UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Speeches

  • Ted Leadbitter – 1985 Speech on Northern Unemployment

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ted Leadbitter, the then Labour MP for Hartlepool, in the House of Commons on 22 October 1985.

    I wish to draw the attention of the House to the problems of unemployment in the norther region. The economic problems of the region have been the subject of a mass of reports over the years. There have been many grand designs, all ending with some form of declaration about the prospects.

    The region has not lacked attention. As the subject of analysis it has been a very tolerant patient. Its past contribution to the wealth of the nation is acknowledged and its present fitness to survive and make the best of its opportunities is undoubted among those who live and work there. The future depends on that confidence being accepted and acted upon through national policies and a new economic strategy to match the competence of the regional leadership and effort.

    One of the more interesting reports on the region was commissioned by BBC North East. It was the result of a considerable amount of research in particular areas, including my own, where a third of the male population are out of work. This was followed by a study of Consett and what has happened there since the closure of the steelworks. Those reports conclude that the efforts to regenerate communities devastated by economic disaster were seriously deficient and inadequate.

    Two months ago BBC North East published a further report, a study of Cleveland, which said:

    “This time we have examined the economic change in Teeside showing how this area has experienced a spectacular and remarkable economic collapse.”

    Here we have a description of a transformation from the greatest hopes of expansion to one of the highest levels of unemployment. Not long ago Cleveland was considered to be an economic success story and one of the nation’s most important industrial centres, yet now in this report it is described as grim. The region, and this part of it, ought not to have a future that looks grim. If there is heartache instead of hope, despair instead of confidence and misery instead of happiness it is because the reality of unemployment in my region is an experience that has lasted too long for too many thousands of people. The past they know, they expect something better for the future. They live in the land of the three rivers—theTyne, the Wear and the Tees. It is ideal for industrial development. Their ports have trading links with Europe and the world. The road systems supporting them provide a network of accesses to the first-class locations available for industrial development. The rail and air services complete our communication advantages. The concentration on the cultivation of the environment recently continues to be art impressive bonus for a region renowned for its variety of physical attractions.

    History has recorded the nature and character of the people. There are no doubts about the industry, tenacity and tolerance. There is an abundance of evidence of their adaptability and responsiveness to change. They have produced some remarkable leaders in politics, the trade union movement and commerce and industry, establishing a framework of social, economic and local government institutions in which new industrialists can find fulfilment in their business, cultural recreational and educational aspirations.

    Why, then, have we a grim account of the region? Where does responsibility lie? I am not aware of one organisation, individual or local authority in the region active in industrial promotion and the provision of employment which lacks the spirit of co-operation or the professional standards needed for success. Why, then, the assertions of economic collapse? Some recent news, which continue the drama of decline, absolve the region of any responsibility. On 16 October, the Northern Echo, published in Darlington, ran a headline:

    “North job shock—1,000 axed in a day.”

    That was the full meaning of a the closure of coke works, an electronics factory, a heating equipment works and redundancies in a telephone company in different areas and towns in the region. Three days earlier, the Mail, in Hartlepool, had a front page headline:

    “Region is dying on its feet”.

    It referred to a report from the transport workers’ leader, Mr. Joe Mills — a man known for his care and moderation—to his regional committee. The newspaper described it as a crisis report. These are the latest signs of the blight in the lives of a fine people who have watched the years of closures in their steel, coal and shipbuilding industries, observed the withering of the construction industry and the redundancies in the chemical and allied trades, metal manufactures and mechanical engineering.

    None of this arises from any action of the region. The nature of the closures, the industries involved and the contraction in the major industries that I have mentioned suggest that the cause rests elsewhere. We are fully aware that the employment structure had to become more diversified and that the traditional base of heavy industries would be shifted. The capital investment was directed to more capital — intensive industrial replacement and productivity which did not provide the employment levels needed to match displacement. That fact, and the causes related to it, give the Government a greater responsibility to understand the changing world and its impact on regions such as the north. What is happening in world and home markets? New technologies are displacing traditional methods, new forms of production are being introduced, and a complex of new tariff and credit conditions in international trade and other factors external to the region have an impact.
    It is convenient that the House of Lords Select Committee on Overseas Trade has just issued a remarkable set of conclusions after years of study. The first volume of the document published on 30 July 1985 states

    “Government should give more and not less support to those bodies which are engaged in promoting exports, such as the Export Credits Guarantee Department, the British Overseas Trade Board, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Overseas Development Administration.”

    I have studied the matter with care over the years, and it is high time we increased the amount of aid in the aid and trade provision programme. Moreover, there is a need for concern in the regions, where many jobs could have been made available, if the Government had been vigorous and active regarding the Bosporus bridge contract.

    Clearly, national policies are needed to bring about effective conditions for regional survival and growth. I hope that the Minister will not give us a tutorial about what we can do for ourselves. We have had enough lecturing from Whitehall. I assure the Minister that the region is not short of industrial and professional standards, or the ​ armoury of commercial and local government agencies well suited to promote and exercise all that is needed to attract new industries.

    Nor do we want from the Minister a repeat of comparative performances of different Governments. The unemployed in my region are hungry for hope, not a history lesson on past failures. After six years of Tory rule they are entitled for once to hear the Government accepting their full responsibility, recognising that time has placed the ball fully in their court, and that it is their intentions in that matter.

    The Cleveland experience may well concentrate the mind. A Cleveland review from 1974–84 addressed itself to the broader national trends and the analysis of industrial shift, to which I have already referred. The report stated that the unemployment rate doubled between 1979 and 1981, and that by 1984 the county job gap was about 67,000. Service employment as a proportion of total employment rose to 60 per cent. from 44 per cent. 10 years earlier.

    That briefly describes the massive loss of manufacturing jobs. The scheduled transfer of central Government offices to the area never took place. Three thousand jobs were involved, but the transfer was rescinded in 1979. By 1982 the position had become so bad that the area was designated a special development area. That is not only the story of Cleveland, but of the region, where 244,000 people are now unemployed. Aid that might have come was withdrawn and policies never matched the nature of the problem.

    The Government are ever ready to take credit for their rare successes. Let them now accept the responsibility for their failure. We have heard from one former Tory Prime Minister who supports the line of Government responsibility. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), with his experience as a former Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development, made a significant speech to the Sunderland Conservative association on 14 January this year in which he said:

    “My message is, do not despair. The situation is not hopeless. The North has faced these problems in the past and has come through them … the White Paper on the North East … is now more than 20 years ago, but there are lessons to be learned. The first is that a strategy can be developed to deal with the problems of economic decline, the second is that the strategy can be successfully implemented … It should be possible to create a thriving industry in the North East … And it is here that the Government has a role to play. It can help identify key sectors of industry and co-ordinate their development.”

    No prevarication there. The message is clear: no doubt remains about what ought to be done and what can be done. How different from the reply of the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand), who asked about the effects of the Budget on unemployment in the northern region. She said:

    “Although unemployment is very high in the north, indeed it is the highest of all, the wages in the region are also comparatively high … The two might be related.”—[Official Report, 21 March 1985; Vol. 75, c. 986.]

    That was the Prime Minister’s reaction. The fact she acknowledges; the responsibