UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Theresa May – 2019 Speech at Eid al-Fitr

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, on 4 June 2019.

    I want to send my very best wishes to Muslims at home and around the world celebrating the festival of Eid al-Fitr.

    For more than three million British Muslims, the joyous occasion of Eid, spent with family and loved ones, marks the end of the holy month of Ramadan.

    Over the last month, many British Muslims have shared the holy practices of Ramadan with neighbours of all faiths and none – from doing charity work in the local community to preparing meals for the elderly or coming together to break the fast at the end of the day.

    During Ramadan, as at many other times of the year, I see the very best of the values which unite us all: of tolerance, of respect, and of selflessness.

    Sadly, there are those who only seek to sow division and to spread fear and hatred in our communities. This year we have seen despicable acts of terrorism targeted against Muslims both abroad and on UK soil, on innocent people attending their place of worship or going about their daily lives.

    There can be no place in our societies for the vile ideology that incites hatred and fear, and I stand with Muslims here in the UK and around the world against those who seek to destroy our values.

    So as we come together in celebration this Eid – to share meals and gifts with families, friends and colleagues – let us remain steadfast in the values we share.

    A happy and peaceful celebration to you all.

    Eid Mubarak.

  • Jeremy Hunt – 2019 Statement on 30th Anniversary of Tiananmen Square

    Below is the statement made by Jeremy Hunt, the Foreign Secretary, on 4 June 2019.

    Today we mark 30 years since the tragic events of 4 June 1989, remembering those who lost their lives protesting peacefully in and around Tiananmen Square.

    Over the past 30 years, China has ratified a number of UN instruments relating to human rights. However, people in China are still unable to exercise their right to protest peacefully in China.

    We continue to urge the Chinese Government to respect citizens’ freedom of association, assembly, expression and other fundamental rights and freedoms, as enshrined in China’s constitution and in international law.

  • Philip Hammond – 2019 Speech at the Resolution Foundation

    Below is the text of the speech made by Philip Hammond, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at the Resolution Foundation on 30 May 2019.

    Thank you Torsten, it’s a great pleasure to be here with you this morning and I welcome your latest report as a valuable contribution to this debate.

    Ten years ago, the world was in the throes of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

    The banking system was broken.

    The economy was in recession.

    People were at risk of losing their jobs and their savings.

    Thanks to our economic plan, and the hard work of the British people, we have turned a corner in our long recovery from that period.

    The economy has grown now for nine straight years.

    The deficit last year was just 1.1% of GDP and our national debt is falling sustainably for the first time in a generation…

    …meaning that, going forward as a nation, we once again have genuine choices.

    And we have, of course, got a remarkable story to tell on jobs – with the employment rate at a record high and unemployment at its lowest point since 1975.

    I am proud of that record – but the job is not yet done.

    We are still dealing with the deepest scars of the recession – in the form of weakened productivity growth, and, especially, low wage growth, which remains below pre-recession levels, despite recent improvements.

    We have, of course, already acted to address the challenge of low wage growth for those on the lowest pay.

    The introduction of the National Living Wage in 2016 gave Britain’s low paid the biggest pay rise in 20 years.

    When we increased the rate again in April, 1.8 million workers were better off.

    The pay of a full-timer on national living wage has risen by £2750 a year since 2016

    And the percentage of jobs defined as low paid, as today’s Resolution Foundation report shows, is at its lowest level since 1980.

    But with around 18% of the workforce still working in low paid jobs, there is more to do.

    Despite the recent good news on wage growth, a decade of low rates of pay increase has slowed the rate of growth in living standards.

    And it has also played into a deeper sense of anxiety about our economic system, about our society and our politics.

    An anxiety which has been exploited by John McDonnell to propose statutory wage rises that would manifestly be unsustainable…

    …and deeply damaging to the interests of those they purport to benefit;

    A plan which is, in the words of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, “risky and dangerous”.

    The truth is that we have seen a gap open up – in Britain and in other developed countries – between the theory of how a market economy and free trade creates and distributes wealth, and the reality experienced by many ordinary people.

    We ignore that gap at our peril because if we do not address it, it will be filled with the reckless promises of the populists.

    But that doesn’t mean we should abandon our economic model.

    As so often is the case, the populists do not have the answers, but they are quick to identify the problems.

    So for those, like me, who believe passionately that harnessing the power of market economics is the only way to deliver progress…

    …it is imperative that we take decisive action to show that the regulated market model can respond to these challenges;

    …to deliver higher wages and higher living standards…

    …as well as providing solutions to the great societal challenges of our age.

    That means building the homes that the next generation needs;

    Supporting people of all ages to embrace technology change through retraining and reskilling, so that technology means higher living standards, not higher unemployment;

    It means closing the gap between our regions through sustained investment in infrastructure;

    And harnessing market-based solutions to show that de-carbonisation and rising living standards can go hand-in-hand.

    But above all, it means delivering rising living standards, through sustainable real wage growth, year after year.

    Of course, over the medium term, sustainable real wage growth is only possible through productivity growth.

    That’s why I have redirected government resources to that goal, through record levels of investment in infrastructure, a renewed focus on skills, and a relentless programme of support for innovation in the economy.

    But raising Britain’s productivity is a medium-term challenge. And there is some evidence to suggest that the continued availability of flexible, low-cost labour, may undermine the incentive for productivity-enhancing investment.

    So if we are going to meet our ambition of making the economy work for everyone, one of the best levers we have is to deliver carefully considered increases to the National Living Wage.

    In 2016, we set a target for the National Living Wage to reach 60% of median earnings by 2020 – and we will deliver on that, giving a pay rise to millions of workers.

    Now we need to decide where to go next.

    And as I said in the Spring Statement earlier this year, we want to be ambitious, with the goal of ultimately ending low pay altogether in this country.

    But we do not want to be reckless – taking excessive risks with the employment prospects of the lowest paid, or with our future economic growth.

    From my initial conversations with trade union and business leaders alike, it is clear that there is a broad support for that ambitious approach…

    …and broad support, too, for a careful implementation of it, avoiding unintended consequences.

    We are greatly helped of course in this country in navigating the path to a sustainable higher National Living Wage by the existence of the LPC, a highly respected tri-partite body embracing employers, unions and academics, able to act as an independent and impartial advisor on the rate of progress that is sustainable.

    So our task is to set the remit within which the LPC will work – and to ensure they have sufficient flexibility to allow them to deliver it sustainably.

    To help us identify how to do that, I asked Professor Arin Dube, as a recognised expert on minimum wage policy, to review the evidence, particularly evidence from international comparators. I’m delighted to welcome him to London this week – and I look forward to receiving his report in the autumn. And, indeed, to hearing from him in just a moment.

    Let me finish with one final thought.

    Whoever the next Prime Minister is, one of his or her central tasks will be to show a new, and sometimes sceptical, generation that a properly regulated market economy remains the most powerful force available to us for unlocking aspiration and raising living standards.

    And bold, decisive action on the National Living Wage, sustainably delivered, will be an important demonstration of the power of that argument…

    …and a necessary step to re-build confidence in the politics of the centre ground.

    Because that centre ground is under threat.

    On the left, the Labour Party characterises business as “the real enemy”;

    On the right, the argument for radical tax cuts, deregulation and smaller government is gaining ground – just as our population demographics are making them harder to do.

    And as we look to re-build the case for centre ground politics…

    …we should take a bold step in writing the next chapter in the story of statutory minimum wages in the UK – a story which began under the Labour Government of 1997…

    …but which took a giant step forward under the Conservative Government in 2016 –

    So that we demonstrate, once again, that the well-regulated market delivers for all our people.

    Now, I look forward to hearing the thoughts of Professor Dube and others about how we can turn that vision into a sustainable reality.

    Thank you.

  • Neil Kinnock – 1985 Speech on the Loyal Address

    Below is the text of the speech made by Neil Kinnock, the then Leader of the Opposition, in the House of Commons on 6 November 1985.

    I have long admired your perspicacity, Mr. Speaker, but never more than now.

    I warmly compliment the hon. Members for Birmingham, Hall Green (Sir R. Eyre) and for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone), who moved and seconded the Loyal Address. I do so without reservation but with the merest twinge of anxiety. On this occasion last year I offered compliments to the hon. Members who moved and seconded the Loyal Address, and appealed to the Prime Minister that the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham) be given a job. For once, the Prime Minister ​ agreed with me and the hon. Gentleman is now Under-Secretary of State for a part of the United Kingdom for which I know he has immense affection and strong commitment—Northern Ireland. I shall not be making recommendations this year—but who knows, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South might end up on some bed of thistles in the Scottish Office, and I know that he would find that very difficult.

    The hon. Member for Hall Green is well known and respected as a senior Member of this House. Indeed, he will not take it amiss if I say that he even provokes affection in this place—something that has not a little to do with his personal appearance. He is one of the cherubs of the Conservative party, along with the seraphims, the hon. Members for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee) and for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels), who I am glad to see in his place.

    One mystery has been dispelled for me this afternoon. Having discovered the connection between the hon. Member for Hall Green and J. R. Tolkien, through Camp Hill school, I now realise on whom the eminent author modelled Bilbo Baggins. That is a compliment to the hon. Gentleman, which I am sure he will accept.

    As the hon. Gentleman reminded us, he has been in this place for 20 years, and there is not the merest blot on his escutcheon, nor on any other part of his apparel or weaponry. There has been not an intemperate word, not so much as an admonition from Mr. Speaker, not a bogus point of order, and not a single rebellion to his name in all those years.

    The hon. Gentleman is a model to us all, and to some more than to others. He has a record of concern, of which we heard again this afternoon, for the inner cities. He has been a campaigner for open government and freedom of information, he is committed to the improvement and development of small businesses, and, unlike the Prime Minister, he does not wish to manifest that objective by seeing that all businesses are made small businesses.

    Here, indeed, is a paragon, a blameless man—so blameless that that can be the only reason why he is not still a member of Her Majesty’s Government. His speech delighted us. We compliment him strongly on it, and I am sure that the whole House is united in that sentiment.

    The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South, the junior member of the Loyal Address partnership today, also delighted us. After hearing of the attention that Mr. Edward Pearce—a rose by any other name—has drawn to the hon. Gentleman’s oracular opportunism, I shall continue to think of him from now on as “Ayes to the right.”

    Hon. Members may recall that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South first became a household name, not as the Member for his present constituency, but as the Conservative candidate for Glasgow, Hillhead in 1982. There he gained fame, if not exactly fortune, and, through the medium of The Times, was able to tell us and an unsuspecting public:

    “I have always wanted to be a Member of Parliament, the way that some people have always wanted to be engine drivers.”

    In view of what the Government have done to engine drivers, I can only hope that, for the sake of us all, they do not have the same intentions for Members of Parliament.

    It was a remarkable by-election, as hon. Members will recall. The hon. Gentleman was not, as we have been reminded, elected to represent Glasgow, Hillhead. That ​ seat was won by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), a Welshman, as everybody knows from his accent—[Interruption.] I do not know whether you heard, Mr. Speaker, but I heard an hon. Member comment, “Cheap.” One thing that the accent certainly is not is cheap.

    The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South, meanwhile, was obliged to find another locomotive, and off he went to his present constituency. It was unexpected—indeed, some would say that it was even gallant—that he should have gone to Aberdeen, South and climbed aboard there, the then Member having decided that there were more comfortable and possibly safer political pastures.

    The House will recall that that Member was Mr. Iain Sproat, affectionately known here sometimes as “Cutya” Sproat. He went off to seek his political fortune elsewhere—in Roxburgh and Berwickshire—and, as we know, he proved to be as good a judge of safe political pastures as he was of social security needs. He was defeated. I am informed by reliable witnesses that on the night of the general election, as Aberdeen, South’s Conservatives joined together in the New Marcliffe hotel in celebratory mood to watch the results coming in, they naturally gave particular attention to the verdict of the electors of Roxburgh and Berwickshire. When the news of Mr. Sproat’s defeat came through, the new Member for Aberdeen, South was observed in a corner to be whooping with uncontrollable grief. That is a testament, indeed, to his human nature, and we heard a testament to his considerable talent during his speech.

    We feel some rather more genuine grief when we contemplate the Queen’s Speech which the Government have offered us today. Parts of it will gain some support from the Opposition, although we shall want to scrutinise the details. The reference to Northern Ireland,

    “to improve further their co-operation with the Government of the Irish Republic”

    is to be commended, but we shall want methods and measures in Northern Ireland which will positively help people in both communities and improve the social environment and the political climate.

    The proposals to combat the awful rise in drug selling, drug taking and drug-related crimes will gain support in principle and, depending upon the precise proposals, I suspect support in practice during their progress through the House.

    We also welcome the proposals outlined to protect animals used for experiments and other scientific purposes.

    A similar welcome cannot be extended to many of the other proposals in the Queen’s Speech—proposals for further privatisation, the demolition of the wages councils and, most of all, for what the Government glibly and euphemistically describe as the reform of social security. They will receive no welcome for that from the Opposition. The Government are not interested in improving protection for the poor, the disabled and the old. They are intent upon removing that protection.

    The Government are not reforming the social security system. They are intent upon deforming it. In the course of doing that, they will cause great chaos and cost, as well as greater injustice in our society as they take a lot from the needy, to give very little to the destitute. That will be the result of their income support scheme, their social ​ fund, their cuts in housing benefit and the abolition, or at least, as we are now led to expect, their grievous bodily harm to the state earnings-related pension scheme.

    The measures that I have mentioned, and others, will meet with the strongest hostility from my right hon. and hon. Friends. Most of all, we shall be condemning the Government for their complete failure, yet again, to offer in this Queen’s Speech any policies that will help the economy and the people to get work and get on.

    On this occasion last year the Prime Minister opened her speech with the triumphant news:

    “While the right hon. Gentleman”—

    that is me—

    “was speaking, Barclays bank decided to cut by half a percentage point, from 10·5 per cent., the basic bank rate. That is a great tribute to my right hon. Friend”—

    the Chancellor of the Exchequer—

    “for the firmness with which he has controlled the money supply. The money supply figures were published at 2.30 this afternoon, and the cut in interest rates came shortly thereafter.”—[Official Report, 6 November 1984; Vol. 67, c. 21.]

    A year later, what do we find? Interest rates have, on average, been 3 per cent. higher this year than they were last, and at the moment interest rates are 1 per cent. higher than they were at this time last year. An average £21,000 mortgage now costs £40 a month more than it did at this time last year. Every business man and home buyer knows only too well what that means. Is that a testimony to the Chancellor’s firmness in controlling the money supply? Of course it is not. It is a continuing record of flop and failure, so much so that the Chancellor had to go to the Mansion House last month and announce that the money supply figures, which have defined all that is good and bad in our economy for the past six years, suddenly do not matter any more.

    There is no more talk about firmness in controlling, the money supply. No more claims will be made this afternoon that the Chancellor of the Exchequer—the Maginot of the money supply—can pull interest rates down. Graven images have gone and sacred cows are to be butchered. The sacred cows are now turning out to be old bull, as they were all the time. Everything now is ruled by interest rate rises and public expenditure cuts.

    In a country where interest rate rises cripple small, medium and large businesses, where public expenditure cuts deprive communities and people of vital services, the Government’s continuing strategy consists entirely of using higher interest rates and public spending cuts as the main weapons of economic policy. That is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Mansion House speech:

    “Should it at any time become desirable to tighten monetary conditions, that would be achieved—and let there be no doubt about this—by bringing about a rise in short-term interest rates”.

    The trouble is that hardly any of the Government’s interest rate rises, on short-term money or long-term money, ever turn out to be short term, because the ending point of the interest rate cycle is always higher than the starting point of the cycle.

    The strategy of shrinking our economy is obvious, too, in the Queen’s Speech. Stripped of virile phrases about firm policies, we are left with a vacuous combination of higher interest rates and more public spending cuts. It is a sure recipe for a further rundown of our economy. I am not alone in knowing that, and neither are the Labour party and the Trades Union Congress. The Confederation of ​ British Industry, together with many others, acknowledges the rundown—and continuing rundown—without significant changes in policy. Indeed, many Conservative Members know it. There are members of the Cabinet who realise it.

    I am not speaking only about the Secretary of State for Energy, who said at the Conservative party conference, in the understatement of the year:

    “Many now find the Government remote, perhaps uncaring, about what concerns them”.

    I am speaking much more of the Secretary of State for the Environment, who, we are repeatedly told, wants more money for housing, of the Secretary of State for Social Services, who wants more money to maintain the real value of child benefit, and of the Foreign Secretary, who wants more money to stop the lethal cuts that have been made in overseas aid to the Third world in recent years. They are the people who are looking for additional resources, and from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister, they meet resistance.
    If the Prime Minister is asked whose side she is on—on the side of her Secretaries of State or on the side of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—the reply is that she is on the side of the taxpayers. That takes some cheek when, in six years of the right hon. Lady’s Government, the tax burden has gone up from 38 per cent. to 44·5 per cent. of the gross national product—an extra £18,000 million on the tax burden. It takes some nerve, too, when the taxpayers are all to pay higher charges for water and for gas than even the boards have been asking for, and when the taxpayers, as mortgage payers and rent payers, are all paying higher charges as a consequence of the Government’s policies.

    Audacity laced with mendacity is now the right hon. Lady’s stock in trade. When the Prime Minister talks of taxpayers, she talks as if there are taxpayers who do nothing but pay, and old people, poor people, sick people, disabled people and homeless people who do nothing but make claims. There is, of course, no such division in our society. She talks as if starving people abroad want to sponge on the British taxpayers.

    The truth is that the Prime Minister is getting the British taxpayers absolutely wrong. Does she not realise that the taxpayers are also the parents who are worried about the cuts in child benefit, and worried about the rundown in schools which Her Majesty’s inspectors refer to as being inadequate, shabby, dilapidated and outdated? Does the Prime Minister not realise that the taxpayers are the same people who make up the families that are worried about the cuts in house building and the virtual abolition of house improvement grants? Does the Prime Minister not know that the taxpayers, in the most direct and practical way, have been telling the Government that they want their contributions to be used more generously to relieve suffering in the Third world? British taxpayers repeatedly demonstrate those views in every measure of opinion that is made.

    It is not only the poor who want the relief of poverty in this decent country, the homeless who want the Government to commence a new house building programme or the jobless who want the Government to combat unemployment. Those are now national demands, and are the products of care, conscience and constructive attitudes. That is not bleeding-heart do-gooding, but the ​ realistic response of millions, who know that division and decay impoverish, demean and endanger the whole of our society. Yet the Prime Minister ignores them and tells the Conservative party conference:

    “One thing we will not do. We will not reflate.”

    The conference cheered that—the turkeys cheered for Christmas.

    In reality, the Prime Minister was saying that the Government would not repair homes, hospitals, railways or roads, invest in modernising Britain’s industries, educate and train our young people, retrain our adult workers, or expand research and development to give British industry an extra cutting edge in competitiveness. Most of all, the Prime Minister was saying that the Government would do nothing to build a strong, modern manufacturing base, which will be even more vital when the oil runs out. As the Government know. British chambers of commerce, the House of Lords Select Committee on Overseas Trade, and just about everyone outside this torpid Government, incessantly say that the Government have provided no answer to the question of what happens “when the oil runs out.”

    There is another question which the Government never answer. What will they do about unemployment? There are certainly no answers to that in the Queen’s Speech. Perhaps we should follow Black Rod back up the corridor to the House of Peers and find the Secretary of State for Employment. Even on the Government’s fiddled figures, 3·3 million people are unemployed, 1·25 million have been out of work for more than a year, and 1·5 million under 25 are unemployed. When we ask where the future lies and where jobs will come from, the Secretary of State for Employment says that the real hope for the future lies in tourism. [Interruption.] Only a few weeks ago that was in the newspapers, written in his own fair hand. [Interruption.]

    If that spellbinding answer does not convince people, as it plainly does not convince Tory Members, the Secretary of State tries to take a second trick. He gets the statisticians and samplers of the Department of Employment to tell us that there is hardly any unemployment. Last week a headline in The Times read:

    “940,000 on dole are not seeking work”.

    The story that it headed began:

    “Nearly one million—about a third—of the unemployed claiming benefit are not looking for work, according to the Department of Employment.”

    Of those 940,000, 200,000 were in part-time, low-paid employment or had just commenced work, and the remaining 740,000 were described as “discouraged workers” who had given up—defeated people. Last Saturday night I met one of them after a meeting in my constituency. He came up to me and said, “Do you want to shake hands with a man in a million?” I asked what he meant, and he said, “I am one of those that the newspapers were writing about last week. I am one of the unemployed who has given up looking for work.” He went on, “I have been looking for work since the factory closed in February 1983. I have been everywhere looking for work. I would do anything to get work, but in June this year I decided that I was going to stop. I have even stopped looking at the ‘Jobs Vacant’ pages in the newspapers.”

    There are hundreds of thousands of people like that in our country. They have been on courses, they have waited in queues, they have written scores of letters, and made dozens of phone calls. Eventually the day comes when ​ they just stop looking because they do not want the rising burden of repeated failure and refusal to be added to the basic misery of being without a job, without money, without independence and—this is what is beloved of the Prime Minister—without any choices.

    Without any self-pity, the man said to me, “Fifty-four and finished.” Then he said, “I saw herself on the telly telling the Tory party conference, ‘Come to the 1990s when people can look forward to their retirement.’” He said, “She just doesn’t know anything, does she?”

    Minutes after meeting that fellow at that meeting in my constituency, I met a youngster who told me that he had stopped looking for work when the board and lodging regulations changed. [HON. MEMBERS: “Oh!”] Yes. That youngster came home to certain unemployment in an area where there is more than 20 per cent. male unemployment. Why? Because he was afraid of being stranded.

    He said, “I came home because I thought that it would be better to be unemployed at home than without a roof over my head. Of course, if they ask me, I shall say that I am looking for work, just like I am panning for gold and prospecting for oil as well.” He reminded me of a friend of my father’s, Mog Miles. Fifty years ago, when he went before the commissioners and was asked whether he was seeking work, he said, “Seeking work? See this whippet by the side of me? It was a racehorse when I started.” The one thing that can save people from total despair is such an attitude.

    Another man who was looking for work said to me, “Of course I want work. Of course I need work, and I am prepared to go anywhere, if only there is some work.” There is no work to be had. This is the insecure society. This is the climate of caution and fear, of anxiety and aggression. Misery can produce tenacity, neighbourliness and humour, but it also spawns great evils, illness, despair and desperation. In some cases it pushes people into resigned aimlessness, and in others it pushes people into dumb resentment. In a few cases misery brings hatred, and that hatred generates its own greed and brutality. I am not saying, nor would I ever say, that unemployment, poverty or hopelessness is the sole cause of crime in our country, still less would I say that those things are excuses for crime. There can be no excuse for the pain, terror and loss that are inflicted increasingly on victims, whoever they are and wherever they live.

    This question is asked repeatedly of every Member of the House. I am simply asking, can any rational person believe that a 40 per cent. rise in crime in six years at the same time as the obvious increase in hopelessness brought about by unemployment, deprivation, division and decay, is an accident? Is that a pure coincidence? I do not think that it is an accident. There have always been crimes for gain. Now we have crime for kicks. There has always been crime as an occupation. Now, in our times, we have crime as a brutal, vicious entertainment. That has been the awful change in our times.

    The roots of crime have always been in malice and in greed, but a 40 per cent. increase in six years, especially in crimes of robbery and brutality, cannot be explained as a sudden surge of evil and depravity in our generation. It cannot be explained on such irrational grounds.

    We want drug sellers to feel the full rigour and the heaviest penalties of the law. We want the law to embrace solvents, gases and all the other awful substances that are used. We want an orderly society, a just society and a secure society. That is fundamental to freedom. The ​ brutishness of crime makes us, like all other decent citizens, angry and vengeful. But anger is not enough. We need action. We need action to help the police to prevent and detect crime. We need action to make their task much easier in many ways. [Interruption.] Conservative Members can help in that, too. We want action to assist the police in catching and punishing criminals.

    The orderly society, however, cannot and will not be gained merely by policing the problems or punishing the results of crime. The police know that. A fairly senior young officer recently said—[Interruption.] The whole country will note the amusement with which the Conservatives treat the dreadful problem of rising crime in their period of office. They should have the sense to listen to what the police say. That officer pointed out to me that society could not put all its problems in a dustbin and then ask the police to try to keep the lid on. He was absolutely right. We cannot treat the people or the problems with simplistic answers. We cannot go on making an ever bigger dustbin of decay and unemployment and asking the police to clean it up or to contain it. That is neither reasonable nor realistic. It simply ensures more crime, more criminals, more cruelty and more young people completely alienated and estranged from what the vast majority of our fellow citizens, including the great majority of young people, understand to be tolerable conduct in society.

    Clearly, dealing with that problem is not just a matter for the Government. It is also a matter for teachers, for parents and for every responsible citizen in society, but the problem cannot be dealt with unless the Government try to meet it with methods that get at the roots of behaviour, rather than just trying to deal with the results. That is the Government’s duty. A Government who destroy jobs, divide people and deny them homes and hope are not doing their duty by the people of this country. In trying to evade the truth that crime is logically, inevitably, historically and obviously rooted in part in social and economic conditions, the Government are deserting their duty.

    It is obvious that the Government wish to dodge the obligations which stem from that truth about the roots of much, though not all, of the crime in our society, but that attempt to dodge will not work. The Government will not be acquitted of the guilt for deliberately worsening economic and social conditions in this country and for dividing and depressing both the economy and society. The Government cannot acquit themselves, and they will not be acquitted by the British people, who, when they get the chance, will throw this Government out.

  • Gerald Malone – 1985 Speech on the Loyal Address

    Below is the text of the speech made by Gerald Malone, the then Conservative MP for Aberdeen South, in the House of Commons on 6 November 1985.

    I suppose that the first thought that always occurs to those of us who are given this task and honour is why the eyes of the Patronage Secretary should have turned on us.

    As I contemplated that thought over the past few days, I concluded that the Patronage Secretary’s decision must have had something to do with his reading matter during the recess. I believe that I was mentioned in only one book that was published during the recess, and I thought that my right hon. Friend might have read the flattering reference to me in that book.

    I refer hon. Members on both sides of the House to the publication “Humming Birds and Hyenas”. Of course, I maintain that the humming birds are on the Government side, and I shall say nothing about the hyenas. I was sure that the Patronage Secretary had read the reference to me, which started, rather flatteringly:

    “No one should doubt Malone’s profound commitment to getting on.”
    So far, so good. It went on, rather strangely:

    “Malone, though, is ill-served by his physical appearance”—

    [Laughter.] I am glad that the House contradicts that view— ​

    “He has very small eyes that, as they constantly swivel for a better view of the main chance, seem to be operating independently of one another.”

    It is one thing to be thought of as having an independent mind; it is quite another to have the fact testified to by one’s eyeballs. The reference continued:

    “He is also a hard, combative, aggressive man, temperamentally not equipped for the graceful side of politics.”

    No wonder the Patronage Secretary chose me for this great honour.
    However, the quality of the judgment of the author, who seems to be called Edward Pearce—obviously a nom de plume which must have caused great irritation to the sketch writer of the Daily Telegraph—can be assessed by the fact that, after saying all that, he concluded:

    “And I like him.”

    I am deeply grateful for this honour, which I consider to be an honour not only for me, but for my constituency and for the city of Aberdeen, which is also represented by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), whom I congratulate on his success in achieving shadow Cabinet office. I do not intend to say more about that because I do not want to prejudice his chances on Thursday, when I understand that something else might or might not happen to him.

    The hon. Gentleman and I are both proud to represent Aberdeen, It is a city of great contrasts. It is a city which has constantly played a part in Scotland’s affairs, no more so than now, when it is actively involved in the oil industry. Oil is not all that Aberdeen has to offer. Unlike the constituency represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Sir R. Eyre), my constituency, although residential in part, is active industrially. It has a fishing industry, a fish processing industry and a shipbuilding industry, over which I regret there is some uncertainty, which I hope will be resolved. Aberdeen has a proud shipbuilding history.

    A mark of the character of the people of Aberdeen is that the city has always met new industrial challenges. North sea oil was a great challenge, to which the city adapted. The city has changed with that challenge. For that reason, I am fortunate to represent an urban constituency where the unemployment rate is only 6 per cent. This is due mainly to the character of the people of Aberdeen.

    Aberdeen has more than that. The House will know that it has a football club which has known some success, and I trust that it will continue to be successful in the coming season. The club is known for its success on the field, and the quality of its supporters is recognised throughout Europe. Aberdeen’s supporters are an example to football club supporters throughout the United Kingdom. Other clubs should try to achieve a similar standard of behaviour.

    I am pleased that the Gracious Speech refers to Scotland and particularly to public sector housing in Scotland. In my constituency, selling council houses has been successful, but only up to a point. I am pleased that the policy is now to be taken further. Expenditure on public sector housing in Scotland was successful in the 1930s, but not in the post-war period. It is significant that we have to knock down and rebuild council housing stock built in the 1950s and 1960s, whereas stock built in the 1930s is sought after avidly by council house tenants. Hon. Members on both sides of the House can learn a lesson from that—that the way in which we plan and run council housing stock is unacceptable.

    We have taken some steps forward in selling off council housing stock to the private sector, but we must now go ​ further. It is up to the Government to adopt a more radical attitude to public sector housing. Selling it to the private sector is not the whole answer. There are many other options, such as housing co-operatives and other forms of co-ownership. It is crucial that we remove public sector housing stock from politicians’ control. That should be our ultimate priority. I hope that the Gracious Speech will take us one step further in that direction.

    The Gracious Speech will be judged by people outside the House on whether the Government continue with their policy to reform our industrial base. I believe that they are doing that, not by measures of the type that would be adopted by the Opposition, which would take us back to the evil days of the past, but by facing the challenges of the future.

