UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Speeches

  • Tony Baldry – 1986 Speech on Horton Hospital in Banbury

    Below is the text of the speech made by Tony Baldry, the then Conservative MP for Banbury, in the House of Commons on 4 February 1986.

    I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this important subject and I thank the Minister for the care that he has taken so far in dealing with the representations that I have made about the Horton hospital.

    As both my parents have spent their working lives in the National Health Service—my father is a doctor and my mother a nurse—I have, naturally, always had an interest in the NHS, and since becoming the Member for Banbury I have taken a particular interest in the Horton general hospital. It is a first-class general hospital with well-qualified and highly motivated staff serving the medical needs of a wide catchment area stretching into Northamptonshire and Warwickshire.

    Any debate on the NHS is liable to become either a statement of statistics or an exercise in special pleading. I hope to do neither. Horton is a well run hospital. The local community has every reason to have confidence in the hospital’s unit administrator, Dennis Baston, and his team. Whereas the average national daily cost per inpatient is £79, at Horton hospital it is only £66, and whereas the national average in-patient case cost is £577, at Horton it is £528.

    Some people seek to give the impression that the NHS is in a state of constant decline, is starved of resources and has ever-shrinking staff numbers. In fact, the figures show that local health services have never had so many resources devoted to them. Revenue spending on health services in Oxfordshire has increased by 101·7 per cent. in cash terms since 1979, representing an increase in real terms of 13·2 per cent. That means that the Health Service in Oxfordshire has a budget 13·2 per cent. bigger than it was in 1979. Revenue spending on Horton general hospital has increased by 103·8 per cent. in cash terms since 1979, which represents an increase in real terms of 14·4 per cent.

    During the past six years, about £2·25 million has been spent on new building works at the hospital, and during the next five years about £6,640,000 is planned to be spent on new building works. Since 1979, about £670,000 has been spent on new medical equipment at the hospital. There is no doubt that Horton general hospital is a more secure, better district hospital now than it was in 1979.

    Against that background of consistent achievement in the NHS and consistent extra resources for the hospital, I raise my specific anxieties, because, despite the consistent improvement, many beds at the hospital are empty for want of nurses and some financial resources. The first legitimate anxiety relates to RAWP which, as my hon. Friend will know, is the formula by which resources are allocated from central Government to regional health authorities. There are good grounds for suggesting that Oxfordshire regional health authority is underfunded. As my hon. Friend will know, it is one of the fastest growing areas of population in Britain, yet although in 1977–78 the region was 7 per cent. above its RAWP target, it is now 3 per cent. below target. It would appear to have had a more negative movement than any other region. I do not understand why Oxfordshire regional health authority should be in that position. The region’s budget may be underfunded, so, however hard it tries, it will have ​ difficulties in meeting all its commitments. At the end of the day, that means that in a good district general hospital beds are not being used as they should be.

    In a letter to me last October, my hon. Friend the Minister acknowledged that Oxfordshire is not receiving its fair share of resources. He said:

    “It is true to say that Oxford RHA receives 3 per cent. less than its fair share of the available resources, whereas in 1977–78 it received 7 per cent. more than its share.”

    What happened was that, just at the point when the region was on target to receive exactly its fair share, its relative need for health care increased because of rapid population growth. The target shifted. This had the effect of converting Oxfordshire health authority from an over-target region to an under-target region. In simple terms, that means that the regional health authority has insufficient funds for its means and is not receiving a fair share of the funds available.

    I appreciate that, this year, Oxfordshire is receiving about £1·4 million of growth money from the Government to pay for better services. However, that entire sum may be swallowed by unexpected bills: £344,000 to cover Oxfordshire massive rates increase; £700,000 to pay for higher than expected wage awards; and £250,000 to pay for a new national agreement on ambulance men’s pay. I simply ask: when will Oxfordshire again receive its fair share of central Government money?

    Our second anxiety relates to the nurses that the district health authority can provide at the Horton. That is partly a consequence of the resources that the regional health authority can apply to the district and the district health authority can apply to the hospital. Recently, Oxfordshire health authority undertook a comprehensive review of nursing. That review is not yet completed, but its results so far demonstrate such low numbers of nurses at present on the wards as to give rise to great anxiety. It is neither fair, sensible nor acceptable to allow the numbers of nurses on wards and in the community to reach such levels that the staff who remain become demoralised It is unfair to the nurses and to the patients. I fully appreciate that some of the problems relate to difficulties in recruiting nurses. Horton, like every other hospital in Oxfordshire, is suffering and is finding it difficult to recruit either state registered or state enrolled nurses. Nursing services are extremely stretched.

    At Horton beds are closed because of a combination of recruitment problems and revenue difficulties.

    In a recent letter to the county’s Members of Parliament, the district group manager, Dr Paine, observed:

    “The options will have to be those which will bring up the level of nursing staff on individual wards to such a level that they can feel that they carry out their duties effectively and without exhaustion and disillusion, as is too commonly the present case. It looks as though some reductions of service will be inescapable if this is to be achieved within even the optimistic predictions for the district’s funding in 1986.”

    That letter was written prior to certain of the unexpected expenditure which the district will incur, such as the rates increase to which I drew the attention of the House earlier.

    There is genuine concern that, because Oxfordshire health authority has not been able fully to fund the increases in nurses’ pay, the number of nurses at Horton has had to be cut. That has meant that beds have had to come out of service and it has hit, in particular, cold ​ surgery so that the waiting times for operations have lengthened and on a number of occasions the hospital has not been able to use the operating theatres in the most cost effective way.

    I have read with interest the auditor general’s recent study into nursing and I fully appreciate the argument that substantial savings can be made nationwide on redeploying nurses. However, having made several visits to Horton hospital, and having discussed the matter at considerable length with those involved, I am more than satisfied that in Horton the nursing staff are already being used as cost effectively and efficiently as possible, given the size of the hospital, the present 37½ hour working week which makes it difficult to provide 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week cover, and other constraints imposed by the Royal College of Nursing. I should be very surprised if anyone going into Horton could find a more cost effective way of using the money available for the nursing staff. The situation with nurses will be even more critical next year as each 1 per cent. increase in nurses’ pay, which is not funded centrally, costs Oxfordshire health authority £8 million. When will we have a system of pay reviews that ensures that health authorities have available locally the resources necessary to honour pay awards agreed nationally.

    The last matter to which I wish to draw the attention of the House and which impinges upon the efficiency and effectiveness of Horton hospital is the effect of the recent introduction of the regulations on the maximum amount of money available to keep people in private nursing homes. I support fully the need to control such demand spending and understand why it was necessary to introduce the regulations. However, it is estimated that at any time there are up to 20 people in Horton hospital who are not really ill. They are old and would be far better off in nursing homes, but they cannot be admitted to private nursing homes because the Department of Health and Social Security cannot fund them. In consequence, they are costing the community far more by being in hospital and they are also taking up valuable beds which could be used by patients in need of acute medical beds.

    The chairman of Oxfordshire health authority and the chairman of Oxfordshire community health council have as a matter of urgency been carrying out an evaluation of all the private nursing provision in Oxfordshire. If it should be shown that the present DHSS levels have been set too low to enable private nursing homes to provide proper accommodation for those who are entirely dependent upon the DHSS for support, I trust that my hon. Friend will again consider the limits. It must be in everybody’s interest that no acute bed in a general hospital is unnecessarily occupied.

    I hope that by the tenor of my comments I have made it clear to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and to the House that I do not approach this matter by way of special pleading. I hope that I approach it by way of balanced and objective analysis, wishing to try to discover how it is that at a time when more money than ever before is being devoted to the Horton hospital and to the National Health Service as a whole we find ourselves in the curious position that, notwithstanding, there are empty beds at a good, efficient hospital like Horton. The Horton hospital is a first class general hospital. We intend to ensure that it remains a first class general hospital that is able effectively and efficiently to serve the medical needs of local people.

  • Paul Channon – 1986 Statement on British Leyland

    Below is the text of the statement made by Paul Channon, the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in the House of Commons on 3 February 1986.

    With the approval of the BL board, discussions are in progress between BL and General Motors with the aim of creating an internationally competitive United Kingdom commercial vehicle industry and improving the long-term prospects for the constituent BL companies. These talks cover Leyland Trucks, Land Rover, Freight Rover and certain related overseas operations. Discussions are at an advanced stage, but a number of important issues remain to be settled Separate discussions are taking place with the Laird Group, which owns Metro Cammell Weyman, about the future of Leyland Bus.

    As to the other BL businesses, it remains the policy of Her Majesty’s Government to return them to private ownership as soon as practicable. Talks with other car manufacturers on a variety of potential business ventures are in progress; some of them are wide-ranging, but are at an exploratory stage, and it is too early to tell whether they will lead to any potential equity stake, acquisition or merger.

  • Peggy Fenner – 1986 Speech on the Scotch Whisky Industry

    Below is the text of the speech made by Peggy Fenner, the then Parliamentary Secretary to Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in the House of Commons on 3 February 1986.

    One of the delights of my job in the Ministry has been the opportunity to visit some of those fine Scottish distilleries, so I welcome this opportunity for a debate on the Scotch whisky industry. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) has paid tribute to the industry as well as challenged it, and I wholeheartedly endorse what he has said. The Government fully recognise the importance of this industry as an important source of employment—some 16,500 jobs, many of them in disadvantaged areas—and as one of the United Kingdom’s top five net export earners, the value of exports last year having topped the £1 billion mark. At home, the industry is very important, making a similar level of contribution to the revenue. There can, therefore, be no question but that the Government fully recognise the important role of this industry in the country’s economy.

    I recognise, however, that the hon. Member, in seeking this debate, is concerned at current trends in the industry and especially the effect of several recent major bids. As the House well understands, responsibility for monopolies and mergers policy does not rest with my Department. The Ministry, however, has responsibilities for the Scotch whisky industry and that is why I am pleased to reply to this short debate. As regards competition policy, as my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made clear in a statement in this House on 5 July 1984, references to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission would be made primarily on competition grounds. “Primarily” does not of course exclude other considerations. For example, the major consideration behind the recent decision to refer the bid for Allied-Lyons plc by Elders IXL Ltd., was the method of financing, which was thought to raise issues deserving of further consideration. On the other hand, the decision not to refer the Guinness bid for Bell’s and Argyll’s bid for Distillers was guided primarily by considerations of competition.

