The Speeches of John Enoch Powell

•interru tiors of production. Liere self-L3tr4,14interest 4orkin., throur

V-. en enythin:s else , then. o eo ole ill tend to 9 ct3ccordinH71; oi t1Teir oc:n Volitior. 7ot only istl7e re no. need to. boti-'er; Oct:c.eriri; by outsidersvs*ki-1-4- reoulttor Tu edole ir less/, rot rno re,coriorc.:Iic benet-ri1-i!-:) l'o doubt many firms '.oulditio*07-1,,At4.44-4-.44.-cdectdet,o emplOy s3i.ezy exobrts a "i:' 3 7.fety con sultesthey doerts :.'nd cor il_terts r rrc-.eotiTer .3 SCts of their u:^7,eCtirr*,, .."-.C; 17 -13"1 rlbe strictly on co-rLerci'l b9-sis ''.r.d tl- ere Jouldbe no cose for como-lsion orex.1-Torttion.ea,t'rose ccr-1 .44 .t5:1= ':7.o reject seoronosition29lly -5/3 t ter.d to put resourcesto t'::-]eir Liost economi9 use r h t it"rust be reol.3ced for rur000ce oy tcificdir,ctiorontrol. r'eeo C, ho ir,de te in u :Dec eu se, if their .-cound tround , to li t c ' of oroductiorin no soeclo lly to indos,ri.,l :i79,fety.'2he objct 2 lilLio, of cti.iities9.o those of this Council, I. tu enforce iTores'9.f e or is co nercic '?r,d to i. 00se on i ostry

' -CO:As Vt.) be borne evurtully bycommunity, for e specific ournose- •:,k7ich theole carrI•iunity is believed to e=....Dorove. :21-1--it isI for my pert am here tori4-it r.i7;)1-.. •sdsoect, slmost everyone is here toni.tt. I mhe•ne rot ir order to bromote tte reter efficinncyof 3ritish industry or the ircresse of ouroutobt ber fr:'.'!7-1 hour, or thir of th?,tso rt. I srr h,e.re be:ceaFe I m hart by theime7ir-,-itior of men bra ,..';or,c.e'r_ beint:LaLmed or injured, or tl-eir li;es oeir ;T:;:•ortened„by cciderts ir irdustry._Tes before youtell me, thst .3,linpe• into th_t sentenceer undefineder.d ur.7.efibles7-3rs the Ciout of cost broil] 7,..1-e economic ontimu7r ;..3.o tofr•,elOC, of comblet-, eco- t.broceso itself. . Those t-,••-o trem rjfl:3 G,C.U1/ ;era; •:)bint,••. .er.:_ issubjecti.,eIihe effect - he ,-,terded effect - of

1eirff,:i21-:-.tior. is to iff pose -7ition31 cost - ju st3c, for the.rnir--,:tion oft a i2 or of D2 1C CO0ig,bos.es 311itios,1 cost. e cost schedule Ofindustri is -1te2s, -=.11 ci nso if teJ oo to 1-.:10 os ffort o0 tedto te nrovention of cc etiiitf 3 s ethi,,E7. result, bi rer itroso:e i11 cost less T;--T,r,to estiito3tedcost of cor:.nensn-.,.tion, irsurce.Jut t'•- object of nositive lei•,:isl?.tion or.ind!..stri91 ssfet-,: is to th.e lirest? :lished bi the 1-:-.,of 11i1it , rd eli—to Jistort tl-e co .edule intlntryin the di.2..ctior. of s'..3feti. Cshould be distortedIro ci for'_.1-:ul• 3rd.-:.E.ount fro:: fiooc o2io ioijsheln us to lecide.r! z,) • t the cost, of thes?fetj frlust borr.,.e be;eribod

- 7 -kro thet there trust be ?,r eoornmic los -;171b1-,sonlehovJ, 2-toe-there, com)e 1-4=e to roost,suryon,in thP. I ef2ect 11.3ut e connot oredict Ort-ce.osa."-e thio cost ordisentn7le it from fverthin;-,-; else t.et isor t the some time; 'C ben-hot t'rerefb-re comoTrecost "tith benefit. It 17's to be motter ofcollecti,te 'd 's' e-t e c-e1 on Ierv- 2t:Yd lines.72his ic :'her. ore of te functior2 of thit, Courilco-re5,: 2he jul:7ement 7ventu1 7,7j , cr Tilisec in is t'leso 7:,cf of m3ny conflictir r;resures, tre.4moyez:erts, not to sy boi ofcitizens tbo esooase one rtiolr reedrot foubt but th'7.t,totleer cliEsieebousee:u'731 keenness bi mtete :Ith it,orthct the counter -i nter3stt on,'d-.ii1 s oj. I ft the intertior oft'neir 5 osi teir boint of vie'. •itht't-7e r6, sttloter1e...horttion t ch-

e d eep or s'73-,) /inE; thel-e -1,, no re,.O.cf.-23 o 2Le t, ion. r,r3frfec41.4.5)744.4-1.-1://yrce-ktof 110n , Tru it se es.so'.)jectie. I in.t2o-,-icef:. ere.71,2.7" ot en t e re -re .2.en e, to 3,- Tint t ti on..tie;26 effe - of 1e,:;isl-:tion. :L.z.2orrot 3riiET, 2 C o -fe7.^. t73:! pro b s en -t'e c2 iris-3nndecisive;techniclsco 1 e rune :ion. ofZo i I not -,o--,er,-sle:r.t on. ,i-erri-.H.,nto es no Iieicefc.:reffectiiC2e art se-,", T - irZ.L. I.: _ Ot..)21,/

ot t':]e. S130,"1. It I S not fOrt'eei-r,e...--; t Cour cil i',--.LeeL7edcherity; drci sLibstbrtiiat e true crreo c. “_e•A bo:71 of citizens '1-0 belie tCorTuniti 3S 1"!" '33 be, ',"r°-.cce^t czie ero-e-ic se.crifice for1Turr.?riterier bur-eose sre r.ot t 0Int.1(07 CO .77'1"; Ction r1s tYe t!--.emse17.estO t e leeta ir ire:: of their 0ti,Tie. The furs efio hich e eJO lur but t Co urc 11' s PO ST:1.t:--erefoe rijtly use i rt to ';,-,eike e preert'to irdustri te coTHeurit.i. of coreertretion or sefety t'rlSr there1-'reore etrictly secoreDreiceXected by t1Te leeoulif1 '2,13'7.eenefLeTeel.....ee_eeeP=1;rei to t'ee ef eir3-2eci

71:4,103noo...;..,.7 T. .Put1 71- .70 *L.;:S r4aP:_c7; c r1e7:,'gJ.1: DID TD ) OCT-1'; /71-Lio`74 6'4 c.4Tf.-. 3„T. :,;t: T„••• rV.,= 74- roT -4; uTb‘T.fl 0 `cvrg ^4, CI Ez. T0t'..) `.:!, ""0,is,74.r p.) 0;4 .1:3Jr.) 0, .4"D;4,17i,Sr.)1.g.T • d 9s,7 ,...;;),'7U7' • r- • *11`=", re 1.10

of view lire li.b 'D ve ;t)rice::;o, therefore h,,vo :leeL:reei to;reduce the FiLd to life 7:7 in tLe rious„onic ctjiitju. pcint oftLe 3r optimuT level ofrot tIr.e ximuL, ro e.verOle. it; t're 1 eiel of r,fetf HT.;fir returr sed.bvriseTT: bo , this level.. ver if t'L. e 720191s or Eubji„ ct 11, CTirEtinctiVe .ThibitiorE 1to e o t' tj'o-o ef:orti2elyof t.er D UO ti efot. 1/ree..is iooirt. r 1ri;h A3u1,1 .;C o re fo ts 'Jour ":1if risk lo it ouer t Ht"tc:rolo,,, ir it ml tlir or e rii7.-,ior; IL r1 t 0rt;77: o

irterruptior,J: of proct4 or. ere self—tij,13-7/1.irtere.-7tthrou„,;h",".'e 1:°,e, to:, fo-'21 u e tt co-'o ict , I just 1, if.31 GI'" t t irtoretu rrIt l'o11o4s T biox I ilior by :st:rone of {77-r-ot,etcorc:c , L'-t ttf 1. . .“3outror,L!.r o -:nu h :70'.1 ttiUr. rd e r icr" 2c, i si t;';'."1-' 1" 7:r7e c7:,;..; 11' t.• t of tl-1,3 e ffrt.1._.;ur;,.;Ir 0•

-artir else, er olt illt!--ere ro er:.•r-6 or. it,coror:deccA.4.7444-t finz...3.-sax4;dtei, e 72- 2 1 ;),' t-3r •r r tott'er ti t.cirtly or CO T e TT' tro c e for corr.D..-1,7i1orCoe.,L-LAc.,rejc.et..7,erlJ 13.1- rt.; t t t :=.0`,; f*, fidet„,,in us, ittic.rirstziobj,L-ct of it 'tiort-O.t r.:1 ztr'd-

costs tu e bo rre e t‘r. ecommuniti, 7'!..1.1"70:•'e thecan-unit,/y1 tf-; rt hert. ori.t ri v11,"sus2ect, , st ;e:_vor.e L reot jr orler to onot t rLter *ffic ler cior c)ritish irr'!ustry o t'.e ircre of ourc:Lit7)ut Ileur, or7,7,,/thir,;., 0 f r;" trt • t,irf. hu rt by1.-;r3r,y,-'on,-.er,tjrez" o t're r ijo er o tercj'lrt , oute .T1ur" '• v Olert or cro froy, er-1.)ro:ric cjru u-) e-11Itself. o se tsirbit,effect-of

76'. • 3. _pm : 'c !T sT • L.c.3 =- S .7) 'I TT T TTr:::7,1C,,:-- ,T • 1•.:, T:1, :Az . -T '71TT(I'-- TT J I lq I:44-j: TT3 3-feigettir0 .;,.74 7 • c 0: T j 1-7T - c, `7,‘ `117f.:T TT guoT jr.3 74F.,CO_ T 7.1 'S- oT;4:41 01'74 CI `:.):47„; f.? t. `.1;. j :43si s (3 T.::J r-c- • L — r Tfr.J 0 il-1"0 @;.,) t, LA.0 T T s.74 9s oci- '7: TITTT••• C; '3 7^41.- eZ: -; 7- ,

t ere must be 1r 4i-commie loict!All ucer e- , come filr! t T.;L)U t Th CO.- )73(2::...iCt e t. euz:tJiser it tLatt t e time;cost it berefit. it1- to b!, r,:.71ttercc,11,-ctive er t Or ',.)rof3d ir s.e re ore of tt-e rt i orr .tior , i e! • 117." 1.7 .,.)" C• t s , rut to i.t t i or s . ociti zr: ;77:0 e.6-0i,.1.'1: t i r rt hut 0 t'r (..1 iirEl t.1":e. koerressa b./ e tl014 t t ertsMIN t ..1; t.1rter. c: tier of'td-!. e k.J I tei.r. ei nolrt, t 01 1 e e rt.

„;..z.;:- 1 •LIT T 1.: a reo..I; ,,A;74g `7.. cY.: 0, '..(7- 0 T;.•`")-,PT A,IA.01. 'V- H.r,q—To.. j1"-1 • T..t` a4 1,,z; to,411-1/47,cl8t4:4, 18,

•••":2; • •j. 12. nr.)t torj. It is not fo r1-7tt t te redcitj; TY'-;.-t, t!to citiztrs o-, • tt ri rice. for9 .•-• it -rot /2 rdc't n t:rej !7AL ' • e s::ertjtIkc`•••:',t;re•it) I ur! t 1 -.H. H.J.*fit!•- e r, „ 3.(4 rt ti)to itr, u ' 1t. 7:if ore ef.:"^()1rtrltiOr71)-' et':tr:'Of t'itto-7;u!Ifreet -in bj iert 1-•

Speech by the Rt. Ebn. J. 'Enoch Powellat an election meet ing at the GrammarSchool Compton Road, ',.,:olverhampton at8 e da 16th un 1 r-For twenty years a majority of thepeople of this constituency have given tome the most precious privilege t hat a mancan seek in a free country, the opportunitytc be heard; to be heard in Parliament,but also because of the uniquenature and prestige of Parliament, to beheard outside. In recent years thevoice which you have given me has carriedfurther and further, until , ithoutoffice or any other position or assistanceexcept what you gave me, I hav,ebeen able to be heard by my fellowcountrymen from one end of the countryto the other, and the response and echohas returned to me from hundreds ofthousands of homes.

