Tag: James Callaghan

Below is the text of the speech made by James Callaghan, the then Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 19 March 1974.

I have been looking at the balance of the speech that I have prepared, and I am aware that this is a general debate during which we ought to have a review of all foreign policy matters. In the light of the need to keep time down, at any rate during my speech, I shall endeavour to indicate the Government’s general approach to a number of topics as well as our particular approach and to go into some detail on the question of our relations with the European Community. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State can, in reply, take up in more detail some of the issues which I would otherwise have covered, and which may be raised during the debate.

I wish to make some general observations indicating the stance which the Labour Government will take in their approach to foreign affairs. There are two particular issues upon which I wish to state our position clearly.
The foreign policy section of our election manifesto was entitled “Peace and Justice in a Safer World”. How do we translate that into action? I begin by recommitting the Government to the purposes of the United Nations and to supporting it as the principal international organisation dedicated to the promotion of human rights, the rule of law, and the peaceful settlement of disputes.

No country has a greater concern for peace, security and prosperity throughout the world than has the United Kingdom. These are also the objectives of the United Nations. We recognise the ​ practical limitations of that organisation, but a Labour Government will make the fullest use of the opportunities for international co-operation which only the United Nations is in a position to offer on a global basis.

Complementary to our support for the United Nations will be the rôle which we shall accord to the Commonwealth. This historic association brings together more than 30 independent nations in a grouping which nowadays is fashioned not by conquest, or political expediency, or material self-interest, but rather by a common desire to meet together, to exchange opinion and advice, and for each of us to profit from the diverse experience of the others.

Its value is not limited to the headline-making and spectacular Heads of Government meetings. Of equal importance is the multitude of other meetings conducted under the Commonwealth’s auspices. There is the Commonwealth Foundation, which exists to promote contacts between professional associations and individuals throughout all the member States.

Co-operation also takes place in such important matters as science, health, law and economics, ranging from the telecommunications network to regional arrangements such as the South Pacific Bureau for Economic Co-operation.

However, this machinery, although important, is only the nuts and bolts. The real value of the Commonwealth is more intangible. It is the common feeling we share that its very membership ensures that it has an outward-looking attitude towards the problems of the world—an attitude which the present Government will encourage and share. We shall give our full support to proposals which will bring the Commonwealth countries closer together.

I make clear at the outset that we shall have a dual thrust in the purpose of our policy, by using both the United Nations and the Commonwealth to the maximum of our power.

I turn now to the European Economic Community. We have consistently said that the entry negotiations and agreement of 1970 did not sufficiently protect British interests. That is why the Gracious Speech committed the Government to a fundamental renegotiation of Britain’s terms of ​ entry. I should like to say how we propose to begin the process of renegotiation, but before doing so I wish to detain the House for a moment with an issue of equal, if not greater, importance; namely, the recent speeches and remarks of President Nixon and Dr. Kissinger, which have called attention to the unsatisfactory state of repair into which relations between the Community and the United States have fallen. By implication this raises the question with which we, and, I hope, all in the House, are much concerned; namely, the political direction that the Community itself seems to be taking.

We must go back to October 1972, in Paris, where a meeting of Heads of State and of Governments, which was attended by the Leader of the Opposition, was held. The Governments present pledged themselves to:

“Set themselves the major objective of transforming before the end of the present decade … the whole complex of the relations of Member States into a European Union.”

I hope that the House notes that all of this was to be done by 1980.

A year later, at Copenhagen, the Heads of State and of Governments declared that they intended to speed up this work—it was not going fast enough. In the meantime, they confirmed their common will that Europe should speak with one voice.

My colleagues and I, and some members of the present Opposition, frequently pressed the Leader of the Opposition and other right hon. Gentlemen to tell us, and, more important, to tell the country, what these epoch-making declarations really meant. They were undertakings which had been entered into without consultation with Parliament, or, even less, with the British people.

I was sceptical from the outset about their attainment, but either the Conservative Government would not say, or, as I suspect was more likely, they did not know. However, what must be clear to them now that they have fought an election recently is the deep scepticism that the British people feel about these objectives and the general political direction that Europe seems to be taking.

Clearly, we cannot enter into definitive discussions on the concept or form of such a union until our renegotiation has settled the whole basis of our future relationship with the Community.

Mr. Russell Johnston (Inverness) rose——

Mr. Callaghan

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I promise that I intend to go into some detail.

Mr. Johnston

The right hon. Gentleman referred at the outset of his speech to the election and to the fact that in his view its result demonstrated deep scepticism by the British people regarding our membership of the Community. In view of the result of the election, I do not understand on what evidence the right hon. Gentleman makes that statement.

Mr. Callaghan

I shall repeat my exact words. I spoke about the deep scepticism that the British people feel about these objectives and the general political direction that Europe seems to be taking. It is about those matters that I found the scepticism to exist. There is a divided view whether we should be in membership, but there is a very sceptical view about what is happening under the umbrella of Europe.

The fact that these issues have hardly been debated is in itself sufficient reason for my reminding the House what the previous Government committed us to. But we now have an additional factor—the doubts expressed from the other side of the Atlantic. The recent statements that have been made there should start a great deal of soul-searching about what kind of Europe it is that the Community is seeking to create and what is to be the relationship between that Community and the United States.

I wish to indicate our approach to these matters. First, our manifesto states:

“A Labour Britain would always seek a wider co-operation between the European peoples.”

I shall enlarge on that a little later. Parallel with that, Britain needs to base her system of alliances for defence and other purposes, as well as our system of trading arrangements, on a much wider foundation.

These two issues need not be in conflict, but in our estimation it is not possible indefinitely to sustain a close alliance with the United States on matters of defence, which involve the closest co-operation and interdependence, without a parallel co-operation on matters of ​ trade, money, energy and so on. My understanding from my early contacts with Community countries is that most members of the Community agree with that approach. In the light of M. Jobert’s speech at the weekend, perhaps all of them agree.

I must emphasise that we repudiate the view that Europe will emerge only out of a process of struggle against America. We do not agree that a Europe which excludes the fullest and most intimate co-operation with the United States is a desirable or attainable objective.

That does not mean that European countries become satellites of the United States. A Labour Government will certainly want a great measure of control over multinational enterprises and companies in this country. We are in favour of maintaining the national identity of key enterprises either by a measure of public ownership or in other ways. Nor should anyone wish to see a Community organised in the interests of large-scale industry at the expense of the ordinary worker.

Some may have found President Nixon’s rough words the other day unduly harsh. But at least they had the effect of introducing a greater sense of realism, and that has been a scarce commodity in much of the discussion over the past two years. The peoples of Europe have been treated to too much high-flown rhetoric and not enough substance. Our belief is that the Community should accept more modest and attainable goals.

I have no doubt that the attitude of this country and of other countries in the Community to world problems will be found to be similar on a number of matters. But surely the timetable laid down in the Paris Summit communiqué, both about union itself and about economic and monetary union, were never attainable from the start. On these questions, events over the past 12 months speak for themselves. I need remind the House only of the ill-fated “snake”, which choked after its first indigestible meal.

We shall scrutinise with great care any future proposals for money parities fixed by the Community. We do not accept that such arrangements can be allowed to conflict with our objective—the much better objective—of making new monetary arrangements on a world basis.

What else will underlie our attitude towards the Community? First—and I come to a positive matter here—it is in our interests and in everyone else’s to foster the good relations that have grown up between France and Germany over the past 25 years. I remember vividly the occasion at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg in 1950 when, after historic debates, the doors were flung open and for the first time the German delegates entered and sat down as colleagues among the French and the remainder of us, five short years after the war. It was a moment that I shall not forget. There are now only three of us in the House who were present on that occasion—you, Mr. Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Edelman) and myself. It was a most moving moment so soon after the war to see the German delegates come in. at a time when there was much more feeling than there is now.