    I know that there has been comment on these decisions. Reference decisions, whichever way they go, often arouse controversy. I do not want to stray too far into the responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but I should point out that there were significant differences between the financing of the Elders and the Argyll bids which led my right hon. friend to his different decisions on the need for a reference. ​ The hon. Member has also raised the question of a possible referral of the recent Guinness bid for Distillers. This decision of course rests with my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. He will take that decision on the basis of advice submitted by the Director General of Fair Trading. It would not be appropriate for me to anticipate that decision or to comment on the matter at this stage.

    Mr. lain Mills (Meriden)

    Surely Guinness should have the same chance to bid to the shareholders as Argyll?

    Mrs. Fenner

    I have made the point that this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will be aware of the question of balance that has been put by my hon. Friend.

    As the hon. Member for Gordon will be aware, my hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for corporate and consumer affairs, the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), has announced that a review of the Government’s competition policy will begin this year. The precise scope of the review has not yet been finalised but will be announced in due course. In the meantime I am sure that the interesting points made in this debate by the hon. Member will be considered in the review.

    The hon. Member has mentioned several problems which are worrying the industry. As he is aware, the distilling sector working group of the National Economic and Development Office, which includes representatives of the industry, Government and the trade unions, has carried out a wideranging review which was published as recently as October 1984. This followed an earlier review in 1978. Matters have been examined carefully in a short time.

    The report identified all the major issues of current concern to the industry, several of which the hon. Member has mentioned, and made recommendations for action by Government and the industry during the next five years. We are still very much involved in implementing these recommendations and, of course, we are ready to play our part with the industry in tackling any new issues that may arise.

    The possibility of the Government restricting bulk exports, particularly of malt whisky, has been suggested because of the benefits that would bring to the UK in employment and in other respects. I should point out that this issue was examined in the 1978 report, which concluded that the industry was insufficiently united voluntarily to regulate its bulk exports, while Government were restrained from such action by their international commitments under the GATT and by Community obligations. The 1984 study reached similar conclusions. Nonetheless, its analysis suggests that such exports have tended to stabilise around the 1978 levels, and figures just released in respect of last year’s exports show a substantial fall in this trade. I am sure that that will reassure the hon. Member.

    As for the abolition of stock relief in the 1984 corporation tax changes, the Government are well aware that because of its large stocks of maturing whisky, the Scotch whisky industry has been particularly affected by these measures, although in the longer term, as ​ corporation tax rate falls, the industry should pay slightly less tax even without stock relief than it did before the 1984 changes.

    In his decisions on taxation at the last Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer recognised the difficulties faced by the industry. I cannot of course anticipate the decisions that he will take in this year’s Budget, but I am aware that the Scotch Whisky Association has made detailed representations.

    The Government are working closely with the industry in several areas in which there is agreement that progress can be made. For example, the Government are currently considering proposals for whisky definitions to be prescribed in new regulations under the Food Act 1984. Any proposals will be subject to the usual consultation with all the interests concerned. We are also giving strong support to Community proposals laying down clear definitions of the spirit drinks most commonly traded within the Community. The industry is keen for the enactment of measures which should help the competitive position of Scotch whisky in export markets. We shall aim to press ahead with these proposals during our Presidency of the Community in the second half of this year.

    We maintain regular and close contacts with the industry on the trade barriers it faces throughout the world and we pay special consideration to its efforts in the far east. The Government also have the interests of the industry very much in mind in their approach to the EC Commission’s proposals on the harmonisation of the structure of duties on alcoholic drinks. Our joint aim is to help establish fairer terms of competition for the industry throughout the Community.

    I know that the Scotch whisky industry has been through a difficult period during the past six years. World recession, coupled with changes in drinking fashions, has contributed to a drop in sales in many key markets. I would not, however, like to conclude on such a pessimistic note, which would not, I think, reflect current attitudes in the industry. In the past year or so, the industry has made substantial efforts to bring maturing stocks more into line with sales expectations. There is also some evidence now that the decline in world sales may be taking a turn for the better. In the domestic market, there was a 6 per cent. rise in consumption in the first nine months of 1985 as compared with the same period in 1984, with considerably greater growth in the as yet small malt whisky market. These are encouraging indications which we hope foreshadow a sustained improvement in the industry’s performance to the benefit of the whole economy.

    Sir Hector Monro (Dumfries)

    Will my hon. Friend bring home to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor the strength of feeling in the debate and the number of hon. Members who attended it? We want a revitalised Scotch whisky industry. The only way in which there can be a dramatic improvement in the near future is through budgetary measures. I hope that my hon. Friend will bring that point home to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

    Mrs. Fenner

    My hon. Friend puts his point very clearly.

  • Malcolm Bruce – 1986 Speech on the Scotch Whisky Industry

    Below is the text of the speech made by Malcolm Bruce, the then Liberal MP for Gordon, in the House of Commons on 3 February 1986.

    I am extremely pleased to have the opportunity of this debate, particularly as events in the Scotch whisky industry are so topical. However, the debate is on the industry and not just the immediate developments in it.

    The Scotch whisky industry has had a difficult few years. Volume sales have declined from a peak in 1979. The number of distilleries has reduced since then from about 130 to 100, and employment has fallen from over 25,000 to about 16,500. While smaller companies have performed fairly well, especially those selling single malt whiskies, the industry leader, Distillers, has generally not done well, and the facts show it.

    The industry is obviously extremely important, to Scotland, but it is also important to the whole of the United Kingdom. It provides manufacturing jobs, many of them in areas where there is little or no alternative, and it still represents a major export industry, with sales approaching £1 billion a year. It is important to maintain and develop its employment and export potential.

    The recent developments began in the middle of 1985, when Guinness took over Arthur Bell and Sons plc for £356 million and so acquired the top domestic brand of whisky. The Fosters lager consortium, Elders IXL, has put in a bid for Allied Lyons, which includes William Teachers, whose two distilleries are in my constituency. Teachers is the second largest United Kingdom brand. That bid has rightly been referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, involving as it does the acquisition of a key product by an Australian group, which must be examined carefully in this strategic industry.

    It is not surprising that bids and counterbids have been launched for a company such as Distillers, which seems to be under-achieving its potential under its present management. The first bid came from James Gulliver’s Argyll Group, which offered £1·89 billion. When the bid arrived, there were calls for it to be referred to the MMC. On competition grounds that did not seem to be justified, but in relation to the strategic national interest the bid warranted at least deep consideration about whether it would secure jobs and promote exports.

    Mr. Alexander Pollock (Moray)

    In that context, does the hon. Gentleman recall the words of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who said that in addition to competition there might be referrals

    “where the destiny of a vital national capability is at issue?”

    Mr. Bruce

    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning a factor that must be considered in all bids. I am anxious that the bids are treated equally and fairly and that similar considerations are applied in all cases. That is the critical factor.

    Nevertheless, the Argyll bid was cleared. Then Guinness made a bid, which was agreed with Distillers —it invited Guinness in and offered to pay its expenses —for £2·19 billion. If that merger were to go ahead, it would create a group that accounted for 35 per cent. of the whisky market. There is a dispute as to how much whisky ​ production that group would represent, but it is between 35 and 50 per cent.—probably nearer to 35 per cent. The group would also own, as Distillers still does, 50 per cent. of United Glass, which accounts for half the sales of bottles to the whisky industry.

    Mr. George Robertson (Hamilton)

    When the hon. Gentleman produces statistics about the capability of the Distillers-Guinness conglomerate, will he take into account the spare capacity that is available to Distillers and not rely on a suggestion of actual output? Distillers has a considerable amount of capacity which is at present unused but which could come back on stream.

    Mr. Bruce

    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I intend to deal with the point later.

    As Guinness has acquired Arthur Bell, it would, with Distillers, become a bigger group than Distillers alone and would be bigger than a Distillers group owned by Argyll. That presents a dilemma, because it is difficult to believe that a bid to create such an enlarged group should not be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, although the Government may take a different view. However, if that merger is referred, it would leave Argyll clear and free in the market and would handicap Guinness. Not to refer it would undermine the credibility of the Office of Fair Trading. Could it say, “We will not refer this bid because we did not refer the Argyll bid; but had there not been an Argyll bid, we might have referred it”? We must have a clear statement, whether or not the bid is referred, of the reasons for so doing. The Minister and the Government must take that point on board.

    That clearly leaves the Government with limited options. If the Guinness bid is not referred to the commission there must be a clear explanation for that, as it is difficult to see why it should not be referred. If there is a good reason, it should be made available.

    If, on the other hand, the bid is referred to the commission, the Ministers responsible have two further choices. They can either review the decision of Argyll on the ground that they need to consider all the implications for the industry and it would be fair to consider both bids at the same time, or they can state, as this would be the effect of their decision, that they are effectively endorsing the Argyll bid, at least by implication, and explain that they are happy for that to happen. How the bids are referred and judged should not be left to luck. Both bids have every right to be treated fairly. All the factors, jobs, exports, management potential, the merits of the bid and the implications of competition should be considered equally for both bids.

    The sheer scale of these bids and the wide issues that they raise require a clear statement by the Government of their position. I do not think that we can accept a “hands off” approach, unless it is a genuine “hands off” approach. There should be no under-the-counter meddling over the decision to refer or not to refer. That would have a perceived effect, and that fact must be taken into account.

    It is unfortunate for those of us who are caught in the middle of these battles that they frequently degenerate into an argument between the management of the two different companies. There are claims and counter-claims, which does not add to the clarity of information on both sides. The merits of both companies are such that there is no doubt that if either of them were to take over Distillers there would be a re-invigorated whisky industry, using the ​ brands to lead a new attack on the export market. That would be desirable. It is important that the relative accounts of both companies are considered.
    Argyll launched its bid with an attractive statement—attractive to me as a Scottish Member—which claims that the company will bring Scotch whisky back home. It would establish a new company in Scotland. Its management team would be based in Scotland and the industry would be run from there. Argyll claim that its management team has a marketing background which can revitalise the industry, and it feels that its actions are a logical development of its own business.

    Guinness countered that by claiming that it had greater international marketing expertise which would be much healthier and better for the industry. It also claimed that it would establish headquarters in Scotland. We should be grateful that there now seems to be renewed enthusiasm for operating international businesses within Scotland. All Scottish hon. Members will be glad to see that it seems from that point of view that we cannot lose. We shall get an enlarged whisky management group in Scotland.

    I should not at this stage take sides in the issue other than to ensure that a fair deal is secured. I accept that the Scotch whisky industry needs a boost and injection of new creative management. It needs aggressive and creative marketing. I am looking for, and I believe that the Minister should want, a commitment to centering employment and management in Scotland and to securing the quality of Scotch whisky as a product and to ensuring that it is backed with effective, creative marketing to beat off the challenge it has suffered from its competitors, namely white spirits, white wine, brandy and so forth.

    Although it may be invidious to mention the two together, I think we can learn something from the way the producers of Armagnac and Cognac have established the imprimatur on their quality product in a way which Scotch whisky could benefit from if it is to establish itself as top of the heap.

    One of the difficulties in relation to white spirit in competition with Scotch, which will lead me to make specific recommendations at the end of my speech, is that there is, of course, no ageing process, no skilful blending and no mystique. One can make gin today and sell it effectively next week. There is no difficulty involved in forward planning, no expense in stock holding, and no creative skills are required. Yet, in the long run, that is not in the best interests of Scotland or the United Kingdom. It would certainly not create jobs in rural Scotland and it does not have the export potential that whisky has, as gin can be made relatively easily almost anywhere. Pure, good quality Scotch whisky can only be made in the right circumstances, in the right place—in Scotland.

    The Scotch whisky industry is vital to rural communities and towns in Scotland which have blending and bottling plants. Teachers has its only two distilleries in my constituency and employs 50 people in two relatively small communities. Distillers had a distillery in my constituency but closed it many years ago. I am pleased to say that Morrisons of Glasgow took it over and not only generated employment by producing malt whisky but produces tomatoes and house plants from the waste heat. The company has generated some imaginative tourism on the back of those products.

    The importance of the industry to rural areas can be explained by the example of a minister whom I met. He told me that he went for a charge in a rural parish and was ​ asked, “Do you take a dram, minister?” Normally, a minister would assume that the correct answer was no. On this occasion he would have been wrong because the parish was entirely dependent for its employment on a malt whisky distillery. Fortunately, the minister gave not merely the right answer but the honest answer. He admitted that he took a dram and finished up with the charge.

    After considering the points that I have made about the two bids the Government should make their position clear. That is critical. They should ensure that they take account of the interests of Scotland and the United Kingdom market. They should treat the bids fairly and evenhandedly and explain their position clearly.

    There are three further things that the Government should do for the Scotch whisky industry. I should like to address those points to the Minister. The Government should recognise their responsibility to work with the industry to ensure a good quality product. As the Minister will recognise, a definition of Scotch whisky is required by law. The ageing process is required by law. There are one or two further areas where legislation could strengthen and develop the Scotch whisky industry.

    The first point is controversial. The Government should legislate to ban the export of bulk malt whisky. I accept that some distilleries would have some difficulties as a result, but I believe that it would protect the quality of our market. We export bulk malt whisky to Japan where it is blended with the local inferior product so as to pass it off as a more acceptable product. The result is that it is harder for Scotch whisky to penetrate the Japanese market. We face the possibility of the Japanese launching a major export assault on third markets using as a base bulk malt Scotch whisky. That is nothing like as advantageous as us selling Scotch whisky to those markets. In the long term such legislation would be in the best interests of the quality of the product and the market.

    The Government should insist that the legal definition of Scotch whisky should provide that it should be full strength, at least three years old, distilled, matured, blended and bottled in Scotland and contain a statement of the percentage of malt whisky included.

    Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

    No.

    Mr. Bruce

    I understand the hon. Gentleman’s anxiety and I appreciate that it is an important constituency point. Such a quality product would enable the whisky industry generally to be extended to everyone’s benefit.

    Mr. Foulkes rose—

    Mr. Bruce

    I must press on, because the Minister needs time to reply.

    I know that the Minister will have to consult her colleagues on these points, but these are important issues. The Government should re-introduce stock relief to the Scotch whisky industry. The abolition of stock relief was effectively a tax on the quality of Scotch whisky. Scotch must be matured for three years. The cost of that three-year maturing process is estimated to be £53 million in lost stock relief. That £53 million would be much better deployed within the industry expanding the market. The re-introduction of stock relief would be to the Government’s advantage.

    I do not believe that the position of the Scotch whisky industry was appreciated when stock relief was abolished. It put Scotch whisky at a disadvantage compared to competitive products when it was facing a major assault from those products.

    I urge the Minister to explain to her colleagues that Scotland feels that it should have a thriving and developing Scotch whisky industry, and they should recognise that bids of the scale that we are now witnessing fall, effectively to be the Government’s responsibility. They should ensure that all the strategic considerations are taken into account, that the bids are treated fairly and equally and that Scotland obtains the best possible Scotch whisky industry, with local management, control and ownership and growing export sales. That is what we want, I hope that the Minister will be able to give answers which show that the Government are prepared to take on board their responsibilities and ensure that that is what we get.

  • Angela Rumbold – 1986 Speech on the Rate Support Grant

    Below is the text of the speech made by Angela Rumbold, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, in the House of Commons on 31 January 1986.

    I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) for the kind words with which they began their contributions. I am also grateful to them on behalf of the civil servants who worked in Marsham street for many a long year with my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam.

    I do fully understand my hon. Friend’s arguments about the manner in which the London borough of Sutton has conducted its affairs over a number of years. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington paid tribute to the local authority’s good management and spoke of how such good management affects people who live and work in that outer London borough. I sympathise and I do not want anything that we do to be to the detriment of such boroughs.

    My hon. Friends will accept that the rate support grant system is at the best of times undeniably complex. This settlement has been more complex because of the additional task of accommodating the abolition of the Greater London council and the metropolitan authorities. I welcome the opportunity to try to reassure my hon. Friends and their constituents about the borough’s position.

    First, I shall deal with how the 1986–87 rate support grant settlement might have affected Sutton if we had not made any changes to the grant system. Like all other outer Londer authorities the borough would have lost block grant because we have reduced the proportion of overall spending which is met by the Exchequer grant, of which block grant is a part. We have followed that policy because we wanted to reduce the Exchequer support to local government in an attempt to improve local accountability. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam accepted that. The loss of grant for this reason amounted to over £1·5 million. Sutton would have lost a further £333,000 due to increased rateable values. It would have gained about £800,000 because we have moved resources between various services.

    With some other smaller losses and gains, overall Sutton would have received about £900,000 less in grant than in 1985–86 if we had simply rolled the old system forward to 1986–87.

    However, we could not leave the basic grant system alone. The most important feature of the settlement next year is that we have removed targets and holdback. At the same time, we have increased the effects of the existing mechanism so as to continue the constraints on spending. Sutton gained £1 million in grant from that move.

    We have also continued the development of grant-related expenditure as an objective measure of spending ​ need. Sutton gains a further £1·2 million in grant from those changes which mainly affect its education and concessionary fares provision. As I said, we have abolished the GLC, which means that Sutton has gained a further £1·5 million of grant towards the services that it has taken on as a consequence of abolition.

    The net result of all the changes to which I have referred is that if Sutton were to spend at a level equal to its own 1985–86 spending and include its share of the GLC’s 1985–86 spending — increased by 3·4 per cent. — its block grant would increase by £2·8 million to £27·8 million—an increase of 11·3 per cent.
    Many outer London boroughs have claimed that profligate inner London boroughs have been rewarded rather than penalised, as the outer boroughs would wish. However, many inner London boroughs are subject to lower expenditure limits next year. For example, Greenwich is being required to reduce its expenditure by 10 per cent. in real terms, Hackney by over 12 per cent. and Lewisham by 14 per cent., all as a direct consequence of rate capping.

    Such demands are difficult to achieve, as I know to my cost. It is hard for a local authority to achieve much more than a 3 per cent. direct cut in expenditure during the rollover of one financial year. However, we are required to operate the block grant system on general principles which have to be consistent. We have no power to single out authorities for favourable or unfavourable treatment. The rate support grant system is based on the principles of need and resources equalisation. The aim is for authorities to provide similar services at broadly the same rate poundage cost to their ratepayers, regardless of differences in their needs and rateable resources.

    Although we are not here today to decide the future of the local government finance system, it would be appropriate for me to mention that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has just launched a major Green Paper which addresses the fundamental issues of equalisation and the extent to which it should continue under a new financial system for local government. We shall certainly welcome all thoughts and contributions from local authorities in the coming months. I hope that my hon. Friends will take that message back to their local authority.

    The abolition of the GLC is particularly important to the London borough of Sutton. My hon. Friends will recall that we intended that the financial effects of abolition would be neutral—there would be neither gainers nor losers arising out of the abolition. We have not built into the rate support grant settlement any assumption about what savings can be made by the successor authorities.

    Our aim has been that, taken as a whole, London will receive the same level of grant to which it would have been entitled if the GLC had continued to exist and to spend at the level assumed in the settlement. We have done that by allocating the GLC’s grant-related expenditure and its 1985–86 budget to the successor authorities on the most objective assumptions that we could find, after a full process of consultation with the local authority associations.
    We have also extended the London rate equalisation scheme to replace the equalising effect of the GLC precept. That was necessary to avoid windfall gains to the central boroughs at the expense of ratepayers outside London.

    It is important to understand that not only do authorities inherit expenditure obligations from the GLC, and the grant-related expenditure to go with them, but they inherit an obligation to raise some of the resources to meet those needs from their own ratepayers, just as the GLC did by precepting. That means that there is no uniform relationship between GRE increases and grant increases due to abolition.

    However, in Sutton’s case the grant entitlement on our spending assumption of an increase of 3·4 per cent. would suggest a rate rise of only 2·5 per cent. If Sutton could repeat last year’s use of balances, the rise could be even lower—perhaps even zero.