Tonight I mean to use that voice tosay one thing and one thing only; but ftis the one thing which most concerns thefuture of this n,Jt- ion and. the well-be ing,not merely material, of all its inhabitants.In forty-eight hours they haveone word to say, "Yea" or "Nay"3 but inthat word and its consequences areembraced all that they would wish fortheir tomorrow. There is, it seems tome too great a danger that the gray ityand ( in some respects) the finality ofthat dec is ion may not everywhere berealised, and that indifference or heedlessnessor distraction could obscue ft.'je- must regain, before the die is cast,the v iew of those great simplicitiesthe light of which the nat ion's dec is ionought to be taken.In sayi , to you, and throajci You tothe country: 'Vote and vote Tory' I

-3-have at least one acci.dental advantage.It is not such as anyone would go lookingfor; but hav ing it I claim the r ightto use it. I have no personal gain toexpect from the outcome, other than thatof any other c it izen. I am not amongthose candidates at this election whocan look forward with assurance, or atleast with hope, to retaining or toachiev ing political office under theCrown according as the result of theelect ion inclines one way or the other.Tialatever might have been obscure orundefined abc)ut the policies of theConservative Party, this at least hasbeen made crystal clear, over and overagain, by the Leader of the Party, thatif there is a Conservat lye Governmentafter Thursday, I shall not be a member

of it. The place to which I ask theelectors of Wolverhampton South West toreturn me 'is that place, somewhere aboutthe middle of the third bench above thegangway, which I have customarilyoccupied during more than half my twentyyears in Parliament. The most I canhope is to be sitt ing there again - onone side of the House or the other. Norhave I received in the recent past from*tic men who will form a Conservat f,veCabinet even the ordinary loyalties andcourtes ies that prevail gener.A.lybetween colleagues in the same cause.Not for them to repudiate attacks uponme which were unfounded, and which theyknew to be unfounded. Not for them toplace upon rrly words and arz,uments themore favourable, or the most obv iousconstruction, or even to accept my own

-5-assert ion of my own meaning. :,Tot forthem to protest when in the House ofCommons language has been used about me,and insults have been cast, the obscenityof which has lowered the dignity ofParliament itself. EminatacavitratxcArczaxiciwalTaccacmaxtEctix)Extuaz •No wonder that, by word and letter,from all parts of the country, a t ide,which rose and fell but never ceased,of encouragement and reassurance hasflowed in to me from strangers, from thegeneral public, from the •rdinary peopleof this country; for the inst inct offairness is one of the deep and characteist ic inst tncts of this nat ion. Nowonder that when this election came,electors have been writing to me, andhave been saying to Conservativecandidates in the constituencies that

-6 -they would not be v ot ing Conservative"because Enoch Powell would not be in aConservative Government" or "because ofthe way Enoch Powell has been treated".It is precisely because of all thisthat I claim the right at this momentto say to these people, to say to allthose who, s ilently or vocally, haveapproved and supoorted what I have hadto say and to do in my public life; tosay, indeed, to the whole electorate;"Don't be fooled, don't fool yourselves,and don't let anyone else fool yoo.This election is not about me, not aboutEnoch Powell, not about any other namedvariety. This election is about you andyour future and your children's futureand your country' s future". Not surprisingly,considering the level of trivialityat which most of this election

-7-campaign has been spent, a great part ofthe electorate have been drugged intosupposing that it is no more than apresidential contest of personalities,and that they are just being invited todecide if they prefer the country andthe economy, which will be much the sameet—anyhow, to be presided over by tioigie manwith a pipe or a man with a boat. 3utthis is not a presidential election.This is not a pop contest. This is adecision not between two individualsiDut between two futures for Britain,futures irrevocably, irreversiblydifferent.If a socialist majority is returnedon Thursday, then before another three orfour years are over, the ownership andcontrol of the state will have beenextended, by one means or another, over

-8-ontgx the greater p -t of Britishindustry and business. Even in theoutgo ing months of the old parliamenteven during the very election campaignitself, public money has been used tobuy ownership and control in cne majorindustry after another: in machinetools, in Rolls Royce, in Cannel? Laird,in Brit ish Leyland, in the explorat ionand exploitation of petroleum in theseas around these islands after privateenterprise and risk had first revealedand brought to use that unexpected asset.Anyone who supposes this 'take-over'will stop must be deaf and blind. Givethis socialist government the opportunityand the process will be speeded up and pcpushed forward with a ruthlessness thatxithicatxxxxvolinbatpxxxx4rxxlatlixf2ExxxXX XXX

-9-will accelerate as the parts of Britishindustry where the bureaucrat does notyet have the upper hand diminish. Thepoint is eventually reached when theremaining elements of free enterprise,realising that they are in the power ofthe state-controlled undertakings fromwhich they buy and to which they sell,give up the unequal struggle and succumb.This is what socialism is about. Thisis the 'capture of the commanding heights'in the old-fashioned language of thepioneers. This is what another three orfour years of Labour government isintended to accomplish.Another process will he going on atthe same time. The young, the enterprising,the independent in mind andspirit, will be able to read the signs.

• -10-In increas ing numbers they w ill concludethat a socialist Britain is no place inwhich to lead their own lives, to bringup the ir children, and to foresee the irdescendants future, At this moment abou130,000 British-born men, women and childrenemigrate yearly f rom this country.I would be guilty of my besetting faultof understatement if I described that as'a trickle' ; but however you care todescribe it, the flow would broaden intoa flood as more people saw the writing onthe wall and understood what their futurewould be in a socialist Britain.I am not just talking about freedomand Enterprise in economic terms. I amtalking also of individual liberty.Already in the last four years socialismhas been forming up to tithdraw thefundamental freedoms of personal and

family decision; for it is not only theeconomy but society itself that thesemen Intend to bring under the power andmana7ement of the state. In anotherfour years who dare be sure that parentswill be allowed to choose abd to buy thethe educat ion for their children thatthey think best? to choose and to buythe care in health and in sickness thatthey think best? to make provision andto save in the manner that they thinkbest for their ret irement and the irfamilies? ll these freedo is have alreactrbeen under attack in the pL-:,.rliament whichis ended. In the new parliament, if itcontains a socialist majority, the assaultwill be carried forward. I say againthat there is a point where the bPst ofthe nat c)n in at1 walks of life give upthe unequal struggle :and either acquiece

-12-in the managed uniformity of a socialiststate or cc) where they will be free.Listen, then, for there comes a timewhen it is too late to listen. OnThursday let none delude you that youare choosing between individuals, orthat the quest ions you decide will comeup again in the same form, the samecircumstances, a few years ahead, shouldyou dislike the outcome now. On Thursdayyour vote is about a -3ritain that,with all its faults and failings, isstill free, and great because it is free.On Thursday your vote decides whetherthat freedon shall survive or not. Youdare not entruest it to any governmentbut a Co ns erv at iv e government .

'Speech by the Rt. Hon. J. Enoch Powellat an Election Meeting at the Tamworthcollege of F,arther Education 8.30 p.m.Monday, 15 June, 1970For many electors this is a mostfrustrat ing General Elect ion. They findin a way that perhaps has never happenedbefore, that they cannot use their voteto express their wishes on what seem tothem the most important political questions.They can vote as between socialismand private enterprise more nat ioisat ion or less, and all the rest of thatilk; but on dec is ions nat ional dec i-s ions, which could be more importantstill, the electors find themselvesconfronted with a v irtual unanimitybetween the off ic ial part ies and oftenbetween the respect ive cand idates inthe ir own const ituenc ies . The partysystem seems no longer to do its workof offering a choice between policies,

-2-and it is not surpris ing to hear so manydemanding that the parliamentary systemitself should be short -c ircuited, and thepeople offered the direct opportunity tosay Yes or No by referendum.Of all the subjects on which thisdemand is heard, and this frustrat ionfelt the most widespread is that of theCommon 7,1arket and not surpr is ingly, forthe quest ion of joining the Common Narketis the most fundamental of all. It is t'quest ion net merely, what sort of a nat ionare we to be but what nation are we toBe?I say at once that I am no supporterof a re feren-;"am, least of all on thissort of subject. Cut of many reasons,I ment ion only tido. Ftrst it is inconsistentwith t he respons ibility of governmeatto Parliament and. to the electorate.

- -If, on a subject of this importance, thegovernment were to propose one course anda referendum choose the other, then,unless the Government promptly resigned,they would be able thereafter to say,whatever happened: "Well, don't blameus, it is no fault of ours; we wantedto do one thing, but you decided to dothe other; so, ladies and gentlemen, youhave only yourselles to blame". Theresult of that would be, quite literally,irresponsible government.Secondly, there are many people whobelieve - though I am not one of them,as I shall presently show - that thedecision about Britain entering theCommon Market ought to depend on whatare called the "terms" which caitenegotiated. Obviously, from this point

. -4-of view it is not possible to have adecision, yes or no, in advance. On theother hand, once the terms had beennegotiated and worked out in detainthen,as with a treaty or any other international instrument, they could not be rejectedunless the government itself were defeated.Only c lose and cont inuous debate ,in Parliament and the country, duringthe progress of the negot iat ions couldensure t hat the "terms" which wereaccepted were such as to satisfy opinionognersAiik".However, just because a referendumwill not answer, it does not follow thatthe issue of the Common Larket ought tobe kept under wraps at a general elect ion-- On the contrary, in my opinion it is aduty which the electorate ought to4,?...,:s.c.,.c :: to:, "-IrN4104*!44-erf every candidates to 'come clean'on this question. If his s-upport of

-5-entry is uncoaditional, well and good,let him take that plain and the electorsknow where they stand. If he believesthat the case for or against depends onthe conditions, then let him indicate -not of course Da detail but in broadoutline - what the conditions are onwhich he wo'Ald support entry. It is nouse just saying: "We will negotiateand see what terms can be had"e Youare entitled to know what sort of termsare Da mind, and how they will be judged.Are the terms to do with transitionalarrangements, or are they permanent?Are they economic, or are they alsopolitical? If they are economic, arethey concerned with agricultIre or withcurrency or with taxation, and how higha price, broadly, would be regarded as•‘=---0,4141..9,44,4samaa,s? There however, a third

-6—Category of candidate whose oppos it ionto entry into the Common Market isunconditional and based on the nature ofthe Common Market itself: he too oughtto declare his position.This is the right way for publicopinion on such a subject to find expression:the electorate ought to know, ifthey elect a candidate) where he willrange himself on this issue. And letno one say that Members are mere lobbyfodder,and that a government will get itsway, no matter. It is only a year or sosince, on a subject where public opinionwas much less deeply exerc ised - thefuture of the second chamber - a majorgovernment measure) to which the officialOppos it ion was at worst benevolentlyneutral, was destroyed by the determinedact iota of private members on both sides

-7-of the House. I would not care toput much money on entry to the CommonMarket coming about if a substantialminority of Members on the governmentpledgedside were czaconxiktml to pppose it. Inany case the maximum ventilation of the[...t, whole issue is something to which theonservative Party is committed.'Mr. Heath never spoke truer words than,when he said that 'the greatest possibleMistake would be for the British peoplet‘p go into this without themselveslising the full implicat ions."t the "fall implic at ions " are, becomesclearer on the side of the EconomicCommunity with almost every week thatpasses. I myself believe that thoseimplicat ions are already firm enoughfor many people to makeli up their mindswhere they stand.c•'•:1" ("A \' \ \ • p tnn,

What has emerged with startlingrapidity in the recent past is howprofoundly political, how far reachingandhow imminent those implications are. Sixmonths ago, I quoted the then head of theE.E.C. Commission when he predicted thatthe Community would have a common currencyand a common parliament elected on universalsuffra e before 1980. Yet even as[Z-4recently as 4ix _ionths ago, people wereinclined to treat such a prediction as thepersonal pipe-dream of an enthusiast.That is no longer possible. In the lastfortnight the Coilntries of the Six havenot only adopted the target of a commoncurrency before 1980 but have agreed thatas from now *hatever the Internat ionalMonetary Fund :nay decide on greater flexibilityfor exchange rates, the Six willnot accept any wideninv of the presentpermitted margins of fkuctuat ion in

dealings between their own currencies".This was rightly described as "the firststep towards creating a common currency".I am aware that this may all soundvery technical and financial. Indeed, itis not, On the contrary, it affectseveryone directly. This election to alarge extent is about prices, about wages,about inflation, even about balance ofpayments. If Britain were a member of aCommon 1arket with a common currency, aBritish General Election would have asfAttQ...moth to do with thosasubjects as the-9-municipal elections, and the Britishi;144,2-parliament would have as -omoil controlover them as the Staffordshire CountyCouncil has today. Eo ne y is 0434#4.4041,6by governmentsland the mmaiptsvoii of moneydetermines waR'es, prices, employment andthe whole economy. What else have we

-10-been arguing about for the last threeweeks - or the last six years,for thatmatter? single currency beans asingle government, and that single government would be the government whose policiedetermined evety aspect of economic life.In the Common Earket that governmentwould not be a British government; itwould be a co:It inental government and thBrit ish electorate would be a comparatsmall minority of the electorate to whichthat government was repponsible.Remember, we are not talking abouta remote futAte. We are thinking, letus say, of the next Eener-al elect ion butone. At that elect ioa, if the Economicat.4-1Community survives and develops --(presumablythere is no point in this wholedebate unless we assume that will happenand if Britain is part of the EconomicCommunity, then my fellow candidates and

• -11-even if we are candidates for theEuropean and not the BritishVa -rliament;will have a very different tale to tellyou. Prices (let us imagine) have beengoing up by five or six per cent a year,You want to turn out of office thoseresponsible for this, much as you aregoing to turn out the ,present LabourGovernment later this week. But we, myfellow candidates and r, will say to you;"Sorry; these are the resillts of thepolicy followed by the European ,zovernment,which controls the Europeancurrency. We have done, and we shall do,our best; but this is how the majorityin the Community insist on having it".You will agree that it wo,,d be atremendous step for this country totransfer to a unit in which it will be

-12-a permanent minority the control of itseconomic life - from unemployment to taxation,from prices to development policy.Yet even this does not exhaust the "fullimplications" of entry into the Commoni:a rket. The twin argument which is urgedin favour of entry is that, especially 0with the proscedtive reduction of Americanf orces and commitment, it would givethe countries of Western Europe a defensivecabability which mere alliance clesnot. s the German ex-Ydnister HerrStrauss put it recently, "Europe mustbecome a polit ical unit with a strongerdefence capability"; for the continentalpal it ic ian often does not duck thereal it ies as too many -Brit ish pal it ic-Liar's do.. The cond ition of a stroner t:::'_defence capability is a common governmer4goveiniment wh Lch will decide for thewhole of lestern Europe how much of its

-13-resources are to be applied to def rage andhthose L.esources are to be used. icrow, wein this country can take diffe ent views,as the Labour and Conservative parties do,of the relative priorities of educationand defence; we may argue about whetherdefence should absorb 10 or 7 or 5 percc,cent. of our nat ional income. What I donot believe is that the people of theUnited Kingdom ought to submit, or wouldsubmit to these quest ions be ing decided)Cancji, to themselves be :_ng taxed and con-/')scripted -Lhow can **tot, not be involved?by the government of a political unitwhich they were a minority. Even lesif, ttbfaimmeos possible, do I believe thatthey- s ould or woA.d surrender the keysof the ult imate defence of these islandsto a sovereign authority of continentalcharacter, continental locat'on andcont inent al out look.