    Many have said that Governments half way through their second term begin to lose spirit and their radical edge. I am pleased to be able to say today that the Gracious Speech does not reveal that fault. This Government were elected to have a radical edge and to continue to try to bring about change in our society, and especially in our industry to make it competitive so that it will stand head and shoulders above our competitors in Europe and the world.

    I regret having to say that in the days to come, when we debate the Gracious Speech, we shall probably hear the prescriptions of yesterday from Her Majesty’s Opposition. We shall hear tales of more state controls, when we have pushed back the boundaries of such controls, tales of the undoing of the reforms of the trade unions which we have undertaken and which have been so successful, and a programme, in contrast with that put forward in the Gracious Speech, which would, quite simply, turn back the clock in Britain and stop our progress toward a more prosperous future.

    I am pleased to note from the Gracious Speech that the Government will continue their efforts to reform our industry. I can take that back to the people of my constituency, who have taken on that challenge. It is my wish that the spirit be translated throughout the United Kingdom, so that the understanding that prosperity can be based only on industries that are truly competitive will at least be realised.

    I believe that that is the message of the Gracious Speech. It is a message for the future.

  • Reginald Eyre – 1985 Speech on the Loyal Address

    Below is the text of the speech made by Reginald Eyre, the then Conservative MP for Birmingham Hall Green, in the House of Commons on 6 November 1985.

    Throughout my time as a Member of this honourable House—about 20 years—I have often felt that I have received in all quarters more kindnesses and consideration than anything I have deserved. The privilege that I have in moving the motion strengthens that feeling, and I am very conscious of the honour that is accorded to me, which my constituency and city share.

    My constituency consists mainly of pleasant residential areas, including large housing estates, on the southern side of Birmingham. There are only small areas of industrial activity in Hall Green, where the successful production and export of wirework goods, handbag frames and specialised marble cladding are carried on. The great majority of my constituents follow their careers in the commercial, industrial, education and administrative areas of Birmingham.
    The schools of the King Edward foundation continue to temper strenuous sons and daughters from all kinds of Birmingham homes. Camp Hill, my own school, stands at the edge of the constituency.

    Hall Green claims two famous sons who, in their different ways, have contributed to the cultural life of Britain. One is J. R. R. Tolkien, author of “Lord of the Rings” and other books of huge appeal. The other is Tony Hancock who appeared to have emigrated to the southeast, where he took up residence at 23 Railway cuttings, East Cheam, but I always thought that his humour continued to have a strong Brummagem flavour, as was exemplified in the “Blood Donor”, when he said, “It’s only a drop of blood to you, but it’s life or death to me.”

    I referred to the large council housing estates in my constituency. They include tower blocks. Despite repeated efforts to improve administration on council housing estates, complaints from tenants about inefficiencies in repairs and transfers of tenancies continued unabated. I hope that the proposals for change in the Gracious Speech will lead to the development of more humane and efficient services to the great benefit of council tenants in my constituency, in Birmingham and throughout the country. The measures to encourage the purchase of flats by tenants will also be welcomed.

    History has decreed that we have a very diverse and varied society in Birmingham. As a native, every day I see examples of kindness, tolerance and understanding. How else could we put up with each other? People from all groups in the city play active parts in community affairs and become local government and parliamentary candidates. Membership of the city council includes councillors from the ethnic minorities representing six wards in the city, including Handsworth. At the same time, it is fair to emphasise that there is on all sides a strong desire for improving standards. The urban aid programme is much welcomed. Since the Birmingham inner city partnership began in 1978, the Government have provided £125 million in special funds for improvement in the inner areas, including substantial housing renewal projects.

    Throughout the city there is clear evidence of the wish for a wider spread of personal independence by way of home and small business ownership. This is accompanied by a powerfully developing desire for an orderly and law-abiding society in which people can live their lives in peace—doing their jobs, developing their businesses and looking after their families in a stable and civilised atmosphere, safe in their streets and homes. That is why the deplorable events at Handsworth came as a great shock, and it is right to make it clear that the overwhelming mass of Birmingham people of all origins—Afro-Caribbean, Asian, other varied groups and the large indigenous population—shared a sense of revulsion against the criminality which was seen as a threat to their security. We want to put those events behind us as soon as possible and to move on to better things. It is essential now that people throughout the city are involved in co-operation with the police in a firm resolve to protect their own law-abiding society. I believe that the measures referred to in the Gracious Speech relating to public order will provide a strengthened framework for this vital purpose.

    Perhaps surprisingly for a great inland city, Birmingham has been and still is one of the best recruiting centres for my former service, the Royal Navy. There are so many Navy and former Navy men in the city that, if Drake’s drum were to be hung anywhere, there is a strong case for suspending it over spaghetti junction.

    It has to be admitted that Birmingham’s economy, which is so dependent on manufacturing and on metal bashing industries, was in increasing difficulty during the 1970s as the competitive thrust of world trade sharpened. The world recession of 1980–81 intensified those problems in all industrial centres and struck harshly at Birmingham and the west midlands conurbation. Our great concern about unemployment includes the apprehension that essential modernisation and the adoption of advanced technology in industry can reduce the demand for manpower at a time when the work force is growing.

    There is a great realism in Birmingham industry, which knows that we must match world competition in design, quality and cost of production to safeguard existing jobs and to create new ones. Great efforts are being made to meet this challenge and to diversify the local economy, to strengthen existing companies and to encourage the formation of more small businesses and of new service industries so that they all, in their various ways, make the best possible contribution to job creation.

    We should acknowledge that progress has been made. The motor industry, which is so important to us—and especially British Leyland which has had substantial Government support—is leaner and fitter, producing an attractive range of new models. The components manufacturers—GKN, Lucas, Wilmott Breeden—and large numbers of smaller suppliers are fighting hard and well to beat strong international competition. Everyone wishing to support the cause of job creation must remember the importance of buying British. The reference in the Gracious Speech to Spain’s entry into full membership of the European Community will be welcomed in Birmingham. As a result, one source of unfair competition for our motor industry will be brought under control.

    With regard to engineering and manufacturing more generally in the second city, the abolition of the damaging industrial development certificates and the changes in regional policy of 1983 have reduced the severe disadvantages from which Birmingham and the west midlands have suffered for many years. Now grants are available from the Government and the European regional development fund to assist large and small companies to modernise, diversify and to get started.

    Under the new regional policy, 156 grants in the west midlands have so far been offered—a total of £17·5 million of approved grants. Most important, with the addition of private money, the total investment associated with the approved projects amounts to £155·7 million, with 11,617 jobs to be created or safeguarded as a result. Another 147 applications are under appraisal. The renewed jewellery and gunsmiths quarter, housing several thousand jobs as highly-skilled operations, was achieved by grants of £1·7 million, attracting over £5 million of private sector investment.

    Both Birmingham and Aston universities are contributing high scientific and technological skills to new industrial projects in the city. Remembering its tradition as the city of a thousand trades, Birmingham is encouraging new entrepreneurs. The capacity of Birmingham’s small manufacturers should never be underrated. In Tudor times they flooded the entire kingdom with counterfeit coins.

    There is a proposition that I should like the Government to consider. The Home Secretary has stated that he wishes to examine ways of bringing together the means and funds available to assist inner areas and to ensure their best and most effective employment. I agree with him in this approach. I ask my right hon. Friend and also my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to consider in this connection one vital basic aspect—the availability of land. There are considerable areas of derelict land in inner Birmingham, as in other cities. Much of it is in public ownership and it is valued at unrealistically high figures.