    My hon. Friends asked me to touch on Sutton’s grant related expenditure. I know that Sutton is unhappy about several aspects of that. It lost about £500,000 from figures provisionally announced in October 1985, mainly due to new data on traffic flows affecting the highway maintenance grant-related expenditure. We made it clear that such changes were possible. The concessionary fare GRE does not match what Sutton believes it will be required to spend according to the statutory scheme, although the new GRE methodology is better for Sutton than the old one. I assume my hon. Friends that we are, looking at whether we can help on this aspect for future years. We are acutely aware of the problems that arise from continually looking at the grant-related expenditure assessment. That throws up problems not only for Sutton, but for other authorities, and one has to be careful about how one changes the assessments.

    I know that Sutton has been worried about the costs associated with the abolition of the GLC. The likely reduction of the proposed London Residuary Body levy from £180 million to around £60 million, to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred in the RSG debate on 20 January, represents a saving to Sutton of over £3 million.

    My hon. Friends may also know that no less than £200 million of the provisional charges, London-wide, circulated by the LRB in November, related to housing debt that the boroughs already pay for. To add this as a new expense due to abolition would be mistaken. It would result in double counting, and this may help to explain some of the figures for rate increases put about by boroughs generally, although I know that Sutton has not made that mistake.

    Furthermore, my right hon. Friend announced that the GLC’s balances will now be distributed on a population basis. Sutton will get £250,000 instead of £150,000 for every £10 million of balances distributed. I hope that takes care of that point.

    I should like to refer to a mistake that has occurred in the split of the GLC’s highway maintenance expenditure to the boroughs when the RSG settlement was being prepared. I recognise how difficult it is for anyone not immersed in this system, which is known for its Byzantine complexity, not to become confused, but this error is different from the changes of highway maintenance and other GREs between provisional announcement and settlement which I talked about earlier. It has to do with the calculation of the expenditure to be taken on by each borough from the GLC, which is necessary so that limits are set on the gains and losses of grant as a result. These limits—safety nets—were needed to achieve the neutral effect that I mentioned before. The grant loss to Sutton is almost £800,000. ​ I am urgently considering how this can be corrected within the grant year. There are various ways in which we might do this. I am committed to consulting the local authority associations with a view to producing a solution which will correct this error before boroughs have to make a rate.

    I know that the council’s latest forecast for next year’s expenditure, taking account of some of these changes, is now about £1·5 million less than when I met my hon. Friends with a deputation from the borough of Sutton. But at £71 million, it is still almost £2 million above our settlement assumption. It would be about 9 per cent. up on last year — a far bigger increase than can be accounted for by inflation. On these figures Sutton could lose about £3 million of grant overall. I hope Sutton can find ways of reducing that forecast.

    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State used the phrase “grant recycling.” Last year, penalties incurred by overspending authorities went back to the Treasury. This year, grant lost by those spending above the settlement assumptions will be recycled to all by the traditional process of close ending. My right hon. Friend showed to the House in the RSG debate the effects of distributing a ​ pool of £400 million. Sutton would have received nearly £1·25 million as a result. How much of this is a grant gain will depend upon how much Sutton contributed to the pool by spending above the assumptions we have made. If it can keep its own spending down, it will maximise the benefits for ratepayers.

    I think it is fair to say that Sutton has not had a bad settlement. I would be fairer to say that Sutton had rather a good settlement. If its overall spending goes up in line with inflation—4·5 per cent.—we estimate that its rates need only go up by 5·2 per cent. That will be as little as 2·7 per cent. if Sutton can repeat last year’s use of balances. If it can get its spending below that figure, rates rises could be even lower.

    I hope that I have provided additional information which I am sure my hon. Friends can take back to help mitigate some of the differences between the borough’s estimate of expenditure next year and our own. Therefore, the message I should leave with my hon. Friends is to urge the council to keep up its record of exemplary housekeeping. The rewards for its ratepayers will be great.

  • Neil Macfarlane – 1986 Speech on the Rate Support Grant

    Below is the text of the speech made by Neil Macfarlane, the former Conservative MP for Sutton and Cheam, in the House of Commons on 31 January 1986.

    I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a subject which is of great importance to my constituents—the rate support grant settlement and the London borough of Sutton. It is interesting—I hope it will be an illuminating experience—to be on this end of an Adjournment debate, having sat for many hours on the Front Bench over the past six years.

    I am encouraged and honoured by the excessive presence of the worthies from the Department of the Environment who have just joined us in the Box. I have great admiration and a lot of affection for them after my years with them, so I am glad that they are here today and I am sure that they will be able to assist us in many ways.

    The rate support grant settlement was debated fully on 20 January, but, with hindsight, it seemed to many of us, not only in the House but outside in the wider world through the media, that there was a tendency for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and indeed others, to concentrate on the problems facing the shire counties. I do not make that for one moment as an accusation against my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of the Environment. That is the way that it was largely presented. It absorbed much of the media’s attention throughout those few days, as it tended to in December when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made his announcement on 18 December about the settlement for 1986–87.

    That is why many of us who represent outer London boroughs feel that the problem is just as acute there as it is in the shire counties and it is to that to which I wish to turn my attention. I have every confidence that my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold), the Under-Secretary of State who is to reply, is well in tune with outer London politics and equally well in tune with outer London Government finance. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman), who is anxious to have a few moments in which to speak in this debate and hopes to catch your eye Mr. Deputy Speaker, when I have sat down — with the full recognition of my hon. Friend the Minister — has just the same problems. We both represent the London borough of Sutton. I want to express my warm thanks to my hon. Friend the Minister for the way in which she received a large delegation from both of us a fortnight ago, including various officials of the London borough of Sutton. That provided an opportunity for a detailed survey on Sutton’s finances.

    Sutton’s financial control has been well in accordance with prudence and has reflected the Government’s demands since 1979. Sutton has for many years complied with Government guidelines and target requirements. It has also given the fullest support to Government policies in connection with the abolition of the GLC and has cooperated more than fully in setting up the consortium arrangements to handle waste disposal in south London in spite of receiving a transfer station far larger than required. That is an important dimension for us in the overall assessment.

    No charges of profligacy can be laid at Sutton’s door, as opposed to the other inner London authorities which ​ have for many years been locked in battle. I need not enumerate those except to say that we all know where they are and we all know what they have done to the ratepayers of Greater London. Indeed, many of the inner London boroughs and the outer London boroughs that make up the metropolis are in an identical position.

    I did not support the Government’s proposal on Monday 20 January, because the whole settlement is inequitable. I ask my hon. Friend to give urgent consideration to our problem with my right hon. Friend so that we may achieve a more equitable distribution. I am heartened by the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who received a delegation of outer London Members of Parliament in the same week, and for that we are grateful. But I hope that there will be more to come from some of the comments and observations that he made.

    A feature of the 1986–87 settlement is that it is supposed technically to benefit metropolitan areas, but the increased benefit for London is concentrated almost exclusively on the inner London boroughs. Having worked for some years in the Department of the Environment I am well aware of the problems in the inner cities, but we must ensure that our programme is not to the detriment and exclusion of the outer London boroughs which, in many respects, are facing problems similar to any other capital city.
    It must be said that most of the metropolitan areas receive, justifiably, all forms of other additional Government support through the inner city partnership, urban development grants and derelict land grants. There is a whole series of additional sources of funding which we tend not to see in the outer London borough of Sutton.

    I want first to look at grant-related expenditure assessments. That has assumed a far greater importance in 1986–87 because previously rate support grant penalties commenced for expenditure in excess of target. Now, withdrawal commences in relation to GRE level. Thus the more GRE received, the higher is the grant. Indeed, an analysis of the total percentage GRE change in London, excluding GRE related to services transferred from the Greater London Council shows that inner London receives an increase of about 15·4 per cent. Outer London, on average, receives an increase of 8·2 per cent., but in Sutton the increase is only 6·4 per cent. The figures including transferred services are: for inner London an increase of 51·7 per cent., outer London 21·8 per cent., on average, and for Sutton merely 20·5 per cent.

    Officials in Sutton are concerned that details of individual GREA components for existing services were not made available to Sutton until after the debate on the settlement in the House of Commons. I know the reasons for that policy over the years, but the timing is difficult. Without access to data, any conclusions drawn from the information available so far can be based only on assumption. That places us in all sorts of difficulties at this critical time with just a few months to go before the end of the financial year.

    Pre and post-abolition GREs have been provided for former GLC services and one area where Sutton seems to have suffered is in the post-abolition highways maintenance GRE. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary will say something about that when she winds up because that is just one of several features that concern my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington and myself.

    I must make it clear to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary that we understand that we cannot expect detailed and specific answers to all the points we might hope to make during the debate, but I hope that in the immediate future it may be possible to have some follow-up guidance so that we can relate it to our colleagues in the London borough of Sutton.

    I also want to make it clear that the electorate wholeheartedly approves the Government programme to reduce expenditure. We also applaud the containment of inflation, which is a key factor in all of this. It is also worth pointing out to hon. Friend that, on all services, Sutton had the lowest net cost per capita in 1984–85. Sutton is an efficient local authority. It had the third lowest rate rises in outer London and between 1981 and 1985 rate rises were contained at just over 10 per cent. when the RPI increase was 28 per cent. for the corresponding period. That speaks volumes for Sutton’s financial management. Indeed, I venture to suggest that many other local authorities should follow that. So far, we have had some recognition from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State towards our problem, but I should like some answer. Can my hon. Friend say whether the reduced budget for the London Residuary Body helps Sutton and by how much can it help?

    From the correspondence I have received in recent months it seems surprising to ratepayers that the benefits derived from abolition do not seem to be followed by a good grant distribution. Accordingly, we need specific details. I expected, as a firm supporter and believer of the abolition of the top tiers of Government in this country —the seven metropolitan authorities—that there would be such a distribution.

    During his speech on 20 January my right hon. Friend used the phrase “grant recycling”. I do not think that I would have chosen that phrase myself, but I know what he means and it is a graphic description. He spoke about grant recycling for low-spending authorities, meaning that those that have been in penalty will be required to help low-spending authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington and I are curious to know, as will other outer London borough Members who are in similar positions, how that will help the boroughs and, more specifically, how it will help Sutton. Can my hon. Friend be specific on that?

    Third, is the all-important question of GLC balances — which my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington and I discussed before, when we went to see my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary and her officials at the Department — and their future distribution, based on the population of each borough? It is important for us to know precisely what that means. It is an important concession that the distribution of GLC balances might be on a fairly equal basis throughout the population of each borough. Have any studies been pursued by my hon. Friend’s officials? If not, can they get in touch with officials in the London borough of Sutton? We need to know what the help will be. Again, the timing is crucial, bearing in mind the fact that it is only a couple of months until the year end.

    Those are critical points for my constituents in Sutton and Cheam, Belmont and Worcester Park. Sutton’s problems are not unique, but we are talking about specifics in this debate. I fully understand that my hon. Friend might not be able to reply to all the points that I have raised, but ​ I should be grateful if, in the fullness of time—within a couple of weeks, I hope—she will provide answers to the more detailed points that I have raised.

  • Simon Clarke – 2019 Speech on the Economics of Biodiversity

    Below is the text of the speech made by Simon Clarke, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, on 14 August 2019.

    In May, the UN released a report on the state of biodiversity on Earth showing that species of all kinds – mammals, birds, insects, plants, fish – are disappearing at an alarming rate.

    One million species are at risk of extinction, including 40 percent of all amphibian species, 33 percent of reef-forming corals, and around 10 percent of insects.

    Unfortunately, it’s our species that is to blame:

    we’ve cleared 100 million hectares of tropical forest between 1980 and 2000

    we’ve brought a third of fish stocks to biologically unsustainable levels

    and every year, we dump 3—400 million tons of heavy metals, solvents, toxic sludge and other wastes from industrial facilities into the world’s waters

    The death of any one species is a special tragedy, and a haunting loss.

    But the loss of a million would be a threat to our entire existence.

    Because, as you all know, biodiversity is not mere window dressing. Nature truly provides:

    it gives us the basics of food, fibres and clean water

    forests and wetlands capture carbon and retain rain water

    what’s more, approximately half of synthetic drugs have a natural origin, including many of our cancer drugs, and ten of the 25 highest selling drugs in the USA

    The need for an economic framework

    So we can see the scale of the problem in front of us.

    We have scraped and scoured our environment to the bone.

    But, like the state of climate science before the Stern review, we don’t yet have the economic tools to shape the polices required to heal it.

    We might know that the UK’s 1,500 species of pollinators deliver an estimated £680 million annual value to the UK economy.

    But that’s just one part of the picture. We need to be able to quantify what is at stake, and we need to be able to do so on the broadest possible canvas.

    There’s an urgent need to better understand the intricate relationship between human wealth and welfare, and the environment’s biodiversity and ecosystems.

    At the moment, not all that is very useful commands high value.

    And not everything that has high value is very useful – as Adam Smith once observed, water is a fair bit cheaper than diamonds.

    The situation demands we think more deeply.

    We need to get to grips with the nature of value, and the value of nature.

    Above all, we need to understand that you cannot manage what you do not measure.

    And that to forge a sustainable economy in harmony with nature – to keep it clean, use it wisely and share it fairly…

    …we have to better understand the links between ecosystems, biodiversity and human well-being…

    …And to come up with creative and transformative solutions to help secure it all.

    This is an ambitious goal which can only be achieved through the concerted efforts and combined strength of all sections of society.

    We need national and international alliances between policy makers, science, the public and the business community.

    And that’s why I’m proud that Britain is playing a leading role.

    Earlier this year, the previous Chancellor announced an independent global review on the Economics of Biodiversity – the first on the topic to be led by an Economics and Finance Ministry.

    We were all thrilled when Professor Dasgupta agreed to lead the review. With his global intellectual standing, I can think of no one better.

    I am also delighted that leading lights from academia, public policy and the private sector have agreed to take part in an Advisory Panel to provide expert advice to Professor Dasgupta and his team with their work.

    As a humble politician, seeking sensible options for change, I would warmly welcome your thoughts not just on how we establish the economic framework… but also on the policy choices that may flow from this.

    It’s great to see so many of you here today, with an opportunity to contribute your ideas and engage on this critical issue.

    I look forward to hearing all about your day and will retain a keen interest throughout the year ahead.

    Thank you.

  • Jeremy Corbyn – 2019 Speech in Corby

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Corbyn, the Leader of the Opposition, in Corby on 19 August 2019.

    Thank you, Beth, for that introduction. You’re a powerful voice for the people of Corby and we need that voice in parliament.

    It’s great to be back in Corby and I’d like to thank all the staff and everyone involved at the Pen Green Centre for Children and Families for hosting us today.

    I’m sure I don’t need to convince anyone here that as we look towards the return of parliament in September the country is heading into a political and constitutional storm.

    It’s the Conservative Party’s failure on Brexit and its lurch to the hard right that has provoked the crisis our country faces this autumn.

    After failing to negotiate a Brexit deal that would protect jobs and living standards. Boris Johnson’s Tories are driving the country towards a No Deal cliff edge.

    We will do everything necessary to stop a disastrous No Deal for which this government has no mandate.

    Boris Johnson’s government wants to use No Deal to create a tax haven for the super-rich on the shores of Europe, and sign a sweetheart trade deal with Donald Trump.

    Not so much a No Deal Brexit more a Trump Deal Brexit.

    Have no doubt, No Deal would destroy people’s jobs push up food prices in the shops and open our NHS to takeover by US private corporations.

    That’s a price Boris Johnson is willing to pay because it won’t be him and his wealthy friends paying it – it will be you.

    Labour will do everything we can to protect people’s livelihoods.

    We will work together with the MPs from across parliament to pull our country back from the brink.

    I will bring a vote of no confidence in the government, and if we’re successful, I would seek to form a time-limited caretaker administration to avert No Deal, and call an immediate general election so the people can decide our country’s future.

    If MPs are serious about stopping a No Deal crash out, then they will vote down this reckless government and it falls to the Leader of the Opposition, to make sure No Deal does not happen and the people decide their own future.

    Labour believes the decision on how to resolve the Brexit crisis must go back to the people.

    And if there is a general election this autumn, Labour will commit to holding a public vote, to give voters the final say with credible options for both sides including the option to remain.

    Three years of Tory failure on Brexit have caused opinions to harden to such a degree that I believe no outcome will now have legitimacy without the people’s endorsement.

    But while Brexit is the framework of the crisis, we face the problems facing our country run much deeper.

    A general election triggered by the Tory Brexit crisis will be a crossroads for our country. It will be a once-in-a-generation chance for a real change of direction potentially on the scale of 1945 or 1979.

    Things cannot go on as they were before. The Conservatives and the wealthy establishment they represent have failed our country.

    They have failed to protect living standards, savaged our public services, deepened inequality and failed to keep us safe.

    Boris Johnson and his Tory cabinet have direct responsibility for the Tory decade of devastating damage to our communities and the fabric of our society.

    However, the Brexit crisis is resolved, the country faces a fundamental choice.

    Labour offers the real change of direction the country needs a radical programme to rebuild and transform communities and public services to invest in the green jobs and high-tech industries of the future and take action to tackle inequality and climate crisis.

    The Tories have lurched to the hard right under Boris Johnson.

    Johnson is Britain’s Trump, as the US president himself declared the fake populist and phoney outsider funded by the hedge funds and bankers committed to protecting the vested interests of the richest and the elites while posing as anti-establishment.

    The Tories cannot be trusted to deliver on their quick-fix promises because their first priority is tax cuts for the big corporations and the richest.

    The Tories can’t be trusted to deliver for the majority because they will always look after their own. Instead of fixing a failed system, they will turbocharge its inequalities, insecurities and climate destruction.

    Labour can be trusted to deliver to end austerity, to take on the elites and the vested interests holding people back and to transform our country for the many, not the few.

    Labour can be trusted to take the radical steps necessary to protect the environment provide hope, decent jobs, secure homes, opportunity to every nation and region and build a fairer country that works for all.

    Our country has been held back for too long by the establishment that the Tories represent.

    But together, we can take our future into our own hands and tackle the great challenges facing our country alongside Brexit; inequality and an economy run for the richest; public services that have been stripped back and sold off; and the climate emergency threatening our children’s future.

    Inequality holds all of us back. It means the talent of millions of people is squandered.

    We don’t have to be a country of food banks and rough sleepers at one end while the super-rich dodge taxes at the other.

    People have a choice.

    Labour will raise tax for the richest and make sure they pay their share towards the common good.

    The Tories will cut tax for the richest.

    Labour will require the big multinational corporations to actually pay the tax they owe in this country.

    The Tories will cut tax for big corporations.

    It’s Labour that will get more money into your pocket rather than line the pockets of multi-millionaires.

    We’ll introduce a real living wage of £10 an hour, including for young people who deserve equal pay for equal work.

    But we need to go further. The problem with an unfair economy isn’t just the imbalance of wealth; it’s the imbalance of power.

    Labour will give working people more power to win better wages and have security at work.

    We’ll put workers on company boards and give the workforce a 10% stake in large companies; paying a dividend of as much as £500 a year to each employee.

    And Labour won’t tell people they have to work until they are 75 before getting their pension, as Iain Duncan Smith’s think tank has suggested – a policy that discriminates against working class people – especially in manual jobs.

    It’s past time that we rewrote the rules of the economy – to shift wealth and power – from a small elite at the top into the hands of the majority.

    And that principle of empowering people doesn’t just apply to the workplace.

    We’ll bring rail, mail, water and the national grid into public ownership. So the essential utilities people rely on are run by and for the public, not shareholders.

    And we’ll give tenants more power and security including controlling rents, so dodgy landlords can’t rip them off.

    And when we talk about inequality, we aren’t only talking about economics. We need a government that’s seriously committed to tackling the entrenched inequalities faced by women and ethnic minorities too.

    The coming general election will be make or break for our public services.

    The new prime minister has been making some pre-election spending pledges over the past few weeks.

    That shows Labour has won the argument that austerity damages our country and that it was always a political choice.

    But it insults voters’ intelligence to expect them to be grateful for a bit of extra money here and there, with no confidence that it will actually be delivered when it’s Boris Johnson’s Tories who ran our public services into the ground in the first place.

    And it shows no understanding of the depth of the problem.

    Take crime which the Prime Minister is now trying to turn to his political advantage, with yet more promises to tackle what the Tories have failed to bring under control for a decade.

    In the 2017 election, Labour won the argument that Tory cuts to the police had made people unsafe, and we pledged to hire more officers.

    The Conservatives have now conceded that we were right, but police cuts are not the only reason violent crime has doubled.