The memory remains with me of a day which has led to 25 years in Western Europe in which tension between France and Germany has been at the minimum. We must keep it that way. Therefore, we shall seek good relations with both France and Germany in particular. We shall do nothing to try to come between those two countries. Obviously, we shall also seek to have the best relations with the other members of the Community. I look forward to my visit to Herr Walter Scheel and to Chancellor Brandt, and also to meeting M. Jobert and my other colleagues in the very near future.

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South-West)

I do not disagree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but will he tell us whether the fundamental aim of the renegotiations is to stay in the Community or come out?

Mr. Callaghan

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue my speech, he may find at the end that his question is answered. I am now on the question of political co-operation. I shall come to the matter of renegotiations in a few minutes.

I want to make the next point, having made it clear that no one will use us to try to drive a wedge between France and Germany, if that were possible. Our aim is quite contrary. Many of us have lived through two world wars. Our approach ​ as a Government will be to intensify the system of political consultation and co operation and, in so far as it is possible, to work out common positions through joint discussion with the Community countries.

This seems to us to make sense, but it cannot be to the exclusion of bilateral talks or talks within international organisations. We have a natural affinity with the other countries of Western Europe; it is not limited to the Nine.

There are, for example, the Scandinavian countries, with which we have close links. I must emphasise again that for us the value of political consultation and co-operation will be ruined if it appears to take an anti-American tinge or if consultation with the United States is inadequate. Of course, we do not always expect to agree with the United States.

That is not the point. That is a different matter. We shall be ready to start talks and arrangements that may be made between the Community and other groupings.

There are two in particular that occur to me. First, there are the proposed talks with the Arab States. We certainly welcome such a dialogue between the Community and those States. But I assume that neither the Community nor the Arab States themselves would want that dialogue to hamper Dr. Kissinger’s efforts to secure a measure of peace in the Middle East. It is clear that he believes that at present the beginning of that dialogue would do so.

Therefore, it seems to me to make common sense that I should assume that the Nine—going to them as I shall, I hope not with any posture other than that of an anxious inquirer after the truth—I want to explore the problem further with the United States to clear up any misunderstandings that may unfortunately have arisen, both on the range of the talks and on their timing. That is the proposition I shall put when I meet my colleagues on this subject.

We think that in principle there is much to be said for having these discussions with the Arab States. As soon as we can get the misunderstandings out of the way, let us get on with them. Leaving the question of oil on one side, the Government have a strong desire that bilateral talks on trade between Britain and the Arab States should continue when they already exist and should be intensified.

Next, a Labour Government will seek in the course of our approach to the Community that Europe’s markets shall be more open to the world. We believe that it would be advantageous to Europe as a whole if there were wider access to European markets for foodstuffs from such traditional suppliers as Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United States, the Argentine and others. We regard this question of access as vital to ourselves in this country, whatever Europe may think about it.

I have seen many prophecies. In my view, he is a bold man who prophesies what will happen to future world prices for foodstuffs and other commodities. We have seen their prices go up and we have seen them go down. Whatever the temporary position—and I hope that people will not base their long-term aspirations on what could be only a temporary position—two bountiful harvests in succession would make a substantial difference to the relationship between EEC prices and world prices.

Next we shall seek a renegotiation of the financial burden imposed upon Britain by the Community budget. The division of the burden within the Community must be fair. As my right hon. Friend the Lord President outlined last night, and indeed as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said again today, we shall ensure that arrangements are made for this Parliament at Westminster to have the fullest opportunity to scrutinise and to reach conclusions on the arrangements agreed at Brussels.

It is against this background that I look forward to meeting my colleagues, the other Foreign Ministers, in Luxembourg on 1st April. With the future direction and shape of the Community in a state of flux and its relations with the United States so uncertain, it would be irresponsible for Britain to leave an empty chair.

We shall discuss these urgent matters relating to prices and other issues of importance within the Community. Nor shall we aim to conduct the negotiations as a confrontation. It is hardly necessary for me to add that a Labour Government will embark upon these fundamental talks in good faith not to destroy or to wreck but to adapt and reshape the policies of the Community and our terms ​ of membership in such a way that they will better meet the needs of our own people, as well as of others in Europe, and meet our conception of the Community’s relations with other States.

It is not unhelpful that these two strands come together at this point in time—namely, our general concern with the political shape and direction of Europe and the impact of the terms of entry upon our own people and upon our traditional trading partners. Even if we had not wished to raise the political questions, President Nixon’s remarks ensured that this would happen.

Mr. William Baxter (West Stirlingshire)

Does my right hon. Friend’s statement presuppose the fact that we shall renegotiate the terms of the Treaty of Rome?

Mr. Callaghan

If my hon. Friend will wait, he will find that I shall come even to that point. I am sorry if I am detaining the House overlong, but it is important that we should try to set out the definitive position. I hope that I have covered most of the questions as regards our principal approach. The details will have to be worked out later. We shall start with a genuine attempt to see whether our approach and our interests can be accommodated by the other members of the Community. If they cannot, we shall try to find out whether we can overcome the differences that separate us.

One immediate question we shall raise, because it comes before us straight away, is that of domestic prices. Higher prices are partly the result of an increase in world prices, as was said during the election, but partly because of the requirements placed on us by the Community, and there can be no escape from that. The first may be inevitable; the second is unacceptable, especially in our present inflationary situation.

This is the first question that must be looked at urgently, and it arises immediately at the meeting of the Agricultural Council on Thursday and Friday of this week, which is intended to fix the intervention prices for the 1974–75 season. We shall not by then, of course, have had time to work out our renegotiation proposals in full. But, in accordance with our general approach to participation in ​ Community meetings, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture will be attending to ensure that our interests are safeguarded. His objective will be to make certain that for the British housewife there will be no rise in prices in basic foodstuffs as a result of that meeting. We cannot accept imported inflation.

Other matters with which we shall he concerned in our renegotiations include the protection of the interests of the Commonwealth and other developing countries. That will mean a review of aid policies and of the arrangements for the Community’s trade with Commonwealth countries.

There is some difference of opinion whether achievement of our objectives will require some amendments to the Treaty of Accession. If we find on this issue or that that other members of the Community are unable to agree within the existing treaty framework to improvements which we feel are vital to our existing position, the question of amending the Treaty of Accession would arise, and we are examining this to see whether it is likely to do so. Given the general background which I have outlined, we shall begin with a subject by subject approach. We shall attempt to achieve our objectives in a series of parallel, co-ordinated negotiations. We shall not be seeking a confrontation, though other members of the Community will recognise that we are unable to carry forward further processes of integration which could prejudge the outcome of the negotiations.

Mr. Neil Marten (Banbury)

I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his healthy and robust speech. Since the Labour Party manifesto said

“… whilst the negotiations proceed and until the British people have voted, we shall stop further processes of integration, particularly as they affect food taxes”,

may we have an assurance that there will be no further integration from this moment onwards?

Mr. Callaghan

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), and I am delighted to see that he is such a keen student of Labour’s manifesto. Indeed, had he fought the election on it he might well have had an even ​ larger majority than the one he achieved. The question of integration and intervention prices is a very difficult one, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is going to Brussels to examine the situation this week. I want only to confirm the objective and not the means. The objective is that there shall be no increase in domestic prices to the British housewife in the shop. The kind of negotiations my right hon. Friend will undertake we must leave to him. But our basic requirement—and I am sure that this is the way in which the British family will see the situation—is that, whatever arrangements are made, they will not result in higher prices. That is the way in which my right hon. Friend will approach the matter. There is also a technical problem, and the hon. Member for Banbury, with his usual acuteness, has seized upon it. I am glad to say that the Minister of Agriculture has also noticed it.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith (Hertfordshire, East)

I should like to ask the Foreign Secretary to take a little further the manner in which he dealt with the question put to him by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Baxter) and to clarify the juridical framework within which the Government see the processes of renegotiation. The right hon. Gentleman was asked about his intentions, if any, to seek amendment to the Treaty of Rome, and he replied in the context of possible amendment to the Treaty of Accession. Can he tell the House whether the Government have any proposals to make under Article 236 of the Treaty of Rome involving the possible amendment of that article? Is that matter included in any renegotiation, and how does he assess the prospects of achieving success in any such effort, bearing in mind the fact that amendments under the treaty have to go back to the national parliaments for their individual ratification?

Mr. Callaghan

The last part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s question gives a clue to the approach that we ought to make. Anything that will require the agreement of all the parliaments throughout the Community will be extremely difficult. Therefore, I should not like to start off from that point of view. We must see how we go and where we get. We start with what we regard as the ​ vital interests of this country. We shall see where they are brought short against the Treaty of Accession.

I come back to the Treaty of Accession because that is the major obstacle. At that stage we shall have to see whether we go to the various countries concerned and say to them “We are sorry, but we regard this matter as being so vitally important that it will require amendment to the Treaty of Accession”. If then we find at a later stage that the Treaty of Rome itself is an obstacle, there will need to be a good deal of discussion before we get to that point. We shall come back to the House and discuss the matter here. I hope that there will be no hole-in-the-corner settlement of this kind of issue. We all recognise how serious and important this kind of approach would be. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will understand my general approach. I assure him that I am not looking for obstacles or rocks which have not yet appeared. I can see that there are plenty of rocks in the way. I have not yet seen any rocks which arise under the Treaty of Rome. If they come, so much the worse. We shall have to navigate round them when we get to them. But for the moment that is not my approach. We have enough problems to deal with in the approach that I have taken so far, and I hope that no one thinks that the approach underrates the difficulties of the task upon which we are embarked.

It must be understood that we are in earnest. We are not reacting to other people. We are stating what we believe to be our fundamental approach and our fundamental interest. We believe that in a number of cases our interest coincides with that of other countries in the Community and that our general approach to the Community outlook is one which should be accepted. We shall approach it on that basis, seeking the co-operation of others and trying to persuade and convince others.

Our purpose is to look at the operation of the Community in both the economic and the political spheres not in a spirit of destructive criticism but of constructive realism. We shall be willing to take adequate time for these important discussions and negotiations, though everyone will recognise that they cannot be dragged out indefinitely.

In the light of the progress or lack of it that we make, we shall consult the ​ views of the British people and consider at what stage it will be right to submit the results of our efforts to them so that they may declare their opinion. In view of the unique importance of these discussions, we intend that they should have the opportunity to do so.

I have tried to set out our approach as clearly as I can without filling in the details. But the House will understand and, I hope and believe, will support this kind of approach.

Against the background that I have outlined of our approach to the United Nations, the Commonwealth and the Community itself, we shall look for opportunities to build a safer and more productive relationship with the Soviet Union. In particular, we shall use our influence to bring the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, now in its second stage at Geneva, to a successful conclusion. If we could do so, that would justify the original imaginative initiative on which it started and would reward the efforts that have been expended upon it.

Then there are the even more complicated and important MBFR negotiations in Vienna. These must not be allowed to take the sterile path of so many earlier disarmament conferences. I am reviewing the present state of the discussions there, and we shall help them forward as much as we can. We shall also make it our business to back and stimulate this multilateral diplomacy by developing bilateral relations with the countries of Eastern Europe up to the limit that the situation in each case allows.

Following on my visit to Eastern Europe last summer, I look forward to my discussions with the Foreign Minister of Poland, who will be visiting this country in April.

Success in the process of détente will be of the greatest value to us all. There is no country involved in NATO or the Warsaw Pact which could not think of a million worthwhile things to do with money saved from the crippling arms burden.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is in the process of reviewing the contents of the Labour Party manifesto on the matter of defence in order to reduce the level of our defence ​ expenditure, and both he and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will shortly have more to say about the reductions which are to be made.

The quest for savings would be easier if there were signs from Eastern Europe that they were no longer bent on expanding their armed forces and their weapons programmes. At the Labour Party Conference last year I said that I would dearly like an agreement which would remove NATO weapons targeted on the Soviet Union but that for such an agreement to become effective it would need to remove the threat of Warsaw Pact weapons targeted on NATO.

However we get on in this connection—and we shall do our best to make it succeed—I think that there is common agreement that the largest immediate threat to peace lies perhaps not in Europe but in the Middle East. By a fortunate coincidence, in the week before the election was called, I was able to visit the Middle East and have conversations with both Mrs. Meir and President Sadat.

My talks with President Sadat convinced me that there is a possibility of achieving a situation in the area perhaps short of absolute peace but giving the region an era of stability unknown in more than a generation. Despite what is happening at the moment, I still believe that to be true, because the will is present.

Likewise, my talks with Mrs. Meir left me in no doubt that there is an overwhelming desire for a secure peace in her country, too. But we should be clear that it is Israel which runs the greater risks in the search for peace.

I wish to pay a sincere tribute to the the herculean efforts of Dr. Kissinger, whose tireless work has done so much to bring about the present situation of even modified optimism.

Our own policy is that we stand ready to play any role that would be constructive in peace-keeping or in the negotiations, but we do not wish to push ourselves forward. I discussed this with both leaders with whom I talked. There is no occasion for Britain to push herself forward unless there is a genuine desire on behalf of the main protagonists for our participation. Then we should consider it very seriously.

We believe that the earliest possible just and lasting solution will come through the full implementation of Security Council Resolution 242. Such a settlement will have to take account of the fundamental principles of that resolution—Israel’s withdrawal and the right of every State in the area to live in peace and security. We also believe that there will be no permanent peace unless a settlement provides for a “personality” for the Palestinian people—a word which I choose deliberately for reasons which may not be immediately clear but I believe it to be the best word in the present circumstances.

The other problem resulting from the Middle East conflict—namely, the energy crisis—also needs urgent treatment. When Dr. Kissinger came to London three months ago, the Prime Minister and I had the opportunity of talking to him, and we both welcomed his ideas for cooperation between energy producers and consumers, and we believe that the Washington Energy Conference was a useful and timely initiative.

The repercussions of the massive increase in oil prices has transformed the world in which British foreign policy operates. International trade and finance are not accustomed to accommodating the levels of money now available to the oil States. We desire the closest possible co-operation with the major producing and consuming countries on such matters as price and demand management and research programmes, and we shall follow up the prospects of effective international action on the economic and monetary impact of the new situation. Some of the ideas now being put about are very interesting and could transform our relations.

Our capacity to help the less developed countries will obviously be determined to a great extent by the pace of our economic recovery. But our manifesto clearly commits us to the United Nations targets, and we shall seek to achieve them in the years ahead.

I apologise for dealing in the final part of my speech with one other important issue on which there may be differences between us. It is the area of British interest and involvement in Southern Africa, where there could be the seeds of a wider conflict.

It is our view that the prosperity and stability of the African continent depends in the long run on removing the sources of racial and other frictions between its different parts. We shall play our part in the international community in seeking to end discrimination and injustice in Southern Africa in conformity with the wishes of the majority of its inhabitants.

British firms trading with South Africa have a special duty towards their nonwhite workers who are prevented by apartheid regulations from defending their rights and interests through the process of free collective bargaining. Therefore, I welcome the public and parliamentary interest in the performance of British firms operating in South Africa and, in particular, the recent publication of the report of the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee of this House which the Government will examine in detail.