Speech by the Rt. Hon. J. Enoch Powellat an Elect ion Iiieet ing at Turves GreenGirls School, Northfield, Birmingham,at • 0 •m. Saturda 1 th June 1 0.Britain at this moment is underattack. It is not surpr is frig if manypeople st ill f ind that difficult torealise. A nat ion like our own, whichhas twice in this century had to defenditself by desperate sacr if ice against anexternal enemy, inst inct ively cont inuesto expect that danger will t ake the sameform in the future. When we think ofan enemy, we still v isualise him in theshape of armoured d iv is ions or squadronsof aircraft or packs of submarines.But a nat ion's existence is not alwaysthreatenod in the same way. The futureof Britain is as much at r 'Lsk aS inthe years Imper tal Germ ny wasbu i1dng drednoubts , or Taz ism rearming.

-2rIndeed the danver is greater today,just because the enemy is invisible ordisguised, so that 1:1.s preparat ions andadVances go on hardly observed. ihenCzechoslovakia was dismembered or Austriaannexed or Poland invaded, at least onesaw that a shift of power had taken place;but in the last three years events everytrist- as pregnant with peril have given nosuch physical signal.As we prepare to elect a new Parliament,the menace Agreews, as such dam-::ers do,at an accelerating pace. Other nat ionsbefore now have remained blind and supinebefore a rising danger from within untilit was too late for them to save themselves.If we are to escape the samefate, it is high t ime we opened our eyes;for the first co dit ion of self-defenceis to see what it is we have to fear.

-3-I assert, then, that this countryis today under attack bv forces which aimat the actual destruction of our nationand society as we know or can imagine themThe same forces are at work in otherwestern countries too. Indeed, in someother countries, they are more advancedthan in this country. However, just asit is no consolation to be told by thePrime Minister that other nat ions haveinflation too, so were there is no salvationin common peril. A Dlague is notless deadly because it is not confined toa single country. Nevertheless, it isuseful to be able to register in termsof other countries as well as our ownthe advances which the enemy has made inthe last three, or at most four, years.Let me remind you cittla of them.In those three or four years we

-4 -have 'seen the ,- niversies of Americak Those nstitutionsare now not merely the permanent sceneof v iolence and disorder, but they onlyexist and are administered upon termsdictated by the enemy; they have passedout of the control of authority. In thesame period lize have seen the same enemyin his student manifestat ion not onlyterrorize one European c ity after another,but br ing down one of the strongestEuropean governments. In this country wehave seen the institut '.ons of learningsystemat ically threatened, browbeaten andheld 111) to ridicule by the organisers ofdisorder.So much for the univers it es; butc iv il government itself has been madeto tremble by the mobt- in i.ts modern for;of the demonstrat ion. The actual policy

-5-- and administration of the United Stateshas been altered, and altered again, notby the votes of the electors or thedecisions 3 f Congress, but by the fact orthe fear of crowd behav iour. Nor needwe go abroad for our examples. We haveseen in this eountry in the last fewt.weeks how the menace of organised disordercould threaten the morale of thepolice and wield the authority of thestate itself not in favour of the peace-/ 1-1)-1e_ „citizen but against him. When thePrince of W9les and (the Repulse djisappearedbeneath the waters of the Gulfof '4arri,t least we knew that Britainhad suffered a defeat. We suffered noless decisive a defeat when Britain'sHome Secretary surrendered the rule oflaw in order to buy off demonstrations;but do we know that it was a defeat, orare people so foolish as to suppose that

-6 -such an event is the en ‘, and not the2beginning* of a humiliating story?)A considerable portion of the BritishArmy is at this moment on activeservice in a prov ince of the United Kingdom.But it is :_ot in Northern Irelandto put down* rebellion, nor is it thereto repel invasion, though both thosethings hil be woven into the futurepattern of events. It is there becausedisorder, deliberately fomented1as aninstrument of power, in its own hadcome within an ace of destroying theauthority of the civil government andbecause the prospect of that quthorityBesitAinE is not foreseen. That theenemy has utilized the materlalsof sreligious cAvision is almost as fortuitousas that a mob should use missilesfrom a eatimenteact buil3 fog s it . Nor is

-7-relig ious difference the ,-;nly materialthat can be made to serve t144c purpose.On this side of St. George's Channelcombustible materal of another kind hasbeen accumulated for years, and not without deliberate intention in some quarterThe exp;oitation of what is callecl "raceis a common factor which links the operationsof the enemy oniseveral differentfronts. In the last three or fouryears we have seen one city after anothein the United States engulfed in fireand fighting, as the material for strifeprovided by the influx of negroes intothe Northern States, and their increasethere, was flung into the furnace ofanarchy. "Race" is billed to play amajor, perhaps a decisive, part in thebattle of Britain, whose enemies musthave been unable to believe their good

17afortuneas they watched the numbers ofWest Ind ians, Africans, and As iansconcentrated in her major c it iesmount toward the two million mark,and no diminution of the increase yetin sight.One of the most da gerous characteristics of any Aressor is the abil Ity to

-8-- make his intended vittim underestimatehis power. This characteristic thepresent enemy possesses to a high degree."Fortunately", people are heard saying,"it is only a small minority which isinvolved". There could be no greaterineptitude. In any event, all revolutionsare made by minorities, and usually7'smallminorities. But those who talk in thisway have not grasped the force and noveltyof the new psychological weaponry withwhich they are being attacked. It is asif someone were to dismiss the .dt-sco.rtrtyof the nuclear weapon with the offhand.9-teeTra-t±-Jn that "the bomb is only a verysmall one". liblemirs.+Mm.40, Itis small,nbut it is nuclear. The power of the minorit4which,though still only in itsinfancy, we have cLng exerted hereand elsewhere during the last few years,

-9-der \ies f rom its hold over men's minds.The majority are rendered passive andhelpless by a devilishly s imple, ketdev ilishly sub .1e, techniue. This is toassert manifest abs7ardittes as if theywere self-ev ident truths. By dint ofrepet it ion of the absurdities, echoed,reechoed and amplified by all the organsof communicafion, the majority are reducedto a condition in which they finally mistrustthe ir own senses and their ownmason*and surrender their will to thePr' eIpeta,*ec. In all war the object ive is tobreak the opponent 's will. Our danger isthat the enemy has mastered the art ofestablishing a moral ascendancy over hisv ict ims and destroying the ir good conscience.People observing th L-vance of

-10-anarchy call for aore police, more punishment,more force. These may indeedbe necessary; but in themselves they areimpotent - in fact, they can become additionalweapons in the enemy's armoury -unless the battle is simultaneouslyfought and won in the -moral sphere.The decisive act is to put sense andnonsense, truth a-cid absurdity) back inEctheir right places; and that act isalre:dy so difficult that conventionalwiddom and polite society have come toregard it as impossible. Have you everwondered, perhaps, why opinions which themajority of people quite naturally hold.)are, if anyone dares express them publicly,denounced as "controvers Lal" "ext remist", "explosive", awl "disgraceful", andoverwhelmed with a v iolence and venomquite unknown to debate on mere politicalc Q_issues the whole power of the aggres

-11-* or depends upon preventing people fromizzg seeing what is happening and fromsaying what they see.The .:-ost perfect, and the mostdangerous, example of this process isthe subject miscalled, and deliberatelymiscalled, 'race'. The people of thiscountry are told that they must feelneither alarm nor objection to a WestIndian, African and Asian population whichwill rise to several millions, be zng introducedinto this country. If they do, theyare "prejud iced" "rac ialist" "unCht ist -ian" and "failing to show an example tothe rest of the world". A current situation, and a future Prospect, which only afew years alto wo4d have appeared toeveryone not merely intolerable, butfrankly incredible, has to be representedtfaswelcomed by all rat ional and r :ght-

,-12-• thinking people. The public are literallymade to say that 4black is 1 .'Th t e .Newspapers like the Sunday Times denounceit as "spouting the fantasies of racialpurity" to say that a child born ofEnglish parents in fekin is not Ohinesebut English, or that a child born ofIndian parents in Birmingham is notEnglish but Indian. It is even heresy toassert the plain fact that the EnglishAalc.;are tyhitet W ether those who take partkno7,,' it —7/or not, this process of brainwashingby repet it ion of manifest absurditiesis a sinister and deadly weapon.In the end, it renders the majority, whoare marked down to be the victims ofv iolence or revolut ion, or tyranny,incapable of self-defence by deprivingthem of the ir wits and cony inc ing themthat what they thought was right is wrong,GV-

-13-' The process has already gone perilouslyfar, when political parties at a generalelect fon dare not discuss a subject whichresults from and depends on polit icalact ion and which for millions of electorstranscends all others in importance; orwhen party leaders can be mesmer ized intoaccepting from the enemy the slogans of9racialist" and "unChrist ian" and apply,athem to lifelong polit ical colleagues.But this is only ony, the mostglaring examplei forfi there is no end tothe use of absurdity, like obscenity, asa weapon for bra in-smashing. rin theunivers it ies, we are told that the education and the disc ipline ought to bedetermined by the students, and that thei—representat ives of the stadents oughteffect ively to manage the inst itut ions.This is nonsense - manifest arrant non-}

-1.4- •sense ; but it is nonsense which it isalready obligatory for academics andjournalists, pol it ic i•=:ns and part ies, toaccept and mouth, upon pain of verbaldenunc iat ion and physical duress.We are told that t he economicachievement of the Westerlicountr ies hasbeen at the expense of the rest of theworld and has impoverished them, so thatwhat are called the "developed" countljesowe a duty to hand-over tax-produced"aid" to the governments of the undevelopedcountries. It is nonsnse -manifest, arrant nonsense; but it litknonsense with which the people of theWestern countries, clergy and laity,but clergy especially - have been sodeluged and sOurated that in the endthey feel ashamed of what the brains

and energy of Western mankind havedone; and s ink on the ir knees 4•11.0pAse—to apolog isehifid/r-el*for be ing c iv ilised and ask to behumiliated.Then there is the"e iv il rights"nonsmse. In Ulster we are told thatthe deliberate destruct ion by fire andriot of areas of ordinary property isdue to dissat isfact ion over allocat ion d'council hotises and opportunit ies foremployment. It is nonsense - manifest,arrant nonsense ; but that has not preventedthe Parliament and government ofthe United Kingdom from underminffingthe morale of c iv il government in :..TorthernIreland by imput ing to it the blamefor anarchy and v iolence.Most cynically of all, we are told

MAO by bishops forsooth, that communistcountries are the upholders of humanrights and guatdians of individualliberty, but that large numbers ofpeople

• -15 iin this country would be outraged by thespectatle of cricketLbe ing played hereitttla- South Africans. It is nonsense -manifest ) arrant nonsense ; Lthat did notprevent a British Prime Iviinister and aBritish Home Secretary from adopt ing itas acknowledged fact.It may have been a happy chance thatthis part icular triumph of organise(idisorder and anarchist bradtwashingco inc ided with the commencement of thisGeneral Elect ion campaign. For manypeople it lifted a corner of the veil;for the first time) they cauFht a glimpseof t he enemy and his power. If so itwas t imely. That power lies in what weare made to say (or not say), and thusultimately made to think (or not think).That power can only be broken by plaintruth and commonsense) -and the will toassert it loud and clear) whoever den iesy,

- 164whoever jeers, whoever demonstrates.Without that, the e is no escape fromthe closing trap; no victory over thosewho hate Britain and wish to destroy it.Next Week the people have it in theirhands I perhaps for the last time, toelect men who will dare to speak whatthey themselves know to be the truth.

• Speech by the Rt.-Hon'.'J. Enoch Powellat an Election Meeting-at WoodfleldAvenue School, Wolverhampton at 8.15.Thursday, llth June, 1970.I have not so far in any speech inthis election campaign referred to Commowealth immigration into the United Kingdomand its consequences, present orprospective. It is in fact a subject onwhich I speak rarely, - three or fourtimes a year at most - and with greaterdeliberation and care than upon any othenNevertheless, I have not concealed mybelief that this subject exceeds allothers in its importance for the futurenot only of this town and other areasalready directly affected, but of theentire nation. I thought it right tosay so plainly in my election address,especially as the policies of theopposing parties in regard to it ilikKEIK

-2-differ sufficiently to offer the electoratea real and substantial choice. Itwould be absurd therefore if I were torefrain from speaking about this subjecthere, to my own electorate, before theelection comes to an end.I do not intend tonight to attempta general survey of the problem. Myobject is to concentrate upon a few majorpoints which are in danger of being ignoredor suppressed.The first, which cannot be emphasizedtoo often, is that of number. The scaleof Commonwealth immigrat ion into thiscountry in the last twenty years - apartaltogether from the nature of that immigration- is already in point of numbersout of all comparison greater than anythingthese islands has ever experiencedbefore in a thousand years of their

-3-Thhistory. People in this context 'whotalki about the immigrat ion of one ortwo hundred thousand Jews from Europebefore World War I or of the Huguenotsfrom France only reveal therxelay thatthey have no conception of the facts.What I have said in the last two orthree years about the numbers of Commonwealthimmigrants and their increaseover andhas been treated/over again with derisionand with that abus iv e obloquy wh ich isintended to obviatethe need for rationaldiscussion. But asthe facts have atlast 9 grudgingly and part ially, beenrevealed, it has turned out that I wasright and my traducers were wrong.Indeed, the figures which have becomeknown in the last yeas or year and ahalf, have in every case proved to be

-Li--higher than I myself would have guessedIf I have been guilty onthis score, it is understatement thathas been my offence. On this subject sovital to their future, the people ofthis country have been misled,cruellyand persistently, till one begins towonder if the Foreign Office was the onlydepartment of state into which enemiesof this country had infiltrated.EarIlErthis year we learnt that theGovernment had been grossly under_estima-7ize of theting the annual addition by naturalincrease to /Amw Commonwealth immigrantpwpwirobikon.After making all conceivableallowances - some of them quite ludicrousI showed that the true increase wouldstill be almost 60% greater than theGovernment had estimated, On the basis