    What the Tories won’t address is the much wider impact of austerity; the closed youth services; under-resourced mental healthcare; and the lack of funding for community mentoring.

    We take youth services so seriously that we will make it compulsory for local government to deliver them.

    And we know the direct impact that rhetoric around immigration, crime and stop and search can have on the lives of those from minority communities.

    Labour will rebuild our public services because we understand they are the glue that binds society together.

    We’ll restore pride in our NHS by funding it properly and end the sell-offs and privatisation.

    And we’ll create a National Education Service providing free learning from the cradle to the grave including free school meals for all primary children smaller class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds and no tuition fees at university or college.

    So who can the public trust to rebuild our public services after a decade of Conservative austerity – Labour, or the Tories led by Boris Johnson?

    And on the issue that poses the greatest threat to our common future the climate crisis, it’s Labour that has shown leadership.

    We ensured our parliament was the first in the world to declare a climate emergency.

    That must be followed by radical and decisive action that will only be delivered by a Labour government.

    It certainly won’t come from the Tories the party that scrapped the Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon, effectively killing off new onshore wind power projects, and is forcing fracking on local communities who oppose it.

    We have to turn the climate crisis into an opportunity, to rebuild British industry with a Green Industrial Revolution that will create 400,000 well-paid high-skilled jobs in renewable energy and green technology, particularly in parts of our country that never recovered from the decimation of our industrial base by Margaret Thatcher’s government places like here in Corby, where the closure of the steelworks cost thousands upon thousands of jobs.

    Imagine if the Derbyshire and Yorkshire coalfields that once powered the nation became the new centres of green energy generation.

    Or if towns that used to make locomotives built the next generation of high-speed electric trains.

    Just imagine how it would feel for those communities to once again be the beating heart of our economy while reducing our greenhouse emissions.

    That future is within our grasp.

    But I ask again: who do you trust to act on the climate emergency – Labour, or the Tories led by Boris Johnson?

    We can’t afford more of the same, but even worse. The future could be fantastic. New technologies have the power to liberate us and help tackle the climate emergency.

    But for too many, the future is frightening and uncertain because those technologies have been used instead to benefit the wealthy elite while driving down pay and security for millions.

    The next Labour government will take on those who really run our country the bankers, tax dodgers and big polluters. So that the real wealth creators, the people of this country, can have the services, jobs and futures they deserve.

    Because when Labour wins, we all win. The nurse wins, the pensioner wins, the student wins, the office worker wins, the engineer wins, we all win.

    The chaos and dislocation of Boris Johnson’s No Deal Brexit is real and threatening as the government’s leaked Operation Yellowhammer dossier makes clear. That’s why we will do everything we can to stop it.

    Then, after years of elite-driven austerity and neglect, we will recharge our politics with a massive injection of democracy kicking out the big money interests and putting the people in the driving seat.

    We will rebuild our public services by taxing those at the top to properly fund services for everyone.

    We will drive up people’s living standards by boosting pay, improving rights, and running our utilities and economy in the interests of the millions, not the multi-millionaires.

    And we will transform our communities with investment in every part of our country breathing new life into our high streets, giving security to older people and hope and opportunities to our young people.

    This is a historic moment, with the potential for real change to transform our country if we grasp the opportunity.

    Thank you.

  • Lynda Chalker – 1986 Statement on the Foreign Affairs Council

    Below is the text of the statement made by Lynda Chalker, the then Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in the House of Commons on 30 January 1986.

    With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council which took place in Brussels on 27 January. I and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry represented the United Kingdom. A statement of forthcoming business in the European Community has been deposited in the Vote Office.

    Ministers had a further preliminary discussion of the Commission’s proposals for a negotiating mandate on renewal of the multi-fibre arrangement. They reviewed progress in negotiations to adapt the European Community agreements to take account of enlargement. In response to the imposition by the United States of quotas on imports of EC semi-finished steel, the Council decided to introduce quotas on United States exports of fertiliser, coated paper and bovine fats. These restrictions will not be introduced until 15 February, allowing time for further efforts to achieve an agreed outcome. The President of the Commission reported on his discussion with the Japanese Government on EC-Japan trade relations during his recent visit to Tokyo. I emphasised the importance that we attach to the achievement of a better balance in trade between the European Community and Japan.

    In political co-operation, the Foreign Ministers of the Twelve agreed and issued a statement on international terrorism. They announced further measures to strengthen defences against terrorism within the Community and to discourage support from other Governments for terrorist attacks. They agreed to set up a new group within political co-operation to ensure effective follow-up in the areas covered by the statement. They agreed not to undercut measures taken by others against Governments which support terrorism. The Foreign Ministers reviewed briefly the implementation of the measures vis-à-vis South Africa which were agreed at Luxembourg on 10 September.

    In the Intergovernmental Conference member states finalised the text of the amendments to the EC treaties and treaty provisions on European political co-operation. On the question of the working environment, we secured inclusion in the treaty text of provisions protecting the position of small and medium-sized undertakings, as proposed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the European Council in Luxembourg last December. This enabled the only outstanding United Kingdom reserve to be lifted. All member states have accepted the agreed text. The Netherlands Presidency hope that the new Act will be signed by all member states on 17 February. If the Danish Government cannot sign on that date, they will aim to do so after the referendum in Denmark.

  • John Stanley – 1986 Statement on the Army

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Stanley, the then Minister of State for the Armed Forces, in the House of Commons on 30 January 1986.

    The past year has been one of sustained progress and achievement for the Army both at home and overseas.

    In addition to the Army’s normal deployments, 1985 saw continuing and effective operations against terrorists in Northern Ireland, the largest home defence exercise we have ever conducted, significant progress in the modernisation of the Army’s equipment, the provision of military training to over 70 foreign countries, important contributions to international peacekeeping in Cyprus and the Sinai, and a rapid and highly valued response to the natural disasters in Mexico and Colombia.

    Nineteen eighty five also saw no fewer than 12 regiments of the British Army celebrating 300 years of continuous service to the Crown — a record that we believe is unmatched by that of any other army in the world.

    I shall start with the main areas of actual or potential Army operations. During the past year, there has been no let-up in the modernisation of the Warsaw pact nuclear and conventional forces facing us on the central front. The Warsaw pact has continued to deploy new self-propelled artillery in eastern Europe, both conventional and nuclear capable. There has been significant additional deployment of its latest main battle tank, the T80, which has a gas turbine engine and a laser range-finder system, and which can fire an anti-tank guided missile as well as normal tank ammunition through its main gun barrel.

    The deployment in eastern Europe of Frogfoot aircraft which are designed to provide close air support for Warsaw pact ground forces, and which has been used extensively by the Russians in Afghanistan, has continued. The aircraft has now made its first appearance with Soviet forces in the forward areas of East Germany. The formidable Hind anti-tank helicopter is still being added to the Warsaw pact front line at a fast rate.

    The Warsaw pact’s logistic support for its forces will shortly be further improved with the deployment of its new heavy lift helicopter, designated, somewhat improbably, by NATO as the Halo. We saw for ourselves in the Falklands what a force multiplier helicopters in the logistic role can be.
    The Soviet chemical threat remains as significant as ever. To counter the Warsaw pact threat, important improvements to the Army’s equipment programme have been made in the past year. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement will refer to these when he comes to reply.

    From the operational standpoint, I am glad to say that these improvements will give 1st British Corps larger numbers of modern main battle tanks, much improved protected mobility with new wheeled and tracked armoured personnel carriers, new small arms, improved air defence, an improved targeting capability for the artillery and a quantum jump improvement in its communications and data processing facilities. These all represent very important contributions to NATO’s plans for strengthening the Alliance’s conventional defences right down the central front.​

    Mr. Robert Atkins (South Ribble)

    Regrettably, I must go north tonight to my constituency to face the problem of the redundancies at the royal ordnance factories in my constituency and elsewhere. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the regrettable redundancies at ROF Chorley result from Ministry of Defence war stocks being returned to their requisite high level following the Falklands conflict? Will he further confirm that the contract for 105 mm shells, which will go some way towards alleviating the obvious distress caused by those job losses, has been awarded as a direct result of ROF’s improved competitive edge and the sheer quality of product compared with foreign alternatives?

    Mr. Stanley

    My hon. Friend is again forcefully representing the interests of his constituents. As he knows, my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement has been in correspondence with him about the detailed background to those particular redundancies. I know that my hon. Friend wishes to refer to them when he replies.

    Mr. John McWilliam (Blaydon)

    If the Minister of State for Defence Procurement has been in detailed correspondence with his hon. Friend, why has he not yet been in correspondence with me? I have not received a letter.

    Mr. Stanley

    My hon. Friend the Minister advises me from a sedentary position that he has.

    Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland)

    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement has kindly been in correspondence with me. He has made it clear that although orders will be placed with royal ordnance factories, and they will go some way towards reducing the size of the announced redundancies, the reduction will be by less than 10 per cent. Will the Minister confirm that?

    Mr. Stanley

    As I have already said, my hon. Friend the Minister will deal with that specific issue when he replies, and in view of the interest shown by three hon. Members I am sure that he will do so.

    The past year has also been notable for the adoption of an improved concept of operations by northern army group (NORTHAG) of which C-in-C BAOR is the Army Group commander, and of which 1st British Corps comprises one of the four NORTHAG army corps.

    The adoption of this new concept of operatons marks no change in NATO’s wholly defensive posture, and no change in NATO’s fundamental strategy of forward defence and flexible response. It has been adopted in response to the continuing improvements in Soviet firepower, the Russians’ tactic of concentrating their forces so as to achieve local superiority, and their creation of operational manoeuvre groups of divisional size or larger, which are intended to exploit initial breakthroughs and penetrate rapidly into NATO’s rear areas. In the light of those developments, NORTHAG needed a less static: defence, more defence in depth and strong armoured reserves. The new concept of operations provides all of these.

    The House will wish to he aware of the major contribution to the formulation of this new concept of operations, and to getting it agreed by the Alliance as a whole, played by General Sir Nigel Bagnall, then the commander of NORTHAG and now chief of the general staff. ​ In a letter to The Times on 3 July last year, General Chalupa, commander-in-chief allied forces central Europe, said:

    “I would also wish to acknowledge General Bagnall’s significant contribution towards the successful accomplishment of our primary task, which is the prevention of war by maintaining a credible defence posture. I appreciate in particular his untiring efforts in developing and refining further the defence concepts and plans evolved by his predecessors.”