We shall continue to follow the policy which we pursued in our previous administration of embargoing the sale of arms to South Africa in accordance with our international obligations. We shall give no help or co-operation to the South African Government which could be used for internal repression or the enforcement of apartheid.

With regard to Portugal’s involvement in Southern Africa, we made our position clear during Dr. Caetano’s ill-starred visit last year. It is our view that the Portuguese Government, in the interests of their own people as much as in those of the peace and stability of the African continent, should state clearly their acceptance of the principle of self-determination for their dependent territories and should embark upon specific programmes to give it effect. Meanwhile, our policy will be to give the Portuguese Government no assistance by way of sales of arms for their military operations in Africa.

There is still one area of Southern Africa which remains a specifically British responsibility—Rhodesia. I imagine that we all want to see a settlement of that problem, but it must be one which we are satisfied enjoys the support of the African majority there. The Africans themselves must play a major part in working out the terms of a settlement which they could support. Until that happens we shall continue the policy of sanctions and examine whether they can be ​ made more effective. Whether they agree or disagree, the white minority in Rhodesia will recognise, in what I have said, Britain’s clear determination to accept nothing short of an honourable settlement and that they face a lonely future if they continue along their present road.

Nations often find themselves in the same difficult position as individuals. We frequently have dealings with people whose politics we disagree with and whose actions we dislike. So it is with countries. There are nations whose internal repression of their citizens we deplore. Whether such nations fall on the right or on the left of the political spectrum, the case for speaking is even stronger when silence might be deemed to be consent or indifference. The violation of human rights has the same degrading consequence for the individual as for the State which practises it whether he resides in a country that calls itself left or right.

More than ever we are part of one world in terms of human rights, in terms of the need for defence co-operation, or the need to overcome the world’s interlocking problems in economic, energy and monetary matters.

I realise that the degree to which Britain can exercise a positive and independent influence in the world is limited. It depends to a great extent on regaining our economic strength. The country is back at work and the Government are pursuing policies which, in my judgment, will promote social unity and greater national cohesion. That is the best foundation for our hope that Britain can make an increasingly influential contribution to the peace and prosperity of the whole world.

Below is the text of the speech made by James Callaghan, the then Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 24 June 1976.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about my talks with the President of the French Republic, M. Valery Giscard d’Estaing.

President Giscard d’Estaing’s State visit to the United Kingdom marks the opening of a new and hopeful chapter in the long history of Anglo-French relations. All of us who had the pleasure of hearing the President’s address from the Royal Gallery yesterday welcomed the positive and constructive spirit in which he spoke of the relationship between our two countries. I am happy to say that a similar spirit of friendship, candour and constructiveness has marked our official talks. Both of us welcomed the opportunity to deepen the understanding between our two Governments and countries, and all our discussions were conducted in this spirit.

In the course of both our private talks and the official sessions, we were able to touch on most of the principal subjects of joint interest and concern to our two Governments. In particular, as partners in the European Community, we had a full discussion on Community matters, including the question of direct elections to the European Assembly, on which both sides were able to explain their concerns. We also discussed the common fisheries policy, on which my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and I explained to the President the critical importance we attach to the forthcoming negotiations.

On the Tindemans Report, and the future of Europe generally, we had a useful exchange of ideas and achieved a much clearer recognition of how much common ground there is between us.

Finally, and perhaps of greatest significance for preventing future misunderstandings, we reached agreement on the need for closer and more systematic contacts between our two Governments. The President and I have decided to meet once a year, accompanied by ministerial colleagues as appropriate, in order to discuss relations between our two countries and, in particular, the problems of common interest deriving from our membership of the European Economic Community. The first meeting will be held in Paris before the end of this year. We have decided that there should be a similar annual meeting between the Ministers responsible for foreign affairs, and that there should be periodic meetings between the other principal Ministers, notably those responsible for home affairs, the economy and finance, energy, industry, defence and trade. The text of the Joint Declaration embodying this decision will be printed in the Official Report.

France should know that we welcome unreservedly this new arrangement and will play our full part in raising our relationship to a new high level. I hope that other nations of Europe will see it as a contribution to the cohesion of the European Community, and thus as being of benefit to Europe as a whole.

Below is the text of the speech made by the then Prime Minister, James Callaghan, during the No Confidence debate called by the Conservative Party, which was held in the House of Commons on 28th March 1979.

The Prime Minister The right hon. Lady, the Leader of the Opposition began by recalling the circumstances in which our debate on the motion of no confidence is taking place. As she said, it follows directly from my proposal last week that in the light of the devolution referendums, and especially because of the result in Scotland, there should be a limited period of discussion between the parties before Parliament debated the orders that would repeal the Scotland and Wales Acts once and for all.

The right hon. Lady did not immediately reject that proposal. She waited for the well-advertised move by the Scottish National Party. Its Members told the world what they would do, and they did it. They tabled a motion censuring the Government. For what? For not immediately bringing the Act into force.

The Opposition, of course, want nothing like that. They want the very reverse. They want to get rid of the Act. But the SNP motion was enough for the Opposition Chief Whip. I am glad to see that he is now securely perched on the Front Bench. I hope that he will not fall off. When the SNP tabled its motion, the right hon. Gentleman went into action. He scurried round to the Liberal Party to find out if it would vote for a motion of censure—and he was not disappointed. The Liberals, spinning like a top, assured him that they would be ready, indeed that they were anxious, to take part in talks with the Government on the future of the Acts, but, equally, they were ready to vote for any motion that would prevent such talks from even beginning.

Fortified by that display of Liberal logic, the Opposition tabled their own vote of no confidence. We can truly say that once the Leader of the Opposition discovered what the Liberals and the SNP would do, she found the courage of their convictions.

So, tonight, the Conservative Party, which wants the Act repealed and opposes even devolution, will march through the Lobby with the SNP, which wants independence for Scotland, and with the Liberals, who want to keep the Act. What a massive display of unsullied principle!

The minority parties have walked into a trap. If they win, there will be a general election. I am told that the current joke going around the House is that it is the first time in recorded history that turkeys have been known to vote for an early Christmas.

On Friday I wrote to the other parties basically concerned with devolution for Scotland and Wales, formally confirming the talks that I had offered in the House. So far, not surprisingly—I do not complain about it—I have had no reply, except for what the right hon. Lady said on television. But when the motion of no confidence is defeated, the Governmen’s offer will still stand.

We shall be glad, and will seek, to open discussions with the other parties about the future of the Scotland Act within the limited time period that I proposed last week. The Government firmly believe that that should be the next step before Parliament takes the final step of debating and deciding on the orders to erase the Acts from the statute book.

Mr. Gordon Wilson (Dundee, East) rose—

The Prime Minister Amid the general excitement of today, I ask the House not to forget that the people of Scotland are expecting hon. Members on both sides to treat their constitutional future with seriousness and not just as a by-product of a grab for office.

Today, the right hon. Lady has widened the discussion into a general indictment of the Government’s record and actions.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley (Cirencester and Tewkesbury) rose—

Mr. Speaker Order. The Prime Minister is not giving way.

The Prime Minister As this is a motion of no confidence, I think that I am entitled to deploy our case in the way that I choose best.

I reply to the right hon. Lady by advancing three propositions. First, this Government, who have been in a minority in this House for most of their life, have achieved an outstanding record of social progress and economic performance.

Secondly—and on this point I do not differ from the right hon Lady—during the years that lie ahead there will be a great deal for the Government and for the country to do in such areas as improving our industrial efficiency, the return to full employment, controlling prices, better industrial relations, and overcoming poverty. There will be no sense of complacency by the Government about what needs still to be done, but neither should we overlook the achievements of the last five years.

My third proposition is that we shall make most progress by adapting and broadening the policies that have served so far to protect the people of this country in the midst of world recession and not by sudden switches or reversals of policy.