-5-of any reasonable assumptions(instead ofextravagantly low ones) the tTue excessis about 100%. This can only mean thatJett:der the size of the present immigrantpOpulationlor its birth rats or the twocombined,are twice what the Governmenthad assured us.nowThe immigrant population is/certainlynearer 2 million than the li millionwhich the Government allege. Those whotalk about "only 2 per cent" of thepopulation of England and Wales, are mishowevexled, mitaxx innocently; 4 per cert isalready nearer the mark.Most people have no conception howfast that percentage is growing. Lastyear there was almost the same increasein the white and in the coloured populationof this country. It is not enough

-6-tc look at the proportion cf colouredbirths to total births. You havealso to look at the large net emigrationof whiteLand(large net immigration of—coloured residents. When these aretaken into account, we find that between90,000 and 100,000 a year net is beings ideadded on eackY. at that rate the proporisalteringt ion between the two/Xictocaz< very rapidly.I know it is dinned into us thatnet Commonwealth immigration is rapidlyfalling; but this, like so much elsethat is fed to the British people bythis Government, is misleading. Thefact is that net immigrat ion in 1969was back again to practically the samefigure as in 1966, after having beenhigher - much higher - in the two interveningyears, 1967 and 1968. When weare told that the first quarter of 1970

-7-was lower againIthat too is misleading.The fall in 1969 only took place in thesecond half of the year,took affectwhich was imposed by theof entry certificates.when the delaynew requirementIn fact, I& thefirst quarter, 1969 was actually runningabovE ire& prey ious levels . *WAWA Nodoubt, net Commonwealth immigrat ion willOnlithe other hand,gradually fall, it is not denied thatfor a time the births will go on rising;and if this government were t o remain inoffice after the election, I would notcare to answer for the effect on thenumbers of our own people emigrating.However, as we in Wolverhampton wellknow, the total figures, though muchlarger and growing much faster thanpeople had been led to believe, conveyIII no impression of t he reality, whenent irediv ided into the/populat ion of England

-8-so asand Wales/to yield an overall percentage.The reality is what we see emergingbefore our eyes in the transformation ofthis and other towns and cities, includingthe inner part of the Metropolisitself. When I referred, two yearsand more ago, to "whole areas, towns andparts of towns across England being ocdupiedby different sections of the immigrantand immigrant descended population"the prediction was derided and denounced.The facts which have become known sincethen have proved it true. I havedemonstrated that, even after making everyconcession, however improbable, howeverorunreal, a fifthxxxk a quarter of suchtowns and cities as Wolverhampton,Birmingham and Inner London Will incourse of t ime consist of the Commonwealtimmigrants and their descendants. There

-9 -has been no attempt at .refutat ion. Norefutation Is possible. Those who mockedtwo years ago have taken refuge eitherin silence or in abuse. Once again, Ihave erred - perhaps all too much - ont he s ide of understatement : the rat ionalprobability is much larger. Indeed, whatI said is already ceasing to be predictionand becoming current fact. Thereare at this moment parts of this townwhich have ceased to be part of England,except in t he sense that they are s ituatedwithin it geographically.So - number is flu of the essence,and geographical concentration is of theessence, and each multiplies the effectof the other. Now I turn to theconsequences of number and of centration. These neither I nor anyone elsecan prove in advance; but if, when the

-9aconsequencesoccur, it would be toolate to reverse them, it is the politician'sduty to form and to declare hisjudgment of them in time, so that ifpossible they may be averted or modified.I declare, then, that in my judgment,

-iv-- 494-based upon what knowledge I have ofhuman nature and upon what observationI have made of events in the world, theprospective growth in this country of theCommonwealth immigrant and immigrantdescended populat ion w ill result in civ ilstrife of appalling dimensions, and thatinstitutions and laws, let alone exhortationswillbe powerless to prevent it.On the other hand, it is not in my judgmentyet too late to prevent or greatlyreduce those consequences - namely, bya great reduct ion cif the prospect ivenumbeJ Like any other man, I can bemistaken; I can be mistaken either aboutthe consequences, or, if I am not mistakenabout those7 then I can be mistakenabout the possibility of averting them.What is certain is that whatever theconsequences are, my words could not

:414:cause them and my silence could notavert them. What is also certain isthat anyone bearing t he responsibil ityof a Member of Parliament whc judged asI do but held his peace,would be guiltyof a crime against his country and hisfellow men. There are some so foolishastto imagine, or so malevolent as topretend, that those who think they foreseedanger or disaster, therefore desireit. One might as well accuse a manwho warned against a rearming enemy ofdesiring the war he hoped to avert.That nation will be ill counselledwhich allows its statesmen to predictonly)what is pleasantito hear.The reduct ion,4140.46.1 of prospect ivenumbers depends upon two courses of actioOne is the cessation of further immigration.On this I find nothing to alter

-12.-in what I said over two years ago:"1de must be mad, literallymad, as anation to be permitting the annual inflowof some 50,000, who are for the most partthe material of the future growth ofthe immigrant-descended populat tontHowever, I would be deceiving you if Iallowed you to suppose that in my opinionthe ces sat ion of further immigrat ionwould sufficiently reduce prospect ivenumbers to modify at all appreciablythe consequences I foresee. I wish Icould think so; but I cannot. Thereforeit follows t hat a major re-emigrat ion orrepatriation is essential if it is possible.The eonservative Party hasadopted the policy of assisting therepatriat ion and resettlement of allwho wish to avail themselves cf the

offer, without limitat ion of numbers.My own judgment is that the numbers, ifthis policy is adopted promptly andwholeheartedly, could be dec is ive; andI am fortified in this by the fact thatmy estimate of half was reached by, amongothers, one of the most brill iant andimpart ial judicial minds in the country,Lord Radcliffe'd. To the doubters I say:since when has it been an argument againstadopting measures to combat a danger, tosay that they might not, or might notfully, succeed?The last point that I wish toemplaasize is one which certainly does notneed emphasizing to the people of thistown and ought not to need emphasizingto any person of intelligence and impart i-ality. It Is that to speak and act as

I have done implies no ill will towardsCommonwealth immigrants or any sect ionbut, much the contrary.of them7 / Like the overwhelming majorityof my fellow countrymen, I hold no maninferior because he is of differentorigin. As t he Member during twentyyears for a constituency which has hada higher influx of Commonwealth immigrants,and for longer, than almost anyother, I have invariably given the samesOv ice and shown the same good will tomy immigrant const ituents as t o therest. They have the same claim uponme, and it has been equally discharged;and many there are who can t est ify tothat So it shall always be. But Iowe Lthem, along with the rest, another,and a higher duty. If my judgment ofthe dangers of the future is right then

the immigrants and their descendants have,if possible, even more to gain than therest of us from those dangers beingaverted; for the outcome which I believeis portended would be at least as disast-•rous for the newcomers as for theindigenous inhabitants. What I havesaid, I have said in the interest of all.

'Extract from speech by the Rt. Hon. J.Enoch Powell at an Election meetinF atHWnfielH School, 7oundary Way,Wolverhampt,m,7.15 pm Saturday, 6th June 1970I am far from thinking that at thiselection the principal issues for manypeople are economic. Nevertheless, overthe country as a whole it may yell be theelectorabds judgement on two economic matterswhich determines the outcome of theGeneral Election. Those two matters arethe balance of payments and the cost ofliving. On both the public has been subjectedduring the past four or five yearsto a continuous process of indoctrination.On the one hand,they have been hypnotisedinto believing that it was an almostmiraculous achievemnt of the Governmentto "get the balance of payments right",and that an adiring electorate ought to

- 2be humbly grateful. On the other hand,they have been hypnotised into believingthat the spiral of rising prices and risinwages is no fault at all of the Governmentbut is due to the misbehaviour of peoplethemselves, from which the Government hasvainly but gallantly attempted to save thenBoth beliefs are entirely unfounded;both beliefs are highly dangerous. Thetruth is that no thanks at all are owedthe Government for the surplus on ourbalance of payments, but that the rise inour cost of living (is entirely their handiwork and their fault.Balance of payments is reallydevac3tatingly simple: it depends uponthe level of the exchange rate. If thatis too high, then a country has a deficit.I . it is too low, the same country has a

- 3 -surplus. There is no way out of this.One could say of the balance of payments,what Lord Melbourne is supposed to havesaid of the Garter, that "there is nodamn merit aboutit."Until the end of 1967 the £ sterlingwas overvalued, and more and more severelyovervalued. Consequently, whatever effortwe made, we were bound to have a deficit.Since the end of 1967 or shortly afterwardthe £ sterling has been undervalued. Consequentlywe have been basking in the sunshineof a large surplus. If the ratehad not been changed in 1967, we shouldbe in deficit still—provided othercountries had not got tired of lending usmoney in order to keep us there.An increasing number of people arerealising that it is idiotic to try to

keep the exchange rate fixed, and thereforebe periodically obliged to devalueor revalue, whereas if the exchange ratewere freeo to move upwards and downwardslike any other price, it would keep paymentsautomatically in balance)with notrouble to Lnybody. I have been sayingthis for a long time. Mr Maudling hasbeen saying it for longer still. True,he got his knuckles rapped for his pains;but those of us who get our knucklesrapped are not always wrong. Be that asit may however, - whether we float thepound, as the Canadians have just floatedtheir dollar, or whether we go on with theold game of fixed e-:change rates - theGovernment can claim not a scrap ofcredit for Britain's deficit turning intosurplus. All their pulling and pushing,all their credit squeezes and their high

interest rates, all their swingeingtaxationand their attempts to controlpricesand wages - all these, like theflowersthat bloom in the spring tra-la, havenothing to do with the case. The surpluson our balance of payments is the purelyautomatic and inevitable result of theadjustment ofour exchange rate - nothingmore, nothing less.Yet it is on the strength of thisbogus achievement that the Governmentwould have us forget or forgiveall thathas gone before, and come back for more ofit, like the whipped hound which turns tokiss the rod.If there are any doubters, let themjust recall what happened last autumnwhen the German mark was revalued, as the£ had been devalued. 2tll of a sudden,that wonderful surplus for which we had

- 6so long envied the Germans, for which theyhad been held up to our admiration asincomparably enterprising, energetic,thrifty, hard-working, disappeared practicallyovernight and was replaced by adeficit which they were fain to meet byborrowing - yes, by borrowing. Nothinghad changed, nothing in the German character,nothing in the policy of the Germangovernment, nothing - except the exchangerate itself. Likewise in Britain nothinghas changed, neither the British characternor the policy of the British Goverhment -only the exchange rate itself. So let ushear no more of the fraudulent claim of theGovernment upon our gratitude for having"got the balance of payments 1.ight."It is the opposite way round with thecost of living. True, not even the Governmentcan dispute that it has risen faster

since they were in office than since heywere in office before, and at a rate whichilccelerated as time has gone by. This theydo not attempt to deny. This they cannotdeny. Instead, they would have us believethat they are not to blame, but are theinnocent victims of the perversity of theBritish people who persist in charging andpaying higher prices and int demaning andreceiving higher wages. With that streakof masochism which is part of the Britishcharacter, we have positively revelled inlapping up this falsehood. The truth isthat the rise in cost of living is dueneither to British trade unions, nor toBritish industry, nor to the Britisheconomy; it is due wholly and solely tothe British Government.I have looked up a speech which Imade in February 1965 three or four months

8after the Socialists came into office. Thethen Chancellor of the Exchequer had declaed that under this Government publicexpenditure was going to rise at the Iolarate, no matter whether the national incomeas a whole rose faster or slower. Fromthat moment it was a virtual certainty,and I predicted it, that the costliving would get out of hand. Here againthe working of cause and effect isdevastatingly simple. When the expenditureof the Government is rising fasterthan the national income, it is odds onthat what it spends will exceed whattaxation brings in and that the publicwill not be willing to lend it sufficientsavings to fill the gap. There can onlybe one result: the Government will createsufficient extra money to meet itsexpenditure. This is what happened, and

-9—happened on an increasing and eventuallygigantic scale, from 1965 to 1968. Whileproduction lagged and the national incomerose at a snail's pace, public exnendituresoared upwards. As a result, xtuctvastquantities of additional money were pumpedinto the economy. If trade unions hadnever been invented and if the populationhad consisted of Benedictine &inks, theconsequence would still have been, inevitablyand automatically, the rise in prices(including wages) which we have experiencThe cme achievement on which theGovernment need fear no challenge is that11of m,aufacturing,money. It is the moneythey have manufactured to meet their ownexorbitant expenditure that has devaluedthe pound in everyone else's pocket. Maybe the trade unions have much else toanswer for; certainly, the legal frame-

-1 0 -work of industrial relations and tradeunions cries aloud for reform. May be_ 7(why should we dispute it?) our productioncould be more efficient and our commercemore competitive. But the one fault thatcannot be laid to either of these quartersis the rise in the cost of living. Onlyan increase in money could cause all pricesVand all wages to rise as they have done.only the Government and the Governmenexpenditure could cause the increase inmoney.The true verdict on the Governmealsrecord runs therefore as follows. Surpluson the balance of payments: innocent,Rise in the cost of living: guilty.

Extract from speech by the Rt. Hon. J. EnochPowell M.P. to a meeting organised by theWembley Conservative Associations at CoplandSchool, High Road, Wembley at 8 p.m. Monday18th Ma, 1 O.I notice that t-t happens before every generalelection: large masses of people succeed inpersuading themselves thst the Labour Party is nolonger (if it ever was) a socialist party, bentupon extending the power of the state over thewhole of the community's life and activity.Instead of this, they like to imagine that theLabour Party is a kind of benevolent institutionwhich exists to dish out to the citizens benefitsthat would otherwise have been beyond theirreach.By the time the election comes alongthese people can see little difference betweenthe Gulbenkian Foundation and a Labour Government,except that a Labour government has 8 wrest dealmore money to play with.Day by day, at thepresent time, this camouflage operation proceedsapace, and the Prime Linister 1Doks more like ajovial Santa Claus in each sucbeediry,,I i,resentation.

