represent a standard against which the curricula offered by all schools can be tested. It will be a national benchmark, to provide parents with an understanding of what progress they should expect, to inform the content of core qualifications, and to ensure that schools have a core curriculum to draw on which is clear, robust, and internationally respected.

    And what we want, is for this review unambiguously to show that we are on the side of teachers and headteachers. And I’m delighted that our advisory committee consists predominantly of outstanding heads and former heads – people like Sir Michael, John McIntosh and Dame Yasmin Bevan – as well as the voices of universities and business.

    And I’m equally delighted that Tim Oates has also agreed to lead an expert panel that will help us draw up the content of the new curriculum.

    To end, can I just thank the 100 Group again for inviting me along today and for giving me the chance to answer questions.

    In one sense at least, this debate around our international standing has been needed for some time now, but perhaps the most important thing, regardless of the country’s starting point, is simply to make sure that the end goal is the same – and that we’re all working towards a truly world-class education system.

    Thanks in no small part to the expertise and ambition of the 100 Group, as well as the many other excellent school leaders we have in this country, we think we’re now on the right trajectory towards achieving that ambition.

    Thank you.