    I look with some envy at the successful policy pursued by the Government in the redevelopment of London’s docklands. Could not some agency be set up to put more drive into the process of bringing this land into practical use? I should like to see an agency assembling parcels of land for development and thus attracting more private funds for investment, making sites available for small industrial and business premises, as demand grows, and also making sites available for small homes for sale and for housing associations to provide more sheltered accommodation for the elderly.

    The simplified planning zones proposal and the modernised and liberalised law for building societies, referred to in the Gracious Speech, give us new hope for progress in this way. The positive use of inner area wastelands would help to ease the pressure for green belt development and would add to all the efforts to stimulate activity in the inner areas.

    Let me describe briefly the other factors and projects, some of them very large indeed, which will help to build up the new Birmingham. The National Exhibition Centre is a product of civic and Birmingham chamber of industry and commerce initiative. It is huge, popular and expanding, attracting thousands of overseas visitors to trade exhibitions, conferences and sporting events of international standard, providing demand for hotels, entertainment and related service industries. It is upon that unrivalled centre that Birmingham’s bid for the Olympic games is based. The city will combine with nearby Stoneleigh park to provide supremely attractive facilities.

    An added attraction of the city will be the annual Birmingham road race, making use of our unique road formations near the city centre and featuring marching bands and other entertainments for families, making it a festive occasion in the city at the heart of the motor industry. We intend to add the jewel in the crown with the new Birmingham convention centre to foster business tourism. We appreciate Government support for our application for European Community funds.

    We shall extend cultural facilities in the city by providing a home for the superb city of Birmingham symphony orchestra under its outstanding conductor Simon Rattle. That will supplement the attraction of a lively theatre world and the renowned Birmingham art gallery. All this will enhance Birmingham’s position at the centre of one of the country’s premier tourist areas, which includes Warwick, Stratford-on-Avon and the Cotswolds.

    Britain’s major concentration of manufacturing and commercial activity is in Birmingham. We are proud of that, and we have in the city the energy and will to go forward.

  • Queen Elizabeth II – 1985 Queen’s Speech

    Below is the text of the speech made by Queen Elizabeth II in the House of Lords on 30 October 1985.

    The Duke of Edinburgh and I were pleased to receive the State Visits of the Life President of Malawi in April and the President of Mexico and Senora de la Madrid in June. We were saddened by the devastation caused by the earthquake in Mexico in September, for which my Government provided prompt assistance.

    We recall with much satisfaction the State Visit to Portugal in March. I have also visited Belize, and was in the Bahamas for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. Our tour of Commonwealth countries in the Eastern Caribbean is still in progress.

    My Government welcomed the decision of the Maldives and of St. Vincent and the Grenadines to become full members of the Commonwealth.

    My Government have maintained Britain’s contribution to Western defence, and enhanced the United Kingdom’s own defences through improvements in equipment and in the regular and reserve forces. They have played a full part in the Atlantic Alliance, and promoted British and Western defence interests outside the NATO area.

    My Government have continued to work vigorously for agreements on verifiable arms control and disarmament, and to seek improved relations with the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. They warmly welcomed the opening of talks in Geneva between the United States and the Soviet Union and fully support the United States’ efforts to reach concrete agreements.

    My Government have signed the Treaty on the Accession of Spain and Portugal to the European Communities, and have signed and ratified the third Convention of Lomé. An Act has been passed implementing the Fontainebleau Agreement on the future financing of the European Communities, including the correction of the British budgetary contribution.

    My Government share the widespread public concern for the victims of the famine in Africa. They have continued to provide substantial emergency assistance both directly and through the European Community.

    My Government have continued fully to honour their undertakings to the people of the Falkland Islands, while taking positive steps to seek more normal relations with Argentina. The Sino-British Joint Declaration on Hong Kong was signed last December and an Act consequent upon its terms was passed. My Government have reached agreement with Spain on the implementation of the Lisbon statement concerning Gibraltar.

    ​My Government have supported efforts to restore the independence and non-aligned status of Afghanistan. They have urged peaceful change in South Africa and the early independence of Namibia.

    My Government welcomed to the United Kingdom in June the Premier of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China. The great importance my Government attach to their relations with the Countries of South East and South Asia was marked by the Prime Minister’s visit there in April and by the visit here this month of the Indian Prime Minister.

  • Gerald Kaufman – 1985 Speech on Immigration

    Below is the text of the speech made by Gerald Kaufman, the then Shadow Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 29 October 1985.

    I apologise for not being in my place when the Home Secretary rose to make his statement.

    The House will wish to thank in equal measure both yourself, Mr. Speaker, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), without whom the statement would not have been obtained. Even after the right hon. Gentleman’s statement, and the strange letter sent to me yesterday by the Minister of State, the reckless allegations made by the Minister of State remain unsubstantiated.

    The Home Secretary appears to be totally confused about the rules relating to visitors. He said that the Minister of State had talked about the right to enter. The Home Secretary talked about the qualification of visitors —he used the phrase “qualify as visitors”—when most would-be visitors have the automatic right to enter unless deprived of it by the Home Secretary. The huge increase in representations from hon. Members to which Ministers have drawn attention proves that the Minister of State is increasingly withdrawing the right of entry from certain categories of visitor.

    We totally reject the claim that there has been no change in the way in which the rules are being administered, and we are worried by the Home Secretary referring in his statement to changes in procedure. Will he categorically assure the House that he has no intention of imposing a visa requirement for visitors or limiting the existing rights of hon. Members?

    As for alleged “abuses,” they are not abuses at all. If an hon. Member was confined to taking up cases the full particulars of which he knew, as mentioned by the Minister of State in his letter, we should none of us be able to take up social security or income tax cases, because we take up those cases to get the facts. That is so in these cases as well. If an hon. Member—again, as requested and apparently required by the Minister of State — were ​ confined to taking up only the cases of constituents he knew personally, thousands of people in every constituency would never have any cases taken up.

    Other allegations made by the Minister relate to relationships between hon. Members. They are matters, if at all, not for the Government, not for the Home Secretary, not for the Minister of State but for you, Mr. Speaker, and the House.
    In essence, the allegations that the Government are making add up to a whine about the actions of hon. Members being an inconvenience to the Executive.

    But one of the most essential functions of an hon. Member is to be an inconvenience to the Executive. If the volume of representations is a burden to the Home Office and its Ministers, let me make it absolutely clear that the administration of the rules of entry is a burden to thousands of our constituents looking forward to visits from relatives. The Home Secretary looks upon those people as inconvenient statistics, but they are human beings with warm family feelings, and they have the same right to have visits as any other of our constituents. Our efforts to help them may be a great deal of trouble to Ministers, but we are determined to go on helping them, and that is a lesson that the Home Secretary had better learn.

    On Thursday, the Minister of State twice asserted that some hon. Members were “abusing their right.” Yesterday in the exchanges in the House he used the word “abuse” three times. In his letter to me he used the word “abuse” nine times. Today in his statement the Home Secretary did not once use the word “abuse.” Instead, he mentioned 23 hon. Members whose cases, he said, were examples of

    “the problems that we are facing.”

    We want to know clearly and without equivocation from the Home Secretary whether he alleges that hon. Members have been abusing their position. If he says that there has been abuse, we want the names. We demand the names, because hon. Members have the right to defend themselves against charges made by Ministers in this House. Either the Home Secretary provides the names or he resiles from the accusation. If he resiles from the accusation, the Minister of State should resign.

  • Douglas Hurd – 1985 Speech on Immigration

    Below is the text of the speech made by Douglas Hurd, the then Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 29 October 1985.