-2—As I say, this has all happened before.In advance of the elections of 1964 and1966 I remember how some of us used to go aroundthe country warning audiences that a Labourgovernment would introduce control by law overArt')not only prices but wage and I remember44114.we were laughed at for our pains. It was invain that one 7)ointed to explicit statements inthe literature and prospectuses of the LabourParty where they said that they would do exactlythat thing. 'Don't expect us to believe any—thing so far—fetched', said the electors ofthose days; we are not interested in yourreadings from Labour pamphlets; we feel surethey will do no such thing.. These very saieelectors were highly scandalized when, a fewmonths sfter the election victory of 1966,Harold Viilson and his collea,Tues proceeded to dojust what had been foretold. Like the sinnersin the Scottish preacher's picture of the Day of

-3-Judgment, the electors who had been warnedbut did not listen started to cry out:'We didna ken, Lord; we didna kent, and theywere heard declaring in their millions that theywould 'never vote for that lot again'. And now,in 1970, the same sad story is in danger of beingrepeated.111fl+One co;:ild hardly claim that nationklisedindustries are highly popular, either withconsumers or with taxpayers or with the generalpublic: the rank-and-file of the old Labourmovement, who had been suckled and reared onnationalisation, can only with difficulty beprovoked into talking about it at all, let alonesaying anything in its favour. So, when speakertell the public, as I am tellin you now, thatone of the consequences of a Labour governmentbeing returned at the forthcoming election wouldbe a massive extension of national ownership andcontrol of industry - in short, -iore nationalisationand much more - those good people who

•-4-always think they know better and areconsequently always 'taken for a ride'refuse to listen. 'Nationalistrtion?, say they,'don't give us that old party stuff; of coursethere'll be no more of that — or very little.We simply don't believe you.tWell, well. iow let me ,ust recall somethingthat haopened less than a fortnight ago.shipbuilding firm, ;:ou may remember, CammellLaird of Birkenhead, found itself in deep troublenot least because of labour difficulties. SoSanta Clause — sorry, the government — "rescued"it (their word, not mine). On the government'sinstructions the Industrial ReorganisationCorporation agreed to lend the group up to26 million, against security. 'I;othing verymuch to that', you may sa,-:; but that is onlythe beginning. "As part of these arrangements,"the statement continued, "the government haveagreed to provide the finance for a 50 per centshareholding in the shipbuilding company at a

•-5-price to be settled by indeendent valuatioWSo, 5O nationalisation, fis the lion mightsay to the jackal: 'Let's share fifty—fifty,shall we?. But there is more to come. Thegovernment (and I quote their own words) are"considering placing the shares in a trust onbehalf of the employees':A nice, neat little job, I think you will ogreFirst, lend a firm public money: then, make thatan excuse for buying up half the firm (also, ofcourse, with public money); then, give the shareto the employees, some of whom were partly res—ponsible for the trouble in the first place. Sothere you have a piece of nationalisationiowitha dash of syndicalism thrown in — actually beingcarried out under people's noses. But theimportant thing is that only a practical example}a specimen, a foretaste, what the LabourParty have been telling us they intend to do,without any stated — or indeed, logical — limit.Here is what they said, for instance, as long as

-0-a year ago in Labour's Economic Strateg :"particular firms should have the right toseek from the government investment finance tomeet their needs. If necessary, the Governmentshould be prepared to take an ec)uity stake inthe company in order to provide the necessarycapital".No wonder that they went on to say that "Labour'scommitment to public ownership has not changed:we believe that more and more of Britain'sindustries must move inevita ly into public hands':No wonder that they added: "Cur proposalsrelating to an increased measure of state participationthrough euity holdings and publicdirectors are very iaportant: they involve thecreation of a new dimension in Britain's publicsector':

NEWS SERVICEItelesumtimae:14.3oHours/16th May 1970316/70Text of a speech by the Rt, Hon. J, EnochPOWELL, .E.P. Nolverhampton S.W,) to Salop CountyBranch, National Fzanmerst Union, in the MusicHall, Shrewsbury, on Saturday lbth May, 1970*Me,-I begin with a confession, It is a confession of havingleft undone those things which I ought to have done - or atleast one of them. For twenty years and more I ha7de representedfart of a purely industrial town. I have made this an excusefor not concerning myself, at any rate in public utterance insideor outside Parliament, Tith the sUbject which is miscalled"agriculture" and which ought to be called ".f'ood".I hav.-passed the question off at public meetings with a jest, and areference to the fact that I only had one farm in my constituencyand that the farmer had never complained of anjthing but miningsubsidence. But the excuse was hollow, and I knew it. Thepolitics or food concerns my constituents just as much as thoseof an,ij other Member; they eat like the rest; they pay taxes likethe rest; they are affected like the rest by the economic consequencesof this, as of other national policies. In any case,Parliament is not a congress of the representatives of separatestates, making treaties to balance one private interest againstanother; we are all equally responsible for the tolicieS, bothinternal and external, which affect all parts of the realm./My true reasonIssued by Publicity Department, Conservative Central Office, 32 Smith Square, London S W 1 01-222-9000

_ 386/70 POWELL - 2 -My true reason was that I knew the prevalent policies onfood and agriculture to be indefensible. I also knew thatmany of my colleagues believed - whether rightly or wrongly isbeside the point - that they depended upon votes which wouldbe lost or endangered if the principles of those policies werequestioned, let alone repudiated. So I kept silence; but itwas guilty silence, and when your invitation to address thismeetinz reached me, I knew the appointed hour had come whenit must be broken. If you ask, why now and not sooner? I wouldpoint to two compelling reasons. First, there is the debateon entry into the Common Market The Common Market has a commonagricultural policy which, though different from our own, is,if anything, even more indefensible. So it would be impossibleto participate in that debate, even for one who regards thepolitical factors as more important than the economic, and notto concern oneself with the principles of agricultural policy.Secondly, and this is a more domestic consideration, and one,if you will forgive me, of a party political character, it seemsto me that the attempt to defeat socialism, and a state-controlledeconomy must be severely handicapned by the necessity of connvingin a policy for one industry based on principles inconsistentwith those for which on is contending in the rest ofindustry and of the economy.The object of current agricultural policy is to secure,by the use of comnulsion in one form or another, that more ofthe food consumed in the United Kingdom is produced there thanotherwise would be./Having stated

386/70 po-ELL - 3 -Having stated tha.t bald arcoosition, I .m.ust immediatelyrefine it in a number of respects. Strictly speaJiin, I shouldsay no 'more food' but 'different foo,'1'. Nobc = can guaranteethat in , e absence of compulsion as much :t!ood ir total volumeor value would not be produced. Yhat alone is certain is thatthe components of the total livouildbe different. infter all,the first section of the 1347 Act refers to "such jt of theration's food and other agricultural produce as in the nationalinterest it is desirable to produce in the United Kingdefe.However, I think I may per issibly assume 'more' as well as'dj-Pfereut'. Indeed, both main noliticol parties explicitlyprofess that intention.liuch more important is an indispensable addition. i0Or theproposition is not complete as it stands. One must go on toadd; 'and less of other goods and services'. I admit that ina condition of grossly deficient de7and for labour er ne-4 capital,ouch as prevailed between the wars, this might ri:)t be true;but for practical purposes I do not suppose anyone would seriouslydispute that today tne additionri labour and new capital uhichcompulsion directs to, or retains in, the 7reducticn of foodwould not bG unused iu the absence of such compulsion, butwould be employed in prod_cing other goods 7nd services. Theobject thus becomes: 'to secure that more, Es well as different,food, and correspondin--y less of other thirgs, owalu bc producedin the U.H. than would otherwise be the cse.'SomP eyebrows have been rained at this word 'r'ompulsion';hut it is literally accurat-P. Agnicinnur.al policy deends cntaxation mmd public expenditure - the compulsory withdrawal ofresources from one set of citizoes, and the compulsory redistiibutionof those resources in 0 particular way tn anoth,--'2set of citizens. /Any'oody

366/70 -1='0-f7E111, - 4 -• (Anybody can query thct who thinks the 'trice -evew' is voluntery:)There are also the measus by which the selling ofcertain kinds of agricultural produce is, or can be forbiddenexcept to statutory moropolies; and tnat too is compuisior, ifanything is:The centrEd question is therefore whether it is iu the pUblicinterest that compulsion be used to ensure that the UK. producesmore food and less of other goods and services than would otherwisebe the case. However, before I offer my own answer to thatcuestion, I think should translate it iuto nuau tePms.Theoretically, I suolloso,the result just described could beobtained -,dthout this uecessarily meaning that more Peorle inthe U.K. were engaged in producilqg food and -Caber people in producingother things. In practice, however, the to must surelygo together. Indeed- what is though to matter politically,since votes al-c ottachod to people and not to potatoes, is theeffect on people and it mint truthfully be said to be the realobject of agricultural bolicy to that more people in theU.K. produce food =d fewer -orod=e other goods cnn services.As a last breliminary let me say that we are talking about aresult -which is aimed at as a permlanent or continuing result.cc are hot discussing a policy of which the object is =eizT tofacilitate or delay the transition back to some non-compulsoryallocation of production and people as between food and everythingelse.The grounds on which it has been arg,Jed that agriculturalpolicy, as I have definedit, is in the public interest ara:balance of payments, defence; an-,onity and social, considerations,and stability./It will perhaps

386/70 20JEhL -_It will perhaps be simplest if I say straightaway that in myopinion not one of these grounds can be rationally sustained.Let us look first at balance of payments. I will not makethis easy by simply pointing out that 'che so-called problem ofti,e balance o- payments is purely a function cf fixed exchangerates and woud not exist if thesewere free to moveI willadopt, for the purpose of argument, the assumption (to -me anabsurd assumption) that exchange rates ought to be fix:ed. Thismeans that they are fixed at a point where the daLaalfor acurrency exceeds the supply of it, on vice versa. Conseouentlythe government must for ever be fussing to contrive a balance,either by encouraging imports and discouraging exports, or byencouraging exports and discouraging imports. The shrewd willalready have noticed that the balance of pay=tsis rottenground on which to rest ag-oicultural policy, because it impliesincessant inta',-)i"ti,. 'unless a corntry is to be .erpetrallyin deficit, that is, unless its currency is to be pel'petuallyovervalued - which is of course absurd - it will sometimes -cein sur-olus, and then imports =st be stimulated and im-oortsavingpenalized.I hardly think that farmers would relishthe prbspect of agricultural production being artificiallystimulated one year, and artificially rerescedthe next, infithe interest of keeping payments in balance. In fact, the balanceof payentsis an argument which just happened to come in handyand seem to save the trouble of thinking in a country likeours whose currency has tended most of the time to ba over,valued.It has nothing really to do with the balanoe of paymonts, asyou can see by looking at Ger=ny -hich has pursued an evenmore exagerated aricultural 7:olicy all through hiany years ofchronic and even embarrassinsurplus on its iwmlamnce of 7'71,ylits./However,

-386/7 0 PO,EIL - o -However, before leaving the frag.e:zts of the exp',oded balanceof payments argument, I linger a moment to counteract what seemsto be the ingrained notioh that imports are som.eto-J a boll thingand therefore Llmort-saving a good thing. Of course imports(that is, e=Kchange of our products for -unose o- foreigners) apein themselves neither a good thing nor a bad thing. The onlyrotional object is to exchange abroad as nearly as possiblethat clurrntity, and that selection, of our outbut which will resultin our putting the best return on our effort overall.In commonwith most other countries, we import a large quantity of goods(and services too) which we are c7pable of producing, aud actuallydo produce, at home. This is not irrational, this does notmean we are foolish or worse off. ,],uitethecontrary, providedwe look always to the best return in deciding whether to producefor internal, or for -xternal, exchmge, We are better off asa result. In other words, 2ric and profit in a ganaine marketwith a ,yenuine rate of a xch angc will yiel_d the nerestavad.latleabproximation to the national economic interest.I deliberately inserted there the word 'gc,Luine', and 7will not shrink from following it simDlications.It is cheaPer,in every genuine sense of the term, to Let bananas from Jamaicathar from Cornail,or grapes from Muth Africa thn from Scotlnd,or co[ber from Zambia than from laglesoy. These arer'rassexamples, but even down to the s!Pallest variations in cost,everyone understands and follosthe advntai,c of buying in thecheaest market and selling in the dearest./ItC7.11 hoever

386/70 POWELL - 7 -- -It can however hapuen -that the bananas, the grapes or the copperare as cheau as they are, not because the clirLate is good orthe ore rich, but because the countries of origin have an agriculturalor other political Policy and compel their citizensto send us artificially cheop bananas or grapes or copper. -vhattshall we say of this?I do not think a simple answer con be given: we mustdistinguish.I the object of that other-government is hostile,if for instance they want to destroy our indigenous agriculturalindustry with subsidised grapes, in order then to exult over usand hold our dessert course to ransom, then by all r,eans we havea night to defend ourselves - as against any other act of hostility -if it seems to us worth While on balance to do so. Even if therewere nc hostile intent, but their policy was so volatile and.inconsistent thot it imposed on our own people arbitrary anddamaging fluctuations, I would still say: we have a. right toprotect ourselves. 1(:) doubt, both cases do happen in real life.In fact, cur own government is sometirr,es guilty of putting importedfood on the home •:narket at politically rigged prices dn order topull of trade deals with Iron Care-win countries.I must say,however, tht -1,he-fe political inten,tion is not involved, the -fiskof serious dac:loEe is re=te, bec=.sc r'lternative end indc,o(e-nditsources are usually avail.oble. Or thu other hand, thete no factthatPoliticansare fools in other countries is just as Imch afact of nature to be interpreted through price ond v)rofit inthe market, a.s the fact that the sun shines in Cod'e :c'rovince orthat seafowl d-feaate inwe =.z: as well iziport Lcliticiancheanedwheat as sun-kissod oranges or bird-de-oosited/PerLosthis is