    I am sure the House was gratified to see General Chalupa’s generous tribute to General Bagnall.

    Turning to northern Norway, although the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines have major roles in protecting this key area of NATO territory, the Army also makes a significant contribution, and trains accordingly. We deploy to northern Norway, not merely 3 Commando Brigade, but the battalion with logistic support that the Army contributes to the ACE mobile force (land) AMF(L).

    These units undertake the same arctic warfare training as the Royal Marines, and have recently been equipped with the new BV206 over-snow tracked vehicle. The AMF(L) role is currently being discharged by the 1st Battalion of the Parachute Regiment.

    In terms of operations outside the NATO area, the House will recall that in November 1983 my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Defence announced, in the light of our Falklands experience, an important range of enhancements for 5 Brigade. That brigade has been renamed 5 Airborne Brigade to reflect its new ability to mount a parachute assault with a minimum of one parachute battalion and its supporting air defence, artillery, signals, engineer and medical elements, all of which can now be parachute dropped.

    The House will be glad to know that all the enhancements announced in November 1983 have now been implemented, as has the programme of fitting station-keeping radars to a number of Hercules aircraft so that the whole of the leading parachute battalion group can be delivered in a single parachute drop. In view of the importance we attach to our out-of-area capability, we announced last month that a major strategic exercise would be held in Oman later this year involving British forces and those of the Sultanate of Oman. The exercise is to be called Saif Sareea, which I am advised is Arabic for Swift Sword.

    The aim of the exercise will be to practise our ability to respond rapidly to a crisis outside the NATO area. The exercise will involve some 5,000 service men from all three services. The units taking part will include elements of 5 Airborne Brigade and 3 Commando Brigade. It will also involve ships from the Royal Navy task group, which will be on its way back from its planned deployment to the Pacific. In addition, the RAF will make a major contribution in the form of a detachment of Tornado aircraft and substantial air transport resources. Exercise Saif Sareea will be the largest out-of-area exercise we have undertaken for many years and should prove to be of great value.

    The one operation in which the Army is involved every day of the year is supporting the police against terrorism in Northern Ireland. In recent years, and indeed over the centuries, terrorism has taken many forms. Today, terrorism is increasingly assuming an international dimension, and in Northern Ireland takes one of the most ​ sophisticated forms of any in the world. Fortunately, the British Army has unique experience and unique expertise in combating this menace.

    The Army’s assistance to the police in dealing with terrorism is not confined to Northern Ireland. It also assists the police, who have the primary counter-terrorist responsibility in the rest of the United Kingdom. It does so through the provision of specialist skills such as Royal Engineers explosive search teams, Royal Army Ordnance Corps bomb disposal teams, and through specialist training and equipment. In June last year it was an RAOC team that rendered safe and cleared the large quantity of terrorist bomb-making equipment found by the Strathclyde police in Glasgow.

    However, it is of course in Northern Ireland in support of the RUC that the Army’s counter-terrorist effort is overwhelmingly concentrated. Last year saw some significant successes. As a result of the security forces’ efforts, 522 charges were brought relating to terrorist offences and 237 weapons were seized and nearly seven tonnes of explosives were recovered. One cannot speak too highly of the skill and bravery of all those elements of the armed forces and the RUC who secured these results.

    The work of the Army’s bomb disposal and search teams in Northern Ireland in saving lives, property and jobs from destruction by terrorist bombs continues to be outstanding. These teams dealt with some 200 explosive devices last year, one of which contained 1,600 lbs of explosive. For the bomb disposal teams, the smallest device represents as great a personal danger as the largest. The way those teams combine outstanding technical skill with selfless personal bravery commands our highest admiration.

    The achievements of the security forces in Northern Ireland in 1985 were not obtained without cost. Twenty nine police officers and soldiers lost their lives last year, and a further 340 were injured. Of the 29 killed, 27 were members of the RUC or the UDR. As the House recognises, the men and women of the RUC and the UDR, knowingly and willingly, accept the particular risks that service with either force or its reserves automatically confers. These men and women are at risk on duty, at home, and, if part-timers, at their place of work as well. They are at risk both when they are serving and when they retire. One man killed last year had finished his service with the UDR seven years previously. They are at risk at any place and at any time. The commitment and the courage of the men and women of the RUC and the UDR are of the highest order.

    That commitment and that courage have been recognised in the award to service personnel last year of a further 73 decorations for gallantry in Northern Ireland. Those decorations included one George medal, one military cross, 12 Queen’s gallantry medals and six military medals, one of which, sadly, was posthumous. In addition, 102 service men and service women were mentioned in dispatches. We salute those who were honoured in this way. My only regret is that for security reasons the citations cannot be made public. They make remarkable reading.

    Over the years the terrorist threat in the province has moved through various phases, and the security forces have had to adapt their response to meet each phase. Currently, the terrorists are making particular use of homemade mortars against police stations. This has been coupled with the attempted intimidation of building ​ contractors doing work for the security forces. The Government are firmly determined to ensure that such tactics do not succeed.

    An additional battalion, the 2nd Battalion of the Royal Anglian Regiment, was moved at short notice to Northern Ireland at the beginning of this month and became operational there with commendable speed. Additional Royal Engineers have also been deployed in the province and, as I saw for myself recently, they are doing a first-class job in providing the security forces with additional protection. The House will be glad to know that the work of rebuilding the first of the RUC stations that was severely hit before Christmas has already started.

    The events of the last few weeks have underlined once again the importance of security co-operation across the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. We are in no doubt that the Anglo-Irish agreement marks a crucial step forward in this area which is equally vital to the Republic and to ourselves. I should mention that the terrorist weapon find — about which we were all delighted to hear—made by the Garda last weekend just south of the border was one of the largest ever such finds in the Republic.

    It is to the immense credit of the security forces that we have come a long way from the peak of violence in the early 1970s. The RUC has increasingly been able to resume policing on the streets, and the overwhelming majority of the people of Northern Ireland are able to live normal lives. I know that the whole House will wish me to express our gratitude to all the members of the security forces in Northern Ireland for the dangerous and essential work that they do.

    Last year reminded us, to an unusual degree, of the Army’s value in being able to respond quickly and effectively to civilian needs. In the last 12 months, the British Army has helped in three major natural disasters outside the United Kingdom. Successive teams of Army air dispatchers from the Royal Corps of Transport, including three Territorial Army members, served continuously in Ethiopia from February to December last year air-dropping desperately needed grain to areas inaccessible by vehicle.

    With the RAF, the air dispatchers air-dropped over 14,000 tonnes of grain in a huge total of 954 separate sorties. Almost all these airdrops were made at extremely low level from RAF Hercules aircraft flying at about 50 ft from the ground. This reflected both flying and air-dropping skills of the highest order. Following the Mexico earthquake disaster, a Royal Engineer troop was on the scene within 48 hours of our being asked to help. It was given the key job of trying to save the partially collapsed building that was the hub of a high proportion of Mexico’s telephone network and therefore represented a vital communications link for the whole country. The building was unstable, and contained a number of rapidly decomposing bodies. The Royal Engineers worked round the clock on that building for nearly three weeks in physically hazardous and most unpleasant conditions. They rightly earned the high regard and very warm appreciation of the Mexican authorities.

    Only a few weeks after that, the Army was again on hand with the service team that was deployed to Colombia to help evacuate and get relief supplies to civilians in the Armero district who survived the devastating volcanic eruption there. ​ In case anyone should think that the Army is only likely to play that sort of a role outside the United Kingdom, the House will recall that when over a quarter of a million people in Leeds suddenly found themselves without a water supply just before Christmas, the situation was saved by all three services sending water bowsers to Leeds with most impressive speed, following a no-notice emergency call-out in the middle of the night. The speed and proficiency of the responses made by the Army and of course by the other two services to these major crises for civilian communities has been extremely creditable.

    Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

    My right hon. Friend has talked about the admirable service given by the armed services here and overseas. I endorse everything that he has said. Can he tell us whether he will deal with the crisis in the services brought about by so many young, skilled, qualified officers, NCOs and other ranks leaving the services because they are deeply upset and concerned about the level of pay and the dramatic reduction in allowances when they are serving in not very popular parts of the world, including the British Army of the Rhine?

    Mr. Stanley

    My hon. Friend is anticipating a later section of my speech.

    I now want to turn to the other main commitments that the Army has. My right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Defence made it clear that we shall continue to be responsible for the defence and internal security of Hong Kong up to 1997, and that we shall maintain the forces needed for that purpose. He also made it clear that we intend that there will be a continuing role for the Gurkhas after 1997 with the British Army, though not of course in Hong Kong. We shall be giving continuous consideration to the Army’s force level in Hong Kong up to 1997.

    There is no change at present in the Army’s commitments in Brunei, Cyprus, Gibraltar and Belize, or to our contingent in Sinai with the multinational force and observers on the border between Egypt and Israel.

    As far as the Falklands are concerned, our policy is to maintain the forces at the minimum size necessary to defend the islands and the dependencies. The opening of Mount Pleasant airport has greatly improved our rapid reinforcement capability. Once the airport and garrison facilities are complete, we should be able to reduce still further the level of forces permanently stationed on the islands.

    Given the events of the last few days, the House will wish to know the situation of our small training team in Uganda. The value of the British Army presence to foreign expatriates in Uganda, of which British expatriates are still the largest component, was shown immediately after the coup against President Obote last July. A considerable number of expatriates wanted to leave at that point. An evacuation convoy from Kampala to the Kenyan border was, therefore, jointly planned and administered by the British high commission and the British Army training team in Uganda. That action won widespread praise and gratitude from all involved. During the events of last weekend we did, of course, keep in the closest touch with our team in Uganda. We will now be considering its future in the light of the new situation in that country.

    The House will also be interested to know that, building on the success of British training teams in Zimbabwe since ​ independence, it has been agreed by the Governments of Zimbabwe and Mozambique and ourselves that the British army training team in Zimbabwe should provide some training for Mozambican officers and NCOs at the Battalion battle school at Nyanga in Zimbabwe. The first course is due to begin in February.