The right hon. Lady clearly believed this afternon that she was putting forward some new policies. On the contrary, what we heard was a repetition of the same old policies that the Conservative Government tried between 1970 and 1974—policies that failed and that finally led to the ignominy of the three-day candlelit week in which the last Conservative Government expired.

Perhaps I might add a fourth proposition to the other three. If we are to succeed, the country needs a Labour Government with a working majority—and we shall seek that in the early future.

During the coming year, developments in the world at large will critically affect Britain’s prospects for jobs, for prices, and for trade. Last summer, in Bonn, I met the leaders of six of the major industrial countries and together with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer we pressed very hard that all the countries present should take domestic action that would sustain world levels of trade and improve the unequal distribution of our balance of payments.

The measures that we then decided upon have had a good measure of success and, as a result, the world economy, including that of this country, has benefited from a faster growth rate. But, with some notable exceptions, prices are still rising too fast and the level of world unemployment is not yet falling. Yesterday’s decision by the oil-producing countries to raise prices will not help either inflation or employment, and will increase the problems caused by the interruption in Iranian oil supplies. They will have a further adverse effect on world trade and on the world balance of payments, especially of large oil importing countries, such as the United States. The price increases may force certain countries to adopt more restrictive growth and trade policies. They will certainly make it more necessary than ever for all countries to adopt concerted and co-operative policies if we are to maintain levels of world trade and employment. The right hon. Lady says that such meetings are not worth while. If she ever had the responsibility for these matters, she would learn how valuable these meetings are.

I wish to emphasise the priority that must be given to saving oil on a world scale. Britain is more fortunate than most. This year, thanks to the North Sea enterprises, we shall produce three-quarters of our requirements. In the course of next year, Britain will reach self-sufficiency. That is an inestimable boon.

Nevertheless, there is an obligation on Britain, as on everybody else, to be sparing, to be economical in the use of oil, and to meet the international obligations that we have entered into in company with other countries. There is general agreement among the industrial countries that we should reduce oil consumption in each of our countries by 5 per cent. I believe that to be the minimum reduction. We in Britain are working to that end and are fortunate to have a well-based coal industry to replace part of our oil consumption.

Although this country’s supplies are reasonably assured and we may escape comparatively unscathed, if an oil scarcity should develop or high prices should restrict the level of output in other countries, it will clearly become more difficult for us to export, and jobs in export industries will be at greater risk, with a consequential effect on the rest of our economy, as on the economies of other countries.

I claim that the Government’s economic policies are well-designed to meet this test. We have given high priority to new investment in industrial plant and machinery, through tax reliefs and direct financial aid, and our industries have responded by investing more. We have made the restraint of inflation an overriding priority to keep our costs down. We have doubled our programme to train skilled men and women for new jobs and we have established the National Enterprise Board, which is giving financial backing to new industries and enterprises like the Rolls-Royce aero-engine that will power the new American Boeing aircraft, and the microprocessor venture in which we must mark out a place among world leaders.

Since 1974 we have set up the successful Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies to encourage new enterprises. Employers and trade unions are jointly working together to study the future prospects for their industries and for export markets, and how to prevent import penetration, under the aegis of the sector working parties and with the aid of the Government.

I note what the right hon. Lady said about protecting yesterday’s jobs. I agree that we must strike a balance between protecting jobs that are now fading and creating new jobs, but I can claim—if the Opposiion were looking at this matter objectively they would agree—that it makes sense to protect some of our more vulnerable industries from the onslaught made on them by the new industrial countries. We have eased their transitional difficulties by financial help—or perhaps I should say by public expenditure—to give them a breathing space while they adapt to new methods or new products.

During 1978, against that background, unemployment was reduced by more than 100,000. Employers and workers are ready to take advantage of that partnership with the Government. By working together we are slowly but surely—too slowly for my liking—making British industry more fit to face the rigours of world competition.

We have not overlooked the fact that during such a period of transition there will be casualties among companies and firms, and the Government have devised social measures to ease the problem for those who are affected. The job release scheme allows people to retire at 62 with an allowance, provided that they are replaced by younger people. There is the subsidy paid to small firms which take on extra full-time workers. There is the programme that helps people aged between 19 and 24 who have been out of work for six months and older people who have been out of work for at least a year.

Payments are made to companies forced to work short time that compensate them at a rate of 75 per cent. of the gross wages for each day lost. All these and other schemes operated by the Manpower Services Commission have led the rest of Europe—I ask the right hon. Lady to note this when she is so scathing about our policies—to acknowledge that this country has a comprehensive job creation and job protection programme that has eased the social tensions that would otherwise have been created and that exist in other countries, as we have witnessed on our television screens.

The Labour Government are convinced that that basic approach makes for greater sense than the free market, free-for-all approach that would abolish grants and financial aid, which was put forward by the Opposition spokesman. That would undermine these programmes and that policy. If the Conservative Party were to get its hands on our affairs, it would be an act of vandalism.

Turning to some aspects of industrial relations, as the right hon. Lady correctly said, the events of the winter demonstrate the difficulties into which a society such as ours can be drawn. They also demonstrate the difficulties that arise when there is not an agreed understanding between the Government and the trade unions. If there had been agreement last autumn, we might have avoided some of the events of the winter. I do not seek to ascribe responsibility for the failure to agree, but I point to the consequences—especially to those who believe that confrontation is the best way forward. Are the events of this winter to become a regular pattern under a Conservative Government?

This Government have reached a new agreement with the TUC. It is not perfect, and it may be breached on occasion, but our future prospects depend on how successfully we build on that agreement. It is important for its reaffirmation—let the Opposition deny it if they dare—that the Government and the TUC must work in partnership. Is that agreed, or not? Let me add that the Government take the view—I come immediately to the point that has been raised by the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam)—that we shall make most progress by building the widest possible economic consensus with the unions, employers and Government.

The agreement between us covers three areas. First, there is the guidance that the TUC has issued to its affiliated unions on the handling of industrial relations and on the need to observe agreements, stating that strike action is to be taken in the last resort. There is a strong recommendation for strike ballots. The agreement recognises the concern about certain aspects of the closed shop and gives advice on the flexible operation of such agreements. Those are the issues on which the Opposition have focused. Do they prefer to jeer at the prospects of that agreement breaking down rather than hope that it will succeed?

Secondly, there is agreement by the TUC, in which the CBI will participate, on the need to take part, each year, in a national assessment of the economy for the year ahead. That was suggested by the right hon. Lady, even though it was a little late, so let hon. Members not jeer at that. If anybody jeers at that, he will be in for a wigging pretty quickly. There is also agreement to discuss what increase in production can be achieved, how much increase in labour costs the country can afford, and how inflation can be kept down. There is a bold and ambitious target, to which we have set our hands, of working to get inflation below 5 per cent. in the next three years. That is the objective.

Thirdly, there is recognition of the problem of how to adjust remuneration differentially between the various groups of workers, and particularly in the public services, without leading to one group leapfrogging over another. That is a most difficult area, and we have not yet found the answer. I am grateful to Professor Clegg and his colleagues—I hope that my hon. Friends are noting the jeers—who have undertaken the task in the new Standing Commission on pay comparability.

The agreement with the TUC recognises and sets out that some of these pay problems are becoming more intractable. It is ready to take part in work to try to achieve a national consensus on the overall distribution of income. These are important areas for discussion and agreement. They cannot be solved by the right hon. Lady’s simplistic approach that she described some months ago as the withdrawal of Government from interference in wage bargaining. As the right hon. Lady hopes soon to have responsibility, the question that I am about to ask becomes more pertinent. If she proposes to withdraw from interference in wage bargaining, how will she deal with the public services pay? What principles will she apply? In her first reactions—I hope that later ones will be different—she poured scorn on the effectiveness of that agreement, unlike the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior). I shall not embarrass him by going into that further.