386/70 Pa:ELLPerhaps this is the natural point at which to Lismissbriefly (for I will not insult you with a laborious refutation)the argument from national defence. This asserts that, as theUnited -Kingdom is vulnerable in war to attaci upon its seacommunications, compulsion should be exerted throughout timeof Peace to secure that a higher percentage of its foodrequirement is produced internally than otherwise wbuld happen.There is such a plethora of answers that one scarc-ly knowswhere to start. That such an argument should be heard aftera cuarter of a century wnen it has been received dogma thatany war aifectLng the United Kindom itself would be brief andnuclear, is elocluent evidence of the desperate search for anyarguhent at all. If the argument were valid, it would applyto all other essential ioorts, and sowhy picii on foal?V.ny not, for instance, subsidise coal, and steam locomotives?Sincu a choice has to be mae, what reason is there to Eaposethat foow broduction would be harder and slower to expand inemergency than (Uomestic production of other essentials?Since tht:. -United Kingdom can in no circumstances render itselfself-sufficient, its survival in a long war - for that reason,if for no other - depends on being able to destroy or hold incheck an enemy threatehing its ce-ounicatib.ns, '2:his, however,depends upon the maritime capability of ourseivos ana oarallies, which is not liX.ely to benfit froLi a peacutie policyof diverting effort from other actvvities to food production.In short, the strategic argument can safely be left till theday ',:ho-n a Secret ry of State for Defence acceots at least partof the cost of the agricultural policy on his own buciget.,inee reari a group

386/70 1--'0LL - 9 -There remain a gr(Jup of arguments, which I have calledamenity or social, asserting that there is a level I)eloW whichthe proportion of the population engam;ed in agriculturalproduction cannot fall without damage of some kind toimbonderable values. Ihe very imponderability of the valuesmakes this argument impossible to analyse seriously. I cantherefore only offer separate observations•which seem to merelevant. First, the amenity value of land of low agriculturalproductivity or none at all is comLionly regarded as being- ashigh as, or hi;,her than that of land in Intensive agriculturalusc, agreaable though the lattel, mPv be. Secondly, while onecould understand, if not symaathise with, resistance to theconversion of a nation of peasant farmers and y'eomar (theobligatory term) into a nation of coalminers and droofergors,it is extremely difficult to take seriously a jeremiad Michti:rns on the 'lifference between say 3'k:and of the workingpopulation. Thirdly, from the point of view of the individual,-while anyone who wishes is entitled to opt for what apbear tohim the advantages and attractions of an agricultural way oflife, he forfeits that claim when he beins to demand that thedisadvantages should be diminished by contributions imposed onhis fellow citizens whose choices and preferences are different.There is true froedom of choice only. where the choice isbetween alternatives impersonally oriced on the same scale,that is, priced by the market. If a man and his wife chooseto scratch an existence on a stony hill-farm, so be it: theyearn therby no more claim on the ratitude f subvention oftheir fellow citizens than the millhand in Lancashire or therefuse-collector in Lambeth./Finally, it is

386/70 - 10 -Finally, it is soYuetimes suggested that there is souethingunique aboutthe production of food as compared with othergoods and services which calls for intervention by the state inorder to To.rovide stability. This is one of those propositionswhich put one in a quandary between laughing and crying. J-he,comic aspect is to seek safety frozi the vagaries of nature andimoersonal factors by taking refue - of all places in the :world; - with politicians.Of all the destabilising andunpredictable forces in the world, the politician carries offthe TY2ize. Ho responds - as ho is kept to do - to politicalinfluences., notoriously changeable, and his intervention, sofar frora cancelling out the variations of the fersonalworld (which anyhow he is no bettor equipped to foresee thanthe next man), only superiiucoses his own unpredictabilitieson too of the.It is not a statement which needs to beoverlaboured to those who have watched, for instance, thecoarse of interest rates in the last few years - a coursewhich reflected not the fluctuation of the supply and c-lemandfor capital and credit bat the exlgercies into ';:hich thePoliticians had got themselvestheir own escapades.No ecabt the production of food in a market open to theworld is subject to instabilities.It LiLly be these areinherently greater than those to which the production ofother goods and services is sabect, though I am not convincedof it./hbout that, however,

3e6/70 POW.LILL - 11 -. .L.bout th.::.t,.however, one need not arLu for the fluctuations,5Lreat or small, absolutely arid relatively, are uonf the factsof economic life, and like all such facts they carry- a marketprice - like all other ancertainties, thy rerescmt a cost -and the effort reQuired to offset them can also be costed.They can only be costed, however, by bein6 compared in themarket with all other costs; and the costs will always bechanging and will never be 2redictable. Take, for examplu,fluctuations of production dull to weather. These reoresent atylpe of cost, because the saue amount would be produced withless effort in their absonc.J.. That that cost is, depends atany ::;iven time upon thu cost of counteractinL the fluctuations- insurance, storaLe, refriLeration, crocessinL and therest. It is only by, continuin5 exocriment end com-Dariscn ofalternatives throulh the -market that the most economicalmuthed of reactinp to the fact of fluctuation can be ascertained.Of course, the conditions of oroduction of every industry aruunique; this is why only comoarison throuLn the market makesit possible to ascertain how iwuch effort and cacital dev•tedtc each is likely at any H'venaice to yied tao bst 7-eturnoverall.So in the end we arrive at the conclusion that the samebeneral presumption a::plies to alriculturc as to any othereconomic activity, and that Presumption is this: that any policywhich by compulsion causes more effort and new capital to beapplied to one form of croduction, and therefore less toothers, is bound over time to result in less satisfaction forthose who work and those who save and those who consume./it mic,ht briefly be

•386/70 PL.L - 12 -It miLht briefly bo desinated a 'policy for imooverishment'.Those who are engEtged in the form of pi' duction coparentlyfavoured will not be sared that impoverishment; for themarginal return to capital and labour everywhere tonds towardsecuality. So the compulsory retention in any industry ofproducers of lower efficiency than the open .market wouldaccept avenges itself on that industry and those oroducersthel:iselves. 2,conomic fj,rivilege created by comjlilsion isshort lived, while the loss of economic bonefit Lets itself -shared out ali round. I must confess when I listen to theannual clirpe that accomnanies the so-called neLotiation andthe actual imposition of the anaual price review, I am filledwith astonishment that the farmers, if one may soeak of themcollectively - and I am sure at e*.o.J, netinp I any , ifnot must - should not have 'twigged' long ago what is goingon. The apricultural policy, of which their representativesacceot the principle, s the Eieans of their own as well as -everyone else's imPoverishment, with the ignominy' into thebarlin of buin-seon-to b.e „lepedont, for their commercib,loperations ind the conduct of their lives and basinesses,upon thE particular manner in which year by year the statechooses compulsorily to redistribute the incoe of thoirfellow citizens. So I offer, as in duty- bound, the bestadvice I can. J-.sk to be treated exactly like everyone else,exactly like every other Ladustry, except - I should a:11those vhich are pationaiisef_ in form OP in substance./—sk to be treated

. 366/70 POLL - 13 -, Ask to be t1-.eated as what you are - a free enterprise industry,men who have freely chosen to try to make their living byproducing foo, as others do by producing cars, or sellingnewspapers, or sing,ing songs. If industry generally is• rotected, ask to be protected in the same way and to the sameextent; if inddstry generally is exposeJ to internationalcompetition, ask for no more than the same terms and the sameconditions. Lbove all, and in this I am on sure ground, kee2as far away from my profession as possible: as with doctorsand lawyers, the less you resort to the services of thepoliticians, the haopier you will be.

4./4 gw. 4 AA., fri-G.Stan Tatem was a Tory and proud of it, anda Staffordshire man and proud of it.personified what we like to think of as theStaffordshire character: plain-spoken, stubbornin adversity, loyal to what he loved, and a manwho, once a friend, was a friend for ever. He,and Olive his wife, were among the very first whawI remember in those early days when I first came444-1-)to Wolverhampton,‘from that day forward theynever ceased to help, to encourage and to supportme. It Was a debt I could never acknowledge,let alone repay; but I recall with pleasuretheir delight when his public servlce wasrecognised by the Membership of the Order ofthe Eritish Empire in 1557. Their life, likethat of many in this room, was bound up withtheir work for the Tory Party, and yet, as thememories from over the years crowd back into

•-ones mind, it is not as a party worker,however active, or as en office-bearer,however distinguished, that I think of StanTatem, but as a man whose life might serve asan example.Noone who saw can ever forget the affectionatedevotion which he lavished on his wife, in theyears after her disabling illness, or the couragewith which he rebuilt his life after her deathby taking at last the seat on the torough councilwhich his work had long before earned ("Clivewould have wished it") and going on to becoethe chief citizen.His life ended with the civic office whichhad crowned it. However AI*11Z2r" ne had lived on,we know they 1Tould have been years of service tothe same causes as ever. aut it is a ccnolati-nto his friends that their loss is his/4-1.ce.4gain, and that he has no of loneliness andage to fear.

411 Speech by the Rt. Hon. J. Enoch Powell MPto the John Hunt Supper Club of the BromleyConservative Association at The Greyhound,Croydon, 8. p.m., Friday 8th May, 1970.It is hard to realise that the Conservativepolicy document Fair Deal at Work was publishedover two years ago.("cuite suddenfly in the lastfew weeks references to what the Conservative Partysaid in that document have been greeted with astonishmentend almost incredulity as if some new tablehad just been brought down from the mountain. Stillwe have no right to repine, so long as note is taken,however belatedly, of what the Conservative Partyhas for long been saying. Fair Deal at Wor wasa remarkable production - neither before nor sincehas the Party in Opposition put forward so detailedand comprehensive 8 project for legislation. Itflinched from none of the thorny problems of tradeunion law reform and candidly submitted to publicdebate a point of view upon all of them.Two sorts of event have combined to concentr-

•-2-ate attention on the Conservative Party'sproposals. One is the appearance, at longlast, of the Government's Bill on.iOustrial rela-((4 "1_tions, to be taken on Second Reading 4oxt wock:the emasculated and almost unrecognisable outcomeof the proposals put forward over a year ago inthe Vihite Paper, In Place of Strife. The otherevent is the so-called 'Ilvage explosion' which hasbeen taking place in the last four months, sincethe compulsory powers under the Prices & IncomesActs lapsed.The coincidence -)f these two events is particularlyunfortunate for rational discussion of thelaw relating to trade unions. It suggests that thepurpose and justification of reform is to controlor even to prevent waqe increases. In fact, thereis no reason to suppose that any likely reform couldhave the slightest relevance to inflation. Eventhose who do not believe, (as I happen to believe),that inflation is scyTiething wholly caused andperpetuated by the actions of government, must

-3-admit that any effect of a reform of thelaw upon the price of labour must be atbest slow, gradual and marginal. It was a greatpsychological blunder of the Chancellor of theExchequer in his Budget speech last year to treatthe government's proposals for trade union lawreform — proposals which in the event proved still—born — as indispensable to economic success. Forour own part we in the Conservative Party shall bedeceiving ourselves and the public if we arguethe case for reform as if it were either a kind oftalisman, calculated to halt inflation dead in itstracks, or else a Draconian system of coercionwhich would succeed where a statutory prices andincomes policy has so strikingly failed. The casefor reform** wholly independent of inflation; itwould be just as stronp: if inflation had never beeninvented; and we shall be wise to keep the twoquestions poles apart. When we are asked, "whatwill you do to keep prices stable?", the oneanswer we must not give is: "Reform trade union lawI

411-4-Almost equallz/ serious ix a mistake isitto suppose that reform is about "bringingtrade unions within the law". I notice we arefrequently treated to sermons against what is called"introducing the law (or the law courts) intoindustrial relations." I expect that Governmentspeakers will lean heavily on this misconceptionin defending their own sill, which has had nearlyall the operative pr000sals removed from it, andin attacking the Conservative proposals. In fact,there is no question of 'brin7ing the law intoindustrial relations or of "bringing trade unionswithin the lawq, and for one very simple reason.The trade unions are creatures of law; collectivebargaining, strikes, lock-outs and the other manifestationsof organised industrial relations aremade possible by law. If, for instance, thereis such a thing as 'the right to strike', it is aright that owes its existance to laws which suspendor extinguish other rights-whieh would make strike

•-5-criminal or tortious.So there neitheris, nor can be, debate about whether theunions should be 'within the law': if they werewithout the law, they — and not only they, butworkers participating in a trade dispute — wouldliterally be 'outlawed'. The question is a quitedifferent one.The question is, seeing that tradeunions and organised industrial relationso are thecreation of law, whether that law requires amend—ment, and if so, how.The Conservative proposals for amendment ofthe law can conveniently be divided into three goupis.It is desirable to do this, because the three groups8re not interdeoendent — any one could be enactedwithout the others — and because the three groupsare different in character, depend on differentreasoning, and are not of equal cogency. We arejustified, as we should be if the were put forwardin the form of legislation, in studying theff‘ sep—arately and on their respective merits.The first group of proposals relate to

--0-definition. So far from being, as thisdescription might suggest, technical orformal, these go to the heart of the matter. Thelaw relating to trade unions and trade disputes isa system of legalised privilege and immunity: itis the definition of 'trade union' and 'tradedispute' which determines how far that privilegeand immunity extend.Under these two heads theConservative Party puts forward a series of importantproposals for redefinition. The privilegesand immutlities of a trade union would be dependenton registration, to which far-reaching conditionsare attached for the protection both of the membersandof the public interest. In other words, a 'tradeunion' is redefined to be 8trade union reisteredas fulfilling those conditions. Still more importantis the redefinition of 'trade dispute', the termwhich triggers the mechanism of privilege and immunityunder the Trade Disputes Acts.'iihen I mentionthat the redefinition would exclude s:/moLitheticstrikes or lock-outs, inter-union disputes, actions