    Following the recent exchanges in the House, I will, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, make a statement about representations made by right hon. and hon. Members in immigration cases.

    Ministers receive large numbers of representations from Members of this House on a wide variety of individual cases. What distinguishes those made on behalf of passengers refused entry at the ports is that they have the effect of securing an immediate change in the action that would otherwise be taken by the immigration service under the relevant statutory provisions. The service is by convention, though not by law, precluded from arranging the passenger’s removal until the hon. Member’s representations have been received and considered. In the vast majority of cases, the passenger is granted temporary admission. In a small minority of cases, he may be held in detention at the port.
    Home Office Ministers received representations on immigration cases about 20 times a week in 1980. Last year, the average was some 70 a week. During the past few weeks there have been 200 representations a week. The increase since 1980 is not the result of some dramatic change in the criteria being employed by immigration officers at the ports in operating the immigration rules. Nor can it be explained by an increase in passenger traffic, which has increased by 25 per cent. while hon. Members representations have increased fivefold taking the year as a whole. What is happening is that hon. Members are being approached and asked to put stops on cases more often than in the past, and hon. Members are agreeing to ask for stops on cases more often than in the past.

    That increase has created real administrative problems for the staff at the ports. People are being temporarily admitted who do not qualify as visitors under the rules, and who often spend a considerable time here. The diversion of staff to deal with increasing representations and the case work involved has meant that visitors who are fully qualified find themselves held up and inconvenienced at Heathrow.

    Against that background, I believe that it was entirely right for my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State to bring the position to the notice of the House. I wish to make it clear that my hon. and learned Friend was not at any time sugesting that the law had been broken. In his letter yesterday to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), he described the ways in which the present arrangements are being misused.

    It was argued yesterday that my hon. and learned Friend should have given specific examples to the House of the action taken by particular hon. Members. As he explained, he could not have done that without revealing the terms of the letters that they had written to or about individual immigrants and, in two cases, letters written by them to third parties. He is writing today to 23 hon. Members, whose cases are examples of the various problems that we are facing, seeking their permission to make such correspondence public.

    There are obvious difficulties, for example when hon. Members make representations on behalf of sponsors of whom they have made no inquiries, and when they arrange for a stop to be placed on a passenger’s removal but fail ​ to follow up the initial telephone call with a confirmatory letter. There is also concern that some hon. Members are willing to take up cases from outside their constituencies, which the constituency Member has chosen not to pursue. Here again, some restatement of the agreed conventions of the House is needed.

    Finally, there are one or two cases in which it seems to us that an hon. Member is deliberately facilitating the attempt to secure the temporary admission of a passenger whom he has every reason to believe would not qualify for entry under the rules approved by this House. I am not suggesting that, even where that happens, hon. Members have acted unlawfully; they have not. But if their actions were to be more widely copied, the result could only be the weakening of our system of immigration control, based at the ports of entry. I believe that our present system suits both our geography and our constitution and that we need collectively to consider how it can best continue to operate.

    I ask the House to accept that we wish to make a genuine attempt to strike the right balance between the representations of hon. Members and the need for an effective and efficient control without the strains at present imposed on it. We are anxious to discuss these difficulties urgently with those in this House who are mainly concerned, in the hope of working out a sensible answer. In any case, there will not be any changes in our procedures before I have reported to the House.

  • Tim Rathbone – 1985 Speech on South Africa

    Below is the text of the speech made by Tim Rathbone, the then Conservative MP for Lewes, in the House of Commons on 23 October 1985.

    I am delighted to return to the subject of British policy towards the problems in South Africa, even after our debate earlier today.

    I have just returned from a trip to South Africa with five colleagues and I am extremely grateful to the South African Government for making it possible for us to go to their country, to learn more about it and to understand it better. Indeed, I am doubly grateful because I feel somewhat better informed than were some of the hon. Members who spoke in our earlier debate.

    I am also grateful for the presence of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who answered today’s debate and who seems to have been almost continually on the Government Front Bench since we returned from the summer recess.

    I am flattered that the Opposition followed my lead in choosing today to debate the problems in South Africa, but I hope that this debate will be more positive than their efforts today and I shall try to leave politicking aside and to think more positively.

    Three things struck me on my visit and I think that they must strike anyone going to South Africa for the first time. They are important in understanding the problem and making comments about it. The first is the visible prosperity, both actual and relative, in South Africa. It is apparent in well-developed natural resources, in industry, commerce and agriculture, in better housing than in most parts of Africa. even, yes, in the townships which should never have been created in the first place, in investment in education, even though there is a terrible imbalance between white education and black education, and in strikingly beautiful countryside and seaside, which are tragically and stupidly unequally shared between white South Africans and others. There is much worth preserving and much to build on for the benefit of all South Africans in the future and it would be ludicrous for anyone to advocate putting at risk that better future for blacks, coloured and Indians, as well as for whites.
    The second striking reality of South Africa is that sources of wealth and well-being are horrifyingly unequal because of the continued evil of the detestable apartheid system. That was mentioned by many hon. Members, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) in today’s debate.
    There are insulting laws of apartheid which allow the continued denial of railway facilities, of restaurant and hotel facilities and of beaches, and laws that deny black business men the right to operate their businesses in the best commercial areas, which are still reserved for whites.

    Reform of some of those laws has been promised, but it has not yet happened and all the signs are that it will not be extensive enough when it does come.
    There are more serious socially and constitutionally divisive apartheid laws of influx control, the Land Act and the Urban Areas Act which regulate the hated pass laws. These are being reviewed, but they should be scrapped.
    There are also the rules of South African citizenship, which is now being restored to homeland blacks but without any commitment to the political rights that ought to go with such citizenship. Reform of those rules has also ​ been promised, but it is slow coming and many share the fear that the Government risk taking too little action too late.

    Most tragic of all is the Group Areas Act, the cornerstone of apartheid, which forces the uprooting of hundreds of thousands of people from their homes, breaks up communities, creates racial ghettoes and prevents blacks, coloureds and Indians from buying property in the more attractive and much more convenient whit-inhabited areas. That symbol of apartheid is defended by President Botha as non-discriminatory, yet talk of a united South Africa, with one shared citizenship and universal franchise, is nonsense while the Act still applies.

    Failure to reform that Act and the Population Registration Act is bound to limit the belief that other promised changes will be the real improvements that they should be. Therefore, moderate leaders from black communities will not readily come forward to discuss and share responsibility for South Africa’s future, and that inevitably underlies the terrible and increasing violence which is the third striking reality of South Africa today.

    Black townships, arranged so arbitrarily by a uniquely white Government, are naturally a tinder-box for violent dissent when people living there are denied economic, social or political freedom. Undoubtedly, violence stems also from the abdication of responsibility by unrepresentative black local government and by other black community leaders who do too little to influence and control the very young people who assault, rob and kill fellow black citizens in the spurious name of liberation.

    There can be little doubt in the mind of anyone who has been to South Africa that black to black violence in the townships is the mark of the start of low key civil war which so far has overflowed only very little into white areas. This, perhaps, may be the best sign that the African National Congress does not truly want violence, whatever it says.

    Violence in the townships is fuelled also by something that I believe was not mentioned in the earlier debate today—by the state of emergency declared just three months ago. Although the state of emergency exists in only certain areas, emergency-style aggression is widespread, including not only indiscriminate shotgun fire, sjamboking and search and arrest but incitement to violence and the hunting and shooting of those so incited, as recent reports from Capetown showed.

    This seems to have become acceptable practice for all security forces wherever they may be operating. There are increasing numbers of allegations of serious police brutality to detainees held under emergency regulations, as most excellently and worryingly documented by Dr. Wendy Orr.