If any Government can secure success in those areas, it will take us a long way forward in solving a problem that has long been the cause of inflationary discontent, namely, how to adjust pay levels in different occupations and industries without at the same time generating other claims that at the end of the day leave the structural problems unsolved but, in the process, fuel inflation.

The agreement with the TUC has set some ambitious aims. They are a formidable challenge, not only to the Government but to the trade union movement. The seriousness with which solutions to these problems are pursued—the Government are following them up with the TUC—will be watched closely by the country to see whether the agreement has the substance that I believe it will have.

I am certain that that is the better way forward—far better than the Opposition’s plan, which seems to be to dust off some of their more ancient pieces of artillery left over from 1970 and make a planned industrial offensive. Of course it is right to highlight any individual or collective cases of folly and excessive abuse of power—evils that the great majority of trade unionists deplore, just as much as do the rest of the community. But for the Conservative Party to highlight and exploit individual cases as a means of driving the trade union movement, in general, into a corner, tarring all the 11 million members of unions with the same brush, is a dangerous miscalculation.

The 1980s will not be the occasion for an action replay of the Tories’ misjudgments of the beginning of the 1970s. The agreement with the TUC will not be perfect, but it is an important step towards industrial peace and steadier prices. It is an agreement that deserves support, not sabotage.

The right hon. Lady seemed to be under the impression that today she has been proposing some entirely new policies, making a new beginning. On the contrary, all that she was doing was to offer us the stale and outdated 1970 Conservative Party election manifesto.

I know that the Opposition want to forget the years 1970–74. The right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), the former leader of the party, is removed from Conservative Party collective thinking like Trotsky was blotted out of the photographs of the Stalin era. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker Order.

The Prime Minister I admit that I am provoking them a little, Mr. Speaker.

Indeed, if we are to judge from recent broadcasts, Conservative history ceased when Harold Macmillan stepped down as Prime Minister in 1963.

Each of the main planks of the right hon. Lady’s platform today was nailed down in the 1970 manifesto—cut taxes, curb the power of the trade unions, restore respect for law and order, full-hearted support for the European Community, and centralised power decentralised. It was all there.

What was the result when they were elected? Property speculators were given a free hand—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker Order. The right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition was heard in silence.

The Prime Minister As I was saying, property speculators were given a free hand, credit control was abolished, and the money supply was increased to finance some pretty phoney finance companies. The Conservatives opened up one of the most discreditable periods in the history of the City of London. [HON. MEMBERS: “Hodge.”] I would not advise any hon. Member to say that outside.

I know that many of the reputable companies in the City look back on that period with great distaste. Now some of the speculators are emerging from their holes, rubbing their hands once again. I warn them not to count their chickens before their cheques bounce.

The Conservatives failed, when they were in Government, to safeguard our greatest national asset—North Sea oil. They handed out the assets to the oil companies with unparalleled generosity. They would have let the revenues from oil slip through their fingers. They left gaping loopholes in the rules governing corporation tax paid by the oil companies. They did not even negotiate an arrangement to ensure that the United Kingdom, the home country, would ensure for itself a substantial proportion of the oil that was produced. We had to put all this right when a Labour Government came to office, and through the participation agreements this country can now be sure of safeguarding for our own use a substantial proportion of the oil that is pumped.

On the other side of the coin, the Tories’ doctrinaire approach to industrial relations left an Act of Parliament which, as the CBI spokesman told us, was surrounded by hatred, and where every relationship was sullied by its provisions. That, too, we have had to put right.

The right hon. Lady calls for less government at local level. Does she really think we have forgotten the handiwork of the right hon. Members for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) and for Worcester (Mr. Walker)? Let her reflect, when she calls for less burueacracy, that local authority manpower between 1970 and 1974 increased by nearly 300,000—the biggest increase in bureaucracy ever in any comparable period.

In the Health Service the right hon. Member for Leeds North-East achieved the unenviable double of setting up a new form of organisation that was unsuited to the needs of the Service and at the same time of dramatically increasing the numbers working in the administration. It does not lie in the mouths of the Opposition to call for a reduction in bureaucracy, or for the right hon. Lady to speak, as she did at Solihull, of Whitehall strangling local democracy.

The right hon. Lady complains about inflation, and justifiably so. So do I, regularly. At 9.6 per cent. it is higher than it should be, but we have brought it down from 25 per cent. What happened between 1970 and 1974? It more than doubled. Today, the figure that is complained of is lower than when the Conservative Party left office.

On the question of monetary policy, let me give the figures. We are being invited today to go back to the old remedies. Between 1970 and 1974, the average annual increase in the money supply was 21 to 22 per cent. a year. Under this Government the average is about 9 per cent. a year. When the Conservatives were in power they got rid of the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation. This time they want to hamstring the National Enterprise Board. They intend to cut public expenditure. They keep saying so. What do they propose to do? Do they propose to stop the National Enterprise Board funding the new Rolls-Royce aero-engines? [HON. MEMBERS: “Answer”.] There are more questions yet. Let us have a compendium. Do they intend to cut the Euopean airbus? Will they stop the production of the new HS146 aicraft? Is it the youth employment schemes that are to go? Is it the Welsh Development Agency or the Scottish Development Agency, which is at the moment backing 9,000 jobs with £20 million of investment?

Is it the new social benefits that we have introduced that are to go or the mobility allowance for the disabled, the invalid care allowance, or help to disabled housewives? I make no mention of school milk.

Since we came into office the average number of patients on each doctor’s list has declined. Are the numbers to be allowed to swell again when public expenditure is cut?

The numbers of people served by home helps have increased. The meals on wheels service has been enlarged.

Are these to be cut back? Or is it the rebuilding of our cities? Would they tamper with the child benefit scheme, whose allowance is to be increased from £3 to £4 per week from 1 April?

What about the pensioners? During the Conservatives’ term of office pensioners’ living standards fell behind those of the population who were working. By contrast, this Government have steadily improved the real position of the pensioner year by year, by increasing the pension by whichever has been the higher of the forecast earnings or the forecast prices. That is now a statutory responsibility. It has improved the standard of life of the pensioner after he or she retires, by comparison with the wage earner.

Let me give the figures. When the Conservative party left office the pensioner’s proportion of the net earnings of a married male manual worker was 40 per cent. Today the pensioner’s proportion of the same net earnings of the male married manual worker is 50 per cent.—an increase in real standards. We shall fulfil our statutory obligations again this year.

This is the season of Estimates and revenue. Yesterday we debated expenditure on the Armed Forces for the coming year. Today I should like to inform the House of the estimate of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for old-age pensions for the coming year. First, he has provided for a correction to the underestimate in the forecast made this time a year ago—a question that has been raised on a number of occasions by hon. Members on both sides, but mainly from Government supporters, I grant. Let us associate the Conservatives with this. Do not let them escape their share of the responsibility.

Earnings last year rose faster than the forecast on which the Chancellor based his uprating at that time. He has taken account of this in the new increase that will operate for the next pension year from November. For a marired couple, therefore, he has provided for an increase in the pension next November of about £4 a week to around £35, and for a single person of about £2.50 per week, to about £22. That is provided in the Estimates. That will be one more important step to reduce the gaps that still exist in our society—to remedy the injustices, to erase the class divisions and racial bigotry, to attack poverty and the lack of opportunity that still face many of our citizens. The difference between the Opposition and the Government is that we know that these problems will not be solved by a return to those policies of 1970 or by soup-kitchen social services. They will be overcome only if we harness the energy and the ideals of our people to build a fairer and more just society.

Let need, not greed, be our motto. Our purpose as a Government and as a party is to present a bold, Socialist challenge to all these problems as we face these tasks. I ask for the confidence of the House and of the country so that we may continue with our work.