-7—in pursuit or enforcement of a "closedshop" or "union shop", and disputes arisingfrom the attempt to prevent the employment of certaintypes of qualified labour, it will be seen how largethe effect of definition is. It would, in short,restore to the operation of the ordinary law, bothcivil and criminal, actions other*Og:thanregistered trade unions and actions other$04 than'in contemplation or pursuance' of a trade disouteas more narrowly defined.The central justification of this reform isthat it limits privilege and immunity to ourposeswhich opinion reco7nises as justified in -7e- publicor fair as between one citizen and another.Once awain it has to be emphasized that no magicalleuniversal or instantaneous effect is to be antici—pated or even to be desired. There are many areaswhere the citizen, or the oublic in general, haveremedies which they pursue in only a tiny minorityof the cases in which theoretically they :light succ—eed, inrn-tYwh—ere the existence of the legal remedy has

•—8—s twofold and valuable effect. In thefirst place, it indicates the type ofconduct between citizens which is respectively,approved or disapproved by society ,,nd by the law—making authority. Secondly, it gives the individuaeven in cases where he would not dream himself ofresorting to litigation, a safeg.auard and an assur—ance. I suppose not a tithe of the libels whichare uttered result in any recourse to the legalremedy; but this would hardly be made a ground forarquin7 either that the law of libel affords noprotection to the individual, or that it should notexist.So much for the first 7rouo of pr000sals.The second, which has attracted far more attention,consists basically of asserting the presumptionthat collective agreements between employers andunions are legally enforceable unless the partiesagree otherwise. It will be seen that such legis—lation would not be mandatory but would provide themachinery for the parties to enter into contractu—

411-9-ally binding agreements if they so wished.In effect, therefore, a new option wouldbe created, madxktxwamkdxtraxmicuxtall and it wouldbe a matter for experiment and experience whetherin practice major use came to be made of it inindustrial relations. One aspect is perhaps opento debate,and that is whether, if the practice ofbinding agreements became widespread, the controlof the unions over their members c,nd of employers'associations over member firms might not be undulyincreased, it is true that, since the unions cannotcontract to 'deliver' their members' labour, theduty of the parties would be limited to doinq all intheir respective power to prevent a breach of theagreement. Nevertheless, in 2ractice the scopefor coercion of individuals 1)7. the group and ofminorities by a majority could well be extended,particularly when it is remembered that the contractinto which, for instance, the employee enters withhis employer is normally far more limited - in timeCOM4Letaand-seetpa - than the collective agreement embracingi t.

411Finally, and on a different plane, thereare the pr000sals which enable the governmentto intervene, if only by activating a judicialbody, where an indtstrial dispute, in its view, toquote the actual terms of Fair Deal at Work, "wouldseriously endanger the national interest." This isthe counterpart of the Government's proposal whichresulted in the scuopering last year of In Place ofStrife and which has not been resurrected since.Let it be said, straight away, that the Governmenthas and always ought to have thepower to protectthe public against clear and immediate damage throughthe interruption of services by a trade dispute andto prevent life and limb from being endangered. Thisrequirement is met by the emergency powers and bythe special provisions in industries, such as gasand electricity, where interruption can be positivelydangerous. That, however, is not the meaning of"national interest" or "public interest" in thecontext of proposals for a cc:mpulsory "cooling-offperiod" or the like. In that context the meaning

• II/—11—is some kind of economic or even monetaryinterest, oarticularly, no doubt, that ofthe 'balance of payments. I leave aside alto—gether the debate on the balance of payments itself,andthe question whether that whole probler5with whichwe have been so long tormentedlis not the self—inflicted consequence of a misguided policy onexchange rates. Still it is clear on any viewthat for the government to intervene in one tradedispute out of many by reason of the supposed econ—omic consequences of that particular disoute impliesa view of the economy, end of the government's rolein the economy, which is essentially socialist andnot Conservative. I believe therefore that weought to consider this third and last group ofproposals further, bearing in mind that they arethe only ones which bring the state into directconfrontation with the citizen as worker or employerThe effect is the same whether the government itselfor some sort of tribunal is to be constituted thearbiter of the economic "national interest". It

• II/ -12-would be a poor bargain if by insistenceupon this element we were to blurr the clearimage of a reform of the law designed to bring thelegal framework within which citizens regulatetheir mutual dealings into accord with publicopinion and the aeneral sense of what is right andfair.—72

Extract from soeech by the Rt. Hon. J. EnochPowell, MP, to the Annual Dinner of theHasbury Conservative Club, Halesowen, at8 p.m. Friday 1st May, 1970.I am not one of those who would like to see theopinion polls stopped, or muzzled, or limited -any more than any other legitimate means of testingor expressing opinion. Yet I will confess to youa certain anxiety about their effect. It is notthat they will actually sway or alter people'sopinions, 'ut that they might distract attentionfrom the true issues of the forthcoming politicalcontest, and cause all too many to ma/e theirdecision on superficialities or irrelevandes.Contrary to the notion which so many of thepolls convey, a general election - least of oll,perhaps, the aproaching Eeneral election - is nota popularity contest. It is not a kind of political'Top of the Pops'. Incieed, it is not aboutpersons at all, except to the extent that thepersons stand as symbols for principles and issues.

-2—A British general election is not theelection of a president, whatever thetheorists may write about the increasini7 oower ofthe Prime Linister — somethinE in which anyhowI personally hapoen to disbelieve.ohen the electorate vote later this year or earlynext year, they will not be voting about which oftwo persons — in the words of the questionnaires —"would do a better job as Prime Linister", or aboutwhich party "would run the country better".Theyare voting about what sort of country it is goingto be.If I do not want a socialist Britain or astate—controlled society, it is not of the slightestinterest to me to know whether this or that partyleader, or this or that party, is competent orhonest or nice.Indeed if a government intendsto do what I do not want done at all, it makesthings all the worse for that ;::overnment and itsleader to be competent and attractive. If Ihave got to have soc±oliTts, give me incompetent

-3—socialists every time:What each elector needs to understandis that if the Labour Party should be returnedeven by the narrowest workin5 mar7in, then, irres—pective of who is Prime Linister or who is in theCabinet, the face of England would be changed, andchanged perhaps irreversibly, during the subsequentfour or five years. It would b a country inwhich an increasinP- number of people of independence,initiative and self—respect would no longer wish tospend their lives or wish to see their childrenspend their lives; and the stream, already sub—stantial, of such oöople who are emi',xrating fromBritain would broaden into a flood.In case anyone should suppose there is anytinge of exaggeration in that statement, let meask you to cast your minds backward five years, andanswer one or two questions. How many thenimagined that they would shortly see wages andprices restricted and controlled by law in time of

• -4-peace? And how many wouTd now be preparedto bet this would not ha)pen again, andmore extensively? How many then thought that theywould see the elimination of grammar schoolsenforced by law, and the same fate in preparationfor the independent schools? Or again, how manythen thought they would see taxation as a whole —the state's share of the nation's income — increasedby no less than one quarter? If these thinws andothers like them, which one would have been deridedfive years ago for oroohesying, have already cometo pass — so much so, that we already almost takethem for granted — who dare estimate how much morecompulsion another five years would bring into curlives, how many more freedoms would be extinguished?At this very moment, in the expirin,:r months ofthis parliament, the government is engaged inforcing through the nationalisation of the ports,and reinstating the Bill to coerce educationauthorities. What would te:: not do at the

-5-beginning of a new parliament, when this iswhat they do at the end of an old one?These things, and not personalities, are what theelectorate will be votinp7 about in the next twelve mmonths. These things, and not personalities, arewhat the electorate will 'be voting about next week3afeAightly or wrongly, like it or not, it is theseAriAZissues on which the municipal elctions4turnd It isfor or against more socialism, more state, morecompulsion that the voters who turn out to do theirduty next week will be throwing their weight.Any Conservative who next week_ avoidably fails toexercise his right is a5surely helping to realisea socialist Britain as if he had abstained in theGeneral Election which follows after.

NEWS SERVICEMahmusetinne. 14.30 Hours/lst May 1970334/70Paper read by the Rt. Hon, J. Enoch POWELL, M.P.(Wolverhampton S.W.) to the Conference of theInstitute of Population Registration, CambridgeHall, Southport, on Friday, 1st May 1970There are some circles in which it is not possible totalk about population figures without being abused for "playingthe numbers game", From that I am safe here today. Yourbusiness is numbers; and it is the work of your professionthat hap in the recent past brought genuine figures to bear,belatedly but at last, upon the preseht and future of the problemsin which Parliament has involved this country by thefateful delay of a few years in adapting our law of Citizenshipto the facts of real life. You were anabled to do this serviceby a change in the form of registration of birth so unobtrusivethat the enabling regulations were approved by Parliament withouta single reference being made to it. It was the inclusionof the country of birth of the parents among the partic'llarsto be stated on registering the birth of a child.This resulted in the recent discovery that the RegistrarGeneral was gravely underestimating the number of childrencurrently being born in Great Britain, one or both of whoseparents not bein of rct • --om descent was born in theNew Commonwealth. I want first to establish the f ct and themagnitude of that error, and then to oonsider some of its implicationsfor other estimates which have been given by the aegistrarGeneral or tio Government./The estimateissued by Publicity Department. Conservative Central Office, 32 Smith Square, London S W1,01-222-9000

334/70 PO=I, - 2 -The estimate to which I refer was given in July last yearto the effect that 'the number of births to this populationmay currently be a little under 35,000 per annum'. (Hansard,Written Lnswer, 25 July, 1969, Coln. 572). This estimate canbe directly compared with the figures for births in the secondand third quarters of 1969 returnod by the Registrfir General inhis Quarterly Return for the Third Quarter. These show a grossfigure cf 23,482 live births where one or both parents wereborn in the New Commonwealth. From these, however, have to bededucted those where the relevant parent or parents were ofUnited Kingdom descent. The Registrar General opened in hisreport (p.51) that "it is probable that a fairly hi=th proportion"of the 5910 births, included in the total, where one parent wasUK born and the other New Commonwealth born, were children ofUK descent, because the New Commonwealth born parent was himselfor herself of UK descent. The Secretary of State for SocialServices seemed to pitch it somewhat higher, when, instead of"a fairy high proportion", he used the expression "the greatmajority". (Hansard,..:1ritten2Lnswer, 16 March, 1970, coln. 27)I must confess to astonishment at these opinions, since itseems to me unlikely that large numbers of parents of UK descentwho were born in the New Commonwealth and are still begettingor bearing children reside in the areas Mich account for thegreat number of these (in this sense) 'mixed' births. However,since I am anxious in every pssible way to give the RegistrarGeneral and the Government the benefit of the doubt, I willadopt the estimate of 'the great majority', will assess it (veryhigh) at three-quarters, and will deduct on this account 44.32births from the total, bringing it down to 24,050./There then

334/70 POWELL - 3 -There then remain 11,036 legitimate and 18,954 illegitimatebirths where the mother Was nOt recorded as born in the NewCommonwealth and where the origir cf the father is unknown. TheSecretary of State declines (Hansard, Written Answer, 16 March,Coin. 27) to estimate how many cf these 29,990 births were torew Commonwealth parents. Still:, Chore is no deubt that those29,990 do include births to the population ahich we are studying.I am going to make the lowest possible estimate by assumingthat the proportion is no higher than 24,050 bear to the restof the births, namy, just ever6 per cent. This gives afurther 2,400 births, yielding a total 26,450 to the populationin question.In order to find the current annual rate, we apply the ratir,which births in the second and third quarters steadily bear tobirths in the whole year, namely, 51 per cent. (Hansard, WrittenAnswer, 16 March 1970, coin. 28). This gives as the currentannual fiffure for the year 1969 the total of 51,863, or 6% ofall births. To this there still rall to be added the relevantbirths in Scotland, of which .e have ro ilnformation, and of whichI will take merely token acctiunt by rounding up the total to52,00-.lNDEESTIlllUS Cb:RR7.= 37RTHSThus, all 7Lost restrictive assumptions the RegistrarGeneral's estimate of the current annual number of births wasin -rrof to m the7,5O00 ond 000.In other words we know that the true fi,urd w s more than 0.0greater than his estimate./Strictly sceaking,

334/70 PT= - 4 -Strictly speaking, there could be a further dimension to theRegistrar-General's error° The object of his estimate of birthswas to arrive at the current annual natural increase of "ratherunder 30,000 a year", (HarAard, '!ritten Answer, 10 July 19699 coln304) by deducting an estimated 5000 deaths from an estimated"little under 35,000" births. As you are now recording the placeof birth of deceased persons, there is, incidentally, no reasonwhy the PegistrareGeneral should not be able to refine upon hisestimate of the current figure of deaths -mong the New Commonwealthimmigrant population; but unless he underestimated thedeaths in the same ratio as he underestimated the births, histrue error was greater than nis error In the estj.mate of births.For insance, if his figure for deaths is right, then the truecurrent'is more than 57% greater than he estimated.ID.: fact there is reason to suppose that 5,000 deaths is toohigh rather than too low. The Secretary of State has been goodenough to tell me that only 1910 persons recorded as born in theNew Commonwealth died in the 2nd and 3rd quarters of 19E9. Allowancehas to be made for cases where no place of birth was stated,and for the fact that the 2nd and 3rd quarters are always thelightest on deaths. On the other hand, there is die fact thatthe proportion of persons of U.K. decent among the deaths is likelyto be hi;di. If follows that 5,000 is probably too large a deductionto make for deaths, in order to arrive at the current netnatural increase/I take this

334/70 PO7ELL - 44- -I take this opportunity to aplogise for having, on a firstcursory examination f e fi- res when i first appeared inMarch, let the Re istrar-General. off with an error of only 35%,when on further examination it ?roves to have been much larger. Ialso cannot refrain from drawing attention to the remarkable forbearancewhich this error has en:oved on the art of the regular,anO indeed constitutional critics of the government and administration.Imagine what would have been said if it had turned outthat the trade deficit was 50% larger than the 0overnment pc-timated./It is worth