    All this creates fear, and fear is the most dangerous thing in the world because it makes people run amok. Government supporters in South Africa are running amok in pressuring their leaders, under electoral threat, to undertake too little reform far too slowly. The Government themselves are running amok — for instance, in executing Benjamin Moloise in the face of the worldwide clamour for clemency and in withdrawing passports from eight students at Stellenbosch university to prevent them from going to talk to the African National Congress. Those are opposite extremes of violence but both are illustrations of the Government running amok.

    The police are running amok in the townships and in the prisons and they are saved from accountability for their ​ actions by the state of emergency laws. Perhaps most tragic of all, people are running amok in reaction to all this and much more. The emergency powers intended to help to control violence seem in fact to be increasing the violence and it is no wonder that the people whom they are supposed to protect no longer want them. For the sake of greater peace and proper reform, the state of emergency must stop right now.

    To bring about and to hasten other necessary reforms, some countries and many people — including many Opposition Members of this House — advocate a programme of severe economic sanctions and disinvestment. But equally strong voices in South Africa—from the sensible and the liberal-minded, not just from Government supporters—oppose such sanctions. It is likely that the working black population and their dependants would be hit the hardest by such measures, and it is certain that economic sanctions and disinvestment would affect the whole of southern Africa, neighbouring states being hit at least as hard as South Africa itself. I rather doubt the efficacy of applying economic sanctions to keep up pressure on the South African Government to undertake the much-needed and long-overdue reforms that we all want.
    Having said all that, however, I believe that the threat of an ultimate economic sanction might provide helpful pressure, and that we should start planning such a sanction now — a sanction on the purchase of precious raw materials such as chrome, precious stones such as diamonds and, above all else, precious ore such as gold. Such sanctions will be difficult to plan and will take a long time to plan. For instance, they will require complicated demonetarising of gold from South Africa. Such sanctions would be seen as devastating in their effect, if ever applied. More important, they would be compelling in their influence if never applied. As a diplomatic instrument they would be useful and that is why they should be prepared. That is my first suggestion to the Government.

    In the meantime, economic and political signals, like those coming from the Commonwealth conference, have to continue. Economics and politics can no longer be divorced in today’s terms, if indeed they ever could or should be.

    Apartheid and the low wages which accompany it have been a brake on growth, not a fuel for it. Continued pressure and influence must be kept up on business and by business in South Africa to use economic muscle and political might to provide the essential thrust needed to bring about fundamental change in the economic and socio-political structure of South Africa.
    Have businesses and businessmen, even the very best, done enough to eliminate the sociological horror of male hostels, to appreciate and eliminate the fact that a quarter of all black wives in South Africa are separated from their husbands for a large part of every working year? Have they done enough to get rid of the too-long accepted privileges of the racial group which controls high-level skills and the best jobs which go with them?

    There is a need to explore ways in which black management can be trained to take increasing responsibility in large corporations and in their own businesses. Our Government could have a role in that by encouraging cooperative activities between British business schools and the Government’s own excellent Civil Service training ​ facilities and business schools in South Africa. Government influence could also encourage the CBI, the BIM, British chambers of commerce and junior chambers of commerce, which are growing in South Africa, particularly among black South Africans, to build more positive links with counterparts in South Africa in the black community. That is my second suggestion to the Government.

    In terms of a direct Government role, I urge Ministers and diplomats to become actively involved in the efforts which many people are already making to get wide-ranging talks on constitutional reform properly started in South Africa. To be of the greatest help to leaders in South Africa, it is essential for the Government to encourage further talks here with South Africa leaders, whether they be elected representatives or individuals representing a significant body of thought. Such talks, in London or South Africa or elsewhere, cannot have pre-conditions attached, not even the precondition of denying violence that the South African Government demand or, as the Foreign Secretary said this afternoon, that our own Government seem to deem necessary. If the British Government can give a lead in denying preconditions, the South African Government may be encouraged to follow.

    It is not the ANC which has to give peace a chance, as the Foreign Secretary suggested this afternoon: it is ourselves and the South African Government. Only a little magnanimity is required to drop the present requirement for a specific denial of violence before releasing Nelson Mandela and starting talks with him, or before starting talks with the African National Congress. The South African Government have the strength to do that if only they had the determination. They must show that determination, but we can show them the way.

    For our part, we can provide, directly through our own Government representation and through a group of international wise men as suggested by Mr. Hawke of Australia, and indirectly through informal channels, advice to South African political leaders of all parties, but most particularly, of course, to the Government leaders in the National party, on how political strategies can best be prepared so that political and constitutional reform may be achieved with the least dissent and with the greatest consensus across party political, social, economic and tribal groupings. That is not dictation: it is advice. It is unlikely that this process will be completed in six months, which is the deadline now set by the Commonwealth conference, but a good start can quickly be made. The British contribution to policy development and to political strategy could be unique, drawing upon our long involvement in Africa and our knowledge of constitutional development in both Europe and the Commonwealth. The question can no longer be whether there should be majority rule in South Africa but what kind of majority rule is appropriate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) made clear earlier today, we have a shared responsibility because of our involvement. Shared responsibility should be the basis for encouraging shared enthusiasm for reform.

    There is another area in which the British Government can help directly by improving standards of education for blacks, for Indians and for coloureds in South Africa. Tragically, thousands of black students will fail their end of year examinations as a vicious, turbulent school year finishes within the next two months. Thousands more will ​ not be able to take their examinations because of the violence. For many the educational system has entirely broken down.

    The core of the problem is a highly segregated educational system and widely differing standards for whites and other races. For instance, there are five times as many black pupils as whites, but the educational budget for whites has been nearly twice that for blacks. Fewer than a quarter of black teachers have a matriculation qualification, which is approximately equal to GCE. Of every 100 black children who started their 12 years of schooling in 1973, only 10 will sit their matriculation examinations this year. Each year the system is producing a new cadre of dropouts to feed the embittered and violent throng of school leavers who believe that liberation is more important than education. Education has passed them by and they have nothing to lose through violence.

    To help overcome this huge problem, Britain should expand vastly its educational contribution to South Africa, a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Knowles) earlier. At the moment the British Council spends £750,000 on four South African teaching posts and on a handful of young blacks to study in the United Kingdom. We should aim to have a far larger number of teachers, more scholarships to study here and a British Council presence in each township. Only by doing that and encouraging other English-speaking countries to do the same will we be doing our bit ourselves and in co-operation with educational bodies like READ and the Alpha training centre spreading the proper use and comprehension of English, which interestingly is becoming a common tongue for all races in South Africa.

    In South Africa today every child has some schooling, however bad. A qualitative improvement in that schooling is imperative and Britain must help.
    The BBC overseas broadcasting service can help, too, both in building better English comprehension and in maintaining an even balance in broadcast news reporting. This is all the more important in South Africa where broadcasting is very much under direct Government control, although one must mention in this context that there is complete freedom of the press. The overseas service broadcasts in English to South Africa for 18 hours per day and has done so for the last five years. That is a magnificent amount of broadcasting. The Government must maintain that commitment. The BBC itself must seek new ways to promote programmes to the maximum audience.

    South Africa is a pariah state because it purports to uphold the standards of western civilisation and democracy and yet insists on ordering its affairs through laws which uphold racism and inequality rather than forbidding them. Britain with its wealth of experience must raise the belief of the South African Government, of officials and of all of the South African people in reform as the only way to get security, peace and prosperity for themselves and for everyone in the South African region. Peoples and Governments do things not because they know they can do them but because they believe that they can do them. That is what is so tragically lacking in South African Government circles. We must help.