Below is the text of the speech made by the then Prime Minister, James Callaghan, at Ruskin College in 1976.

I was very glad to accept your invitation to lay the foundation stone for a further extension of Ruskin College. Ruskin fills a gap as a ‘second chance’ adult residential college. It has a special place in the affections of the Labour movement as an institution of learning because its students are mature men and woman who, for a variety of reasons, missed the opportunity to develop their full potential at an earlier age. That aspect of the matter is a particular interest of my own. Ruskin has justified its existence over and over again. Your students form a proud gallery and I am glad to see here this afternoon some of your former students who now occupy important positions. They include leading academics, heads of state of commonwealth countries, leaders of the trade union movement and industrial life and members of Parliament. Indeed, eleven of the present Labour members of Parliament graduated from Ruskin and five of them are either in the government, or have served there, including one present member of the Cabinet, Eric Varley, the secretary for the industry.

Among the adult colleges, Ruskin has a long and honourable history of close association with the trade union movement. I am very glad to see that trade unions are so strongly represented here today because you are involved in providing special courses for trade union officials and I hope that this partnership will continue to flourish and prosper.

The work of a trade union official becomes ever more onerous, because he has to master continuing new legislation on health and safety at work, employment protection and industrial change. This lays obligations on trade unionists which can only be met by a greatly expanded programme of education and understanding. Higher standards than ever before are required in the trade union field and, as I shall indicate a little later, higher standards in the past are also required in the general educational field. It is not enough to say that standards in this field have or have not declined. With the increasing complexity of modern life we cannot be satisfied with maintaining existing standards, let alone observe any decline. We must aim for something better.

I should like to pay tribute to Billy Hughes for his work at Ruskin and also for his wider contributions to education as chairman of the Adult Literacy Resource Agency. This has been a strikingly successful campaign for which credit must go to a number of organisations, including the BBC. It is a commentary on the need that 55,000 students were receiving tuition this year with a steady flow of students still coming forward. Perhaps most remarkable has been that 40,000 voluntary teachers have come forward to work, often on an individual personal basis, with a single student. When I hear, as I do in so many different fields, of these generous responses to human need, I remain a confirmed optimist about our country. This is a most striking example of how the goodwill, energy and dedication of large numbers of private persons can be harnessed to the service of their fellows when the need and the opportunity are made plain.

There have been one or two ripples of interest in the educational world in anticipation of this visit. I hope the publicity will do Ruskin some good and I don’t think it will do the world of education any harm. I must thank all those who have inundated me with advice: some helpful and others telling me less politely to keep off the grass, to watch my language and that they will be examining my speech with the care usually given by Hong Kong watchers to the China scene. It is almost as though some people would wish that the subject matter and purpose of education should not have public attention focused on it: nor that profane hands should be allowed to touch it.

I cannot believe that this is a considered reaction. The Labour movement has always cherished education: free education, comprehensive education, adult education. Education for life. There is nothing wrong with non-educationalists, even a prime minister, talking about it again. Everyone is allowed to put his oar in on how to overcome our economic problems, how to put the balance of payments right, how to secure more exports and so on and so on. Very important too. But I venture to say not as important in the long run as preparing future generations for life. RH Tawney, from whom I derived a great deal of my thinking years ago, wrote that the endowment of our children is the most precious of the natural resources of this community. So I do not hesitate to discuss how these endowments should be nurtured.

Labour’s Programme 76 has recently made its own important contribution and contains a number of important statements that I certainly agree with. Let me answer that question ‘what do we want from the education of our children and young people?’ with Tawney’s words once more. He said: ‘What a wise parent would wish for their children, so the state must wish for all its children.’

I take it that no one claims exclusive rights in this field. Public interest is strong and legitimate and will be satisfied. We spend £6bn a year on education, so there will be discussion. But let it be rational. If everything is reduced to such phrases as ‘educational freedom’ versus state control, we shall get nowhere. I repeat that parents, teachers, learned and professional bodies, representatives of higher education and both sides of industry, together with the government, all have an important part to play in formulating and expressing the purpose of education and the standards that we need.

During my travels around the country in recent months, I have had many discussions that show concern about these matters.

First let me say, so that there should be no misunderstanding, that I have been very impressed in the schools I have visited by the enthusiasm and dedication of the teaching profession, by the variety of courses that are offered in our comprehensive schools, especially in arts and crafts as well as other subjects and by the alertness and keenness of many of its pupils. Clearly, life at school is far more full and creative than it was many years ago. I would also like to thank the children who have been kind enough to write to me after I visited their schools: and well written letters they were. I recognise that teachers occupy a special place in these discussions because of their real sense of professionalism and vocation about their work. But I am concerned on my journeys to find complaints from industry that new recruits from the schools sometimes do not have the basic tools to do the job that is required.

I have been concerned to find out that many of our best trained students who have completed the higher levels of education at university or polytechnic have no desire to join industry. Their preferences are to stay in academic life or to find their way into the civil service. There seems to be a need for more technological bias in science teaching that will lead towards practical applications in industry rather than towards academic studies.

Or, to take other examples, why is it that such a high proportion of girls abandon science before leaving school? Then there is the concern about the standards of numeracy of school-leavers. Is there not a case for a professional review of the mathematics needed by industry at different levels? To what extent are these deficiencies the result of insufficient co-operation between schools and industry? Indeed, how much of the criticism about basic skills and attitudes is due to industry’s own shortcomings rather than to the educational system? Why is it that 30,000 vacancies for students in science and engineering in our universities and polytechnics were not taken up last year while the humanities courses were full?

On another aspect, there is the unease felt by parent and others about the new informal methods of teaching which seem to produce excellent results when they are in well-qualified hands but are much more dubious when they are not. They seem to be best accepted where strong parent-teacher links exist. There is little wrong with the range and diversity of our courses. But is there sufficient thoroughness and depth in those required in after life to make a living?

These are proper subjects for discussion and debate. And it should be a rational debate based on the facts. My remarks are not a clarion call to Black Paper prejudices. We all know those who claim to defend standards but who in reality are simply seeking to defend old privileges and inequalities.

It is not my intention to become enmeshed in such problems as whether there should be a basic curriculum with universal standards – although I am inclined to think there should be – nor about any other issues on which there is a divided professional opinion such as the position and role of the inspectorate. Shirley Williams, the new secretary of state is well qualified to take care of these issues and speak for the government. What I am saying is that where there is legitimate public concern it will be to the advantage of all involved in the education field if these concerns are aired and shortcomings righted or fears put at rest.

To the critics I would say that we must carry the teaching profession with us. They have the expertise and the professional approach. To the teachers I would say that you must satisfy the parents and industry that what you are doing meets their requirements and the needs of our children. For if the public is not convinced then the profession will be laying up trouble for itself in the future.

The goals of our education, from nursery school through to adult education, are clear enough. They are to equip children to the best of their ability for a lively, constructive, place in society, and also to fit them to do a job of work. Not one or the other but both. For many years the accent was simply on fitting a so-called inferior group of children with just enough learning to earn their living in the factory. Labour has attacked that attitude consistently, during 60 or 70 years and throughout my childhood. There is now widespread recognition of the need to cater for a child’s personality to let it flower in its fullest possible way.

The balance was wrong in the past. We have a responsibility now to see that we do not get it wrong again in the other direction. There is no virtue in producing socially well-adjusted members of society who are unemployed because they do not have the skills. Nor at the other extreme must they be technically efficient robots. Both of the basic purposes of education require the same essential tools. These are basic literacy, basic numaracy, the understanding of how to live and work together, respect for others, respect for the individual. This means requiring certain basic knowledge, and skills and reasoning ability. It means developing lively inquiring minds and an appetite for further knowledge that will last a lifetime. It means mitigating as far as possible the disadvantages that may be suffered through poor home conditions or physical or mental handicap. Are we aiming in the right direction in these matters?