334/70 PO.iELL - 5 -It is worth a moment or two to reflect on the possiblereason why the Registrar-General was so wildly wrong. I myselfalways knew that 35,000 was too low, because I had reached thetotal of 35,000 by totting up the individual figures from certaintowns and cities which have particularly large immigrant populations.As these only covered part of the country, I knew thetrue total was larger, though of course I could not know howmuch larger. That however is not how the Registrar-General m4dehis estimate. He made it not by adding up the actual figuresbut by applying a "fertility assumption" an assumed immigrantpopulation. The fertility assumption was that "age upecificfemale fertility averages one third higher than the nationalrate". The alternatives are either that this fertility aseumptionwas much too low, or that the assumed age structure waswrong, or that the population to whioh the fertility rate wasapplied is actually much higher than the Registrar-General assumed.There could, of course, be a mixture of all these errors. Myown conjecture, is that the main source of the Registrar-General'sunderestimete# was that he took the size of the immigrant populationat too low a figure, Unfortunately, we shall have toawait the results of the 1971 census before we obtain the firstreliable figure for the total immigrant population which wehave ever had. Until then it must remain a matter for speculationto what extent the base figure of the total immi• rant populationin 1966 or 1969 has been underestimated,/T= REGISTRAR

334/70 POWELL - 6 -THE REGISTRAR-GENERAL'S PROJECTIONSThis brings me to the Registrar-General's projections,which of course, unlike his estimate of births in 1969, wecannot yet check against the facts. I start with the famousprojection of 22nd June 1967, referring to exactly that population,exactly so defined, which I have been consideringhitherto and shall consistently consider throughout. It ranas follows: "the nu:aber was probably of the order of one millionat the end of 1966, and, on the assumptfins that the currentrate of net immigration and the current estimated fertilityrate remain substantially unchanged, the number may be of tneorder of 1i million in 1975 and of 3 million in 1985". (Hansard,Written Answers, 22nd June 1967, Coln 338)We know the current rate of net immigration taken for thepurpose, because Mr. Crossman told me (Hansard, Written Answers,1st April 1969, cola. 87) it was 57,000 per annum.. The otherfactor, the fertility rate, we have just been discussing.NJW2 the remarkable thing about this projection is thearithmetic. Take. the increase of 4 million in the nine yearsfrom the end of 1966 to the end of 1975 (assuming, which is themost favourable assumption, that "in 1975" means "at the end of1975"). Nine years' net immigration at 57,000 is 513,000. Thatleaves a quarter of a million to be accounted for by naturalincrease - births minus deaths - and tallies almost preciselywith the Registrar-General's estimate (wildly low, as we haveseen) of 35,000 births minus 5,000 deaths (Hansard, WrittenAnswers, 25th July 1969, coln, 572) in 1969./But then we come

334/70 POWELL - 7 -But then we come to the second half of the projection:another 1* million in the ten years from the end of 1975 to theend of 1985. As only about half a million of this - 570,000, tobe precise - is contributed by net immigiation, the remaining14 million - an average of 125,000 a year - must be contributedby natural increase. How did the Registrar-General arrive atan annual natural increase four times greater in the seconddecade than in the first? Since he was applying the samespecific female fertility rate" throughout, this at least isclear, that the female age structure during the decade 1975-1985was such as to produce a much higher rate of natural increasethan that obtained for the nine years 1966-1975. I am sorryto report that all my attempts to coax the government intoelucidating tLis puzzle have failed. In answer to a recentquestion, Mr. Crossman informed me that:"the figure of 33:million was given as a possible order ofmagnitude. Of the two assumptions which were postulated,the important one was the future level of net migration.The order cf magnitude indicated was appropriate for a widerange of fertility levels and could not be said to reflecta pricise level within that range." (Hansard, WrittenAnswers, 16th April 1970, coln. 280)Of this extraordinary reply, I con only observe that it issimply. not right. At 57,000 a year, net immigration wouldcontribute just over one million to the increase of two and ahalf millions in nineteen years. In simple arithsietic thereforethe natural increase assumption must have been the major factor./THE OUTT:CRN FOR THREE YRAPS

334/70 POWELL - 8 -THE OUTTURN FOR THREE YEARSOf the first part of the Registrar-General's projection,that to 1975, only three of the nine years have yet elapsed;but it is worth a moment or two to compare the reality in thosethree years with the assumptions on which his exercise wasbased. First, net immigration-For the population as defined, net immigration in the threeyears 1967, 1968, and 1969 is obtained as follows. The homeOffice returns (Cmnd. 4029 and 4327) shrsw respectively, 64,637166,673, and 43,385. To these figures, however, must be addednet arrivals of holders of United Kingdom and Colonies passoortsfrom. East Africa during 1967 and the first two months of 19689when they were not yet included in the Home Office figu2es.These have been officially estimated for that period at 26,400.(Hansard, Written Answer, 15th Feb. 1968, coan. 392; 27th Feb;coln. 1356.) The tota ur net immi ration between theend of 1966 and the end of 106 was thus over 181,000, from whichit is unlikely that any appreciable deduction falls to be madefor persons of United Kingdom descent.Whether the sharp fall-back in 106 to a.f: 0 sli htlylower than that for 1966, will be maintained WQ r:r1nOt Pf courseknow. Net relevant immi-ration in the first two months of 1970was 10 893, com ared with in the first two months of1969, but the decline in 1969 did not start until the middle ofthat year.......mmordwatenessos/Coming to natural

334/70 POVvELL - 9 -Coming to natural increase, as we have seen, this, on allthe lowest assumptions, was 47,000 in 1969. The statistics forbirths in individual places where they were kept in 1967, 1968and 1969 (Birmingham, Bradford, Huddersfield, Walsall and 'WestBromwich) indicate that the number of births was increasing overthose three years. It would therefore be reasonable to take theaverage for the three years somewhat lower, at 45,000 a year.Thus the relevant a ulation at the end of 1966, whatever itstrue size was, had increased at the end ^f 1969 by 315,000 -nearly one-third of a million in three years,THE LONG-TERM POPULATIONThere hes been some disposition to trent the revenlederror of the Registrar-General F1E7relatively unimportant becauseit refers to a single year. In fact, the im-nlications ore forreaching.I have just mentioned the fact that the evidenceavailable shows numbers of births to have been increasing rightup to the present. Of course we shall never know what the nationaltotals were for the years before 1969, and we do not yet know them- though in due course We shall - for future years. It is probablethat at some future point of time total births will cease risingand begin to decline, though even those who argue for low estimatesof future population concede that total births ore likely tocontinue to rise for several years. (E.g. Mr, E.J.B. Rose, quotedbelow) What is not commonly realised is how much we already knowabout the permanent future make-up of the bopulation of thiscountry./The mean age of a woman

334/70 POWELL - 10 —,4, tiv'sTheAoommy age of a women et the birth of 0 child is between25 and 26. Consequently, if there is no further immigrntionor emigration, and if all elements of the population have thesame fertility (including zie41° age nt childbirth) end the samemortality nnd balance of sexes, the composition of the populationup to age 25+ will in due course become the composition of thepopulation 3s a whole.There is a great deal that we already know about wha-s willbe the composition of the population up to ege 25+ at the end of1979. Those who will then be under 10 hod not yet been born atthe end of' 1969. Those who will then be 10+ to 15+ had been bornbut had not yet started compulsory schooling. Those whc willthen be 15+ to 25+ were at school.--Let me illustrate from the City of Birmingham how idlecomposition of those three elements of the population up to 25+at the end of 1979 -:nn be estimated.In 1969 20% of the births in Birmingham were to mothersborn in the New Commonwe lth (Registrar-General), This correspondsto the percentage of 5,8% for England and Wales; but, likethat national figure, it must be adjusted for births where thefnther only was born in the New Commonweelth, for illegitimateend other births where parentage was not known, and for caseswhere the relevant parent was of U.K. decent. Assuming for thispurpose the same proportion as we have elicited nationelly, therelevant percentage in Birmingham is adjusted to over 22%; and thisis certainly en underestimate, bec-us, apart from other reasons,the deduction allowed for parents of U.a. descent is certeinlytoo high as applied to Birmingham./Now, we know from

334/70 POWELL - 11 -Now, we know from the statistics kept by the Medical Officerof Health for Birmingham that over the four years before 1969the proportion of births in the City where one or both parentswere from the New Commonwealth rose about one percentage pointa year; but allowance has to bmade for children still undercompulsory school age in 1969 who arrived in the City in the fiveyears 1965 to 1969. We have a pointer to the number of sucharrivals in the fact that in the school years 1967-68 and 1968-69the numbers of children of school age who arrived from overseaswere respectively 2,189 and 1,815, an approximate addition of1% a year. The proportionate addition to the total under compulsoryschool age will presumably have been approximately the, sameg;AIt would therefore be a reasonable conclu'sion that n t less than22 of the children still under sChool a-e at the end of 1969,who will be aged 10+ to 1r:1- t f 10 0 are of the populationwe are studying.Now I come to those under 10+ at the end of 1979, that is,those who will be born daring the 1970's. I am going to assumethat the proportion of births continues to rise during the firsthalf of the decade but falls again at the same rate during thesecond half. This would be consistent with, for instance, theview taken by Mr. Rose of the Race Relations Institute that"we will see more Asian births in this country over the nextprobably six, seven, eight years, and less West Indian births butthe overall number may go up because these Asians are reunitingtheir families" (I.T. News, 10th March, 1970) it would thenfollow that in 1979 not less than 22T0 of those under 10+ will beof the DO ulation we are studying, though it must be rememberedthat this makes no allowance for any arrivals at all./THL LLFECTIVE SCHOOL STej2ISTICS

334/70 POWELL - 12 -THE :i7FECTIVE SCHOOL STATISTICSHaving thus established that not less than 22% of those under15+ in 1979 will be coloured, what of the rest of the generation -those between 15+ and 25+? They are now at school. What informationhave we? We know (Hansard Written Answers 19 February 1970,coln 168) that 91% of the children in the maintained primary andsecondary schools in Birmingham in January 1969 were childrenboth of whose parents were born in the New Commonwealth, who, orwhose parents, came to this country afte. the end of 1958. Thispercentage, however, is far from giving us the proportion we arelooking fcr. On the one hand, it covers Phildren over 15+ atmaintained secondary schools. On the other hand it does 'not coverschools other than maintained schools, Keweve.r,as a workinghypothesis I will assume that theee factors offset one another.Much more serioas is the omission of children only one of whoseparents was bcrn in the New Commonwealth Te deal:.with this I applyas a rough approximation the ratio shown by the 1969 birth figures.This is Probably an unaerestimate because the M.O.H.'s statisticsshow that the proportion of mixed births in Birmingham has beensteadily ahd rapidly falling. However, the application of theratio raises the proportion from 9710 to 13%, 'which of coursewould not inclule children, whether legitimate or illegitimate,whose mother was not recorded as bor.0 in die New Commonwealth andthe oriin of whose father is unknown,The most serious source of underestimate, however, is the'10-year rule' which automatically excludes all children who, orwhose parents, were in the UK by 1 January 1959. It is good toknow that the Department of 7ducation & Science is consideringremedying the omission in future counta (Hansard 7ritten Answers17 March 1970, coln 109, & Cmnd )1268 para, 7)./Meanwhile we have

334/7c PaPELL - 13 -Meanwhile we have to attempt to make some allowance. 7ortunatelywe have one crumb of infoimation- In 1958 the proportion of birthsto new Commonwealth parents in the City of Birmingham was already6.8% of the total. This percentage, therefore,of the children atschool aged 11 in 1969 is not included in the school statistics andfalls to be added to them. Those parents,iand others already inthe UK before 1959,will have been producing children, though notof course necessarily in the same proportion to the total, both in1955-57 (when there are not yet any figures a;-all) and after 1958(when such children are merged with the rest in the birth figures,but omitted from the school figures). In addition there must besome allowance for children still under 15+ in 1969 who immigrated1959. It would surely not be unreasonable to raise the 131.%to at least 18% to cover all these factors. We arrive then at theconclusion that in 1979not less tha418% of those between 15+ and25+ will be co o, d - once again remembering that this makes noallowance for arrivals in the eleven years 1969 to 1979who willbe bettoen 15+ and 25+ at the end of the latter year.Carrr-L= G7NERA7IQN7utting tozether these three sections we .7e1,generation at the e d of • 1 be coloured.There is no reason tO SUD ose eLration the balanceet the sexes till be.othor than normal, I . follows even assumingthat the fertility of tnis section of the DO ulation is no greaterthan that of the rest and t - • _ section marries only withinitself, that at least one-fifth of the population of what is nowthe City of Birmingham will in course of time be coloured, assumingno net movement either inward or outward./To the extent

334/70 POITTFILL - 14 -To the extent that inter marriage occurs, the proportion - on thedefinition adopted in the Registrar-General's estimate of the"firet generation'L.will be larger.It is obvious that the assumption of no net movement inwardor outward is artificial, though it is at least as probable thatthe true balance of inward and outwnrd movement would increase theultimate proportion, as that it would reduce it. However, thecalculations which I have offered as applied to Birmingham - Ichose Birmingham because of the uniquely long series of birthfigures available there - have a two-fold significance. First, theyemphasize the crucial importance of having proper statistics forchildren of school age, to match those which we are .00107; at lastobtaining for births. Second, and more important still, theshow how wrong it is to dismiss the current birth figures as apassing phenomenon which offers no guide to the future consequences,in -oopulation terms, of immigration from the New Commonwealth. Onthe contrary, what is already known and whilt has already taken placeenables.us to make fairly reliable minimum estimates of the futuremake-up of the population: and that make-up will differ much lessfrom the current ratio of births than has commonly been supposed.