    The contribution we make to providing military advice and training to foreign countries all over the world through the loan service personnel of all three services receives less prominence than I believe it merits. The Army contributes some 450 personnel in 20 countries. Those teams maintain an excellent standard of training, are highly regarded by their host countries and are an asset to Britain, and to the West, out of all proportion to their size and their cost.

    I have spoken so far about the operations and commitments of the Army’s full-time professionals. I now turn to the Regular and volunteer reserves. The critical importance of the reserves is shown by the fact that, in a period of tension and after full mobilisation, the size of the Army as a whole would increase by some 175,000 through the addition of the reserves, and the size of the Army in Germany would almost treble. From that it can be seen that the Army would be in no position to discharge its wartime commitments without our reserve forces. Moreover, the reserves are strikingly cost-effective. The TA, for example, generates over 30 per cent. of the Army’s order of battle for only some 5 per cent. of its budget.

    As for the regular reserves, we are carrying out more detailed planning for fitting them to their wartime tasks. We also started a new training scheme last year to give regular reservists a week’s refresher training in their third year out of the Army, and we gave some 2,000 of them the opportunity to take part in exercise Brave Defender last year. We shall continue to look for cost-effective ways in which we can make greater use of our regular reserves.

    Mr. Derek Conway (Shrewsbury and Atcham)

    My right hon. Friend’s words on the Territorial Army and the volunteer regular reserves are welcome in many quarters of the House but particularly on these Benches. Can he say whether progress has yet been made with his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Health and Social Security to try to help those members of the TA who are unemployed and who find that their supplementary benefit or dole is cut immediately whereas it can take several weeks for the pay office to go through the administration of payment? That is causing great hardship in areas of high unemployment. Progress would be very much welcomed by the TA.

    Mr. Stanley

    I am aware of the problem to which my hon. Friend has referred. I assure him that my noble Friend the Minister of State for Defence Support is pursuing the matter personally with my right hon. and hon. Friends in the DHSS.

    Mr. John Browne (Winchester)

    We greatly applaud my right hon. Friend’s remarks about the TA, its reliance and its cost-effectiveness. None the less, can he assure the House that cost-effectiveness will not be taken to the point of penny-pinching? I am thinking particularly of the recent successful recruiting drive which is bringing in many young people who are enthusiastic and are excellent material. However, they have to train in drill halls that ​ were built for the 1930s and have been virtually unmaintained, giving an uncared for impression that can be discouraging to young recruits.

    Reference has been made to people leaving the services. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that he is aware of the serious drain at the level of lieutenant-colonel or of regimental and battalion commanders, a rank that is crucial?

    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)

    Briefly, please.

    Mr. Browne

    It is a matter not just of pay but of career opportunities.

    Mr. Stanley

    I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the points he has made. I have not yet completed what I wish to say on the TA but I can assure my hon. Friend that we are encouraged by the levels of recruitment which we have been achieving. I am about to come to that. I take his point that if we could provide a training base in reasonably attractive conditions that would be a plus for recruiting.

    Dr. Alan Glyn (Windsor and Maidenhead)

    I hope that my right hon. Friend will say something about the cadet force because that is the nursery for recruiting. I understand that the cadet force is now much better equipped. On page 45 of volume 1 of the “Statement on the Defence Estimates” a good deal of space is rightly given to the cadet force. If young people are properly trained, not only does it do them good for civilian life but a very high proportion join the regular forces or the TA.

    Mr. Stanley

    I endorse what my hon. Friend has said. One meets a large number of people who have come into all three services, but particularly the Army, from the ranks of the cadets and the junior leaders. As he will see in the second volume of the “Statement on the Defence Estimates”, we have been maintaining a high level of entry into the cadet force and we hope that will continue.

    The expansion of the Territorial Army is making steady progress towards our target of 86,000. The strength of the TA was only some 59,000 when we came into office in 1979. It is over 76,000 now, having increased by some 4,000 in the past year.

    The House will be interested to know that we are having good results from our trial scheme to raise TA units from the many British people living on the continent. Many of these are ex-service men, and they invariably have language skills and good local knowledge as well. These continental TA units look like proving a very valuable addition to our reserve forces.

    Equally successful has been the expansion of the home service force. The enthusiasm of the force can be judged from the fact that 92 per cent. of the force’s strength participated in exercise Brave Defender.

    The HSF has already grown to 2,800 — in other words, over halfway to our initial target strength of nearly 5,000. We shall be considering whether we can go beyond that figure.

    As I have made clear, the Army’s Regular and volunteer Reserves are an indispensable element of the British Army. We are very grateful indeed to employers who are generous and sympathetic towards the release of their staff with TA commitments, recognising that it is in the national interest that those commitments should be fulfilled. In this context, I am very pleased to be able to announce the formation of a national employer liaison ​ committee, under the chairmanship of Mr. Tommy Macpherson. I know that Mr. Macpherson and his committee will make a most valuable contribution to maintaining and increasing the essential support that the TA receives from employers. Mr. Macpherson has the two essential qualifications: substantial experience as an employer in industry and substantial experience in the services as well.

    We are very grateful to all those in the Regular and volunteer Reserves for giving their time, their skills and their enthusiasm to the British Army.

    Mr. Keith Best (Ynys Môn)

    I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He will know that his remarks and the emphasis that the Government place on the Territorial Army are widely welcomed. Is he satisfied that there are now sufficient man training days for the Territorial Army to carry out its task adequately? Will he say something about the history of the expansion of man training days?

    Mr. Stanley

    It is obviously a matter of judgment as to what level of training days will meet the particular requirements of the TA. We make that judgment as accurately as possible. There is a trade-off: the more the training days are expanded, the more difficult it is for some individuals to get the necessary degree of release, which makes it that much more difficult for units to carry out their exercises as formed units. So there is a balance to be struck. The recent major exercises, both Lionheart and Brave Defender, have shown that the Territorial Army units, the Volunteer Reserve, and the Regular Reserve are now achieving a good level of training and have done very well in both exercises.

    The calibre of the British Army rests ultimately on the calibre of its people. I am glad to say that recruitment overall goes well, with both officer and soldier entries being close to target. The Army’s view is that the quality of entrants has been rising. Amongst officers the proportion of graduate entrants is now about 45 per cent. compared with 30 per cent. as recently as 1978–79.

    Rates of retention are as important as rates of entry. Though the rate of premature voluntary retirement has risen from its historic low point in 1981–82, it is still well below the record high in the last year of the previous Government. Pay and conditions of service clearly bear on rates of retention. Although we are fully aware of the concern over the reductions in local overseas allowance that have taken place in Germany, our view is that there is nothing basically wrong with the LOA system, which provides absolutely essential financial compensation for those service men who have to serve in overseas countries where the cost of living is substantially higher than in the United Kingdom.

    As far as pay is concerned, this Government, unlike our predecessors, have accepted the service pay recommendations in seven successive reports of the armed forces pay review body, with the one exception of part of the 1984 award being made subject to seven months’ phasing.

    We have also made a number of important improvements to conditions of service. We have introduced a scheme to sell surplus married quarters to service personnel at 30 per cent. discount. We have allowed time in service accommodation to count for discount purposes in the local authority and new town “right to buy” scheme. We have improved the free travel entitlement for married personnel serving in Northern ​ Ireland and the Scottish islands and we have abolished the contribution that parents serving overseas had to make towards their first child’s visit to them for the third school holiday each year, which saved many parents several hundred pounds. There is no question that the record of the present Government on service pay and conditions is very much better than that of our predecessors.

    Mr. Nicholas Winterton

    My right hon. Friend said that he was going to raise the matter later in his speech, but would he admit to the House that it is not only graduate officers and others who are very important to the armed services, it is the qualities of motivation and leadership, which do not always accompany a university degree? Would he indicate that in the future the position of non-graduate officers will be given a higher priority by the Government than has perhaps been the case in the immediate past? The position of graduate officers is very much better moneywise than that of non-graduate officers. Will my right hon. Friend attend to this point in future?

    Mr. Stanley

    I understand fully the point that my hon. Friend makes. I would not want him to think from what I have said about statistics in relation to graduate entry that the Army is reluctant to have non-graduate officers. There are very many of them and they are of the highest calibre. When people are considering the Army and, perhaps even more important, once they are in the Army, it is good to know that all officers are treated exactly the same, whether they have degrees or not, and that they are treated entirely on their merit. I can assure my hon. Friend that that will continue.

    Mr. John Browne rose—

    Mr. Stanley

    I think that this will have to be the last intervention because many of my hon. Friends want to speak, and I want to draw my remarks to a close.

    Mr. Browne

    Would my right hon. Friend comment on the fact that retention is a matter not just of pay—1 agree with much of what he has said —but of career prospects?

    Mr. Stanley

    Yes, I agree. It is a question of career prospects and a multitude of other factors. There is the degree of stretch on the force. career prospects, pay, conditions of service, it is the total of all the elements that go towards to job satisfaction.

    In the last Army debate I announced the Government’s scheme to make it possible for war widows, for the very first time, to visit their husbands’ graves overseas, almost entirely at public expense. I can tell the House that the scheme has been an unqualified success, as I know at first hand. It was a privilege to meet a number of widows taking part in the scheme at the El Alamein commemoration service last October. The letters I have had from widows taking part in these pilgrimages have been as appreciative and as moving as any I have received.

    In the first year of the scheme, some 350 widows, often accompanied at their own expense by other members of their families, visited cemeteries in a total of 11 countries, stretching from Europe to the far east. I cannot speak too highly of the way in which the scheme has been run by the Royal British Legion, both at the legion’s headquarters and at its newly created pilgrimages department at Aylesford which, as it happens, is in my own constituency. ​ The British Legion’s organisation and sensitivity, both in the preparations and on the actual pilgrimages, has been superb, as the war widows themselves have been the first to say. I should like to express our very warm appreciation to the president of the Royal British Legion, General Sir Patrick Howard Dobson, and his pilgrimages team for the outstanding way in which the Royal British Legion is running this scheme.

    The Army today is a well balanced and highly trained fighting force. It has amply demonstrated its superb professionalism in NATO reinforcement and home defence exercises, in supporting the police against terrorism, in international peacekeeping, in providing military training for many other countries, and in responding with speed and great effectiveness to a large variety of civil emergencies. The Army, like the other two services, does our country the greatest credit.