I do not join those who paint a lurid picture of educational decline because I do not believe it is generally true, although there are examples which give cause for concern. I am raising a further question. It is this. In today’s world, higher standards are demanded than were required yesterday and there are simply fewer jobs for those without skill. Therefore we demand more from our schools than did our grandparents.

There has been a massive injection of resources into education, mainly to meet increased numbers and partly to raise standards. But in present circumstances there can be little expectation of further increased resources being made available, at any rate for the time being. I fear that those whose only answer to these problems is to call for more money will be disappointed. But that surely cannot be the end of the matter. There is a challenge to us all in these days and a challenge in education is to examine its priorities and to secure as high efficiency as possible by the skilful use of existing resources.

Let me repeat some of the fields that need study because they cause concern. There are the methods and aims of informal instruction, the strong case for the so-called ‘core curriculum’ of basic knowledge; next, what is the proper way of monitoring the use of resources in order to maintain a proper national standard of performance; then there is the role of the inspectorate in relation to national standards; and there is the need to improve relations between industry and education.

Another problem is the examination system – a contentious issue. The Schools Council have reached conclusions about its future after a great deal of thought, but it would not be right to introduce such an important change until there has been further public discussion. Maybe they haven’t got it right yet. The new secretary of state, Shirley Williams, intends to look at the examinations system again, especially in relation to less-academic students staying at school beyond the age of 16. A number of these issues were taken up by Fred Mulley and will now be followed up by Shirley Williams.

We are expecting the Taylor Committee Report shortly on the government and management of schools in England and Wales that could bring together local authority, parents and pupils, teachers and industry more closely. The secretary of state is now following up how to attract talented young people into engineering and science subjects; whether there are more efficient ways of using the resources we have for the benefit of young people between the ages of 16 and 19 and whether retraining can help make a bridge between teacher training and unemployment, especially to help in the subjects where there is a shortage.

I have outlined concerns and asked questions about them today. The debate that I was seeking has got off to a flying start even before I was able to say anything. Now I ask all those who are concerned to respond positively and not defensively. It will be an advantage to the teaching profession to have a wide public understanding and support for what they are doing. And there is room for greater understanding among those not directly concerned of the nature of the job that is being done already.

The traditional concern of the whole Labour movement is for the education of our children and young people on whom the future of the country must depend. At Ruskin it is appropriate that I should be proud to reaffirm that concern. It would be a betrayal of that concern if I did not draw problems to your attention and put to you specifically some of the challenges which we have to face and some of the responses that will be needed from our educational system. I am as confident that we shall do so as I am sure that the new building which will rise here will house and protect the ideals and vision of the founders of Ruskin College so that your future will be as distinguished as your past and your present.

Below is the text of the speech made by James Callaghan in the House of Commons on 20th August 1945, his maiden speech in Parliament.

Rising for the first time, I seek the indulgence which the House always extends to those who address it. However, I must say that listening during the last few days it seemed to me that a new tradition is growing up; you get up and ask for indulgence, and then proceed to lay about you with all you have got, tormenting everybody on the other side, and hoping to get away with it. I hope I shall not trespass too deeply on the indulgence of Members on the other side of the House, but I do want to ask hon. Members to lift their eyes for a few moments from the European scene to what is happening in Asia at the present time.

I was very glad indeed to hear what the Foreign Secretary had to say about the prodigious American contribution to victory in the Pacific war. Those of us who have had the opportunity of seeing a little of that contribution are left in amazement at the breadth of conception and the speed of execution with which the Americans have carried out their attack across thousands of miles of ocean. I believe it to be almost unparalleled in its field, but at the same time I would like to say that I think this House and this country also owe a debt to those dogged Australians who slogged their way across New Guinea.

However, this very successful strategy of the Americans, which has taken Japan by the throat at the earliest opportunity, has left problems behind it. The first problem is this, that because they have been willing to leap across hundreds of miles of ocean, cutting the communications of the Japanese, they have left behind them large forces of well-equipped troops, well-housed, well-dug-in, well trained and not a bit feeling like surrender. We are going to face the spectacle of tens of thousands of troops at present in Truk, in Rabaul, in Indo-China, in Malaya, throughout the Netherlands East Indies, returning to Japan undefeated and that, in my judgment, is a most dangerous event. I do not suggest for one moment that we should prosecute the war on those islands to kill them—we value the lives of our own men too much—but I do say that the course which events are taking in Japan at the present time is liable to reinforce the militaristic myth which has bedevilled that country far too long.

I will try to speak with a due sense of responsibility for I remember the Foreign Secretary’s words on the need for it. I can understand the policy of the Allied commanders at the present moment, which is to use the authority of the Emperor of Japan to compel the surrender of his troops, but I hope that when that surrender has been compelled, we shall have no more to do with the Emperor of Japan. He is, as a divine monarch, the embodiment of all that is opposed to a democratic State and I think this ancient and honourable House will recall that 300 years or so ago it once had occasion to deal with the divine rights of kings. Now we have the spectacle of an Emperor who puts himself on a far higher plane than did our own King Charles. We must have had enough of the Emperor. His position as a semi-divine monarch cannot be reconciled with the introduction of a democratic State in Japan and I say that we must get rid of him.

The second point I want to make is this. I do not know whether hon. Members have been following the composition of the new peace Cabinet in Japan, but I regard it as the height of insolence to the Allied commanders that some of the men now holding office in the Japanese Cabinet should be permitted to retain those offices, and I hope the Allied commanders will make away with them. May I remind the House that the present Vice-Premier of Japan, Prince Konoye, is the man who was Prime Minister of Japan when she made war on China; that he is the man who condoned the stripping of British subjects at Tientsin; that he is the man who concluded the military alliance with Italy and Germany? Is that the sort of man we are going to treat with? Do hon. Members know, too, the Character of the present Foreign Secretary of Japan, Shigemitsu? He, too, was a member of the War Cabinet in Japan who was recently operating against us, and who has exchanged the friendliest of messages with Herr Hitler, Signor Mussolini and Count Ciano in the past. We must have nothing to do with these people. They hold out no hope for the future as far as we are concerned.

I hope, if I may look across the Inland Sea to China for a moment, that at some stage before we break up, the Foreign Secretary will be able to give us some information about the present negotiations between China and Russia. I believe these discussions are fraught with in credible possibilities for peace or war in the future. If I might venture to utter a criticism of what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) said earlier in the day, it would be this: he seemed to refer to China as though it were a country like Greece or Bulgaria or Poland. Hon. Members will know as well as I do that China is no country; it is a continent, it is an empire. General Chiang Kai-shek cannot claim to speak for the whole of the peoples of China. I think I am right in saying that at one time during recent years there have been as many as four Governments in China; certainly at the moment there are two who can lay claim to the allegiance of considerable numbers of the Chinese people. I think we should be very hesitant in coming down on one side without having regard to the vast territories which are administered by another section of the Chinese people, which are administered well, and as far as one can make out, have some contribution to make to the future of the world.

One final word. I think that now the rising tide of Japanese aggression has passed its summit and the waters are beginning to recede, we shall find that the configuration of the landscape has changed. Throughout the whole of Asia there are new problems and new landmarks arising. A fierce resurgent nationalism is to be detected throughout the whole of the Netherlands East Indies, throughout Indo-China and Malaya, certainly in Burma, which will give headaches to the Empires of Britain and of the Dutch and to France. I believe the Foreign Secretary will have to find new men and new methods if we are to deal successfully with the problems which will confront Great Britain in its relations with its Dominions and its Colonies in South-East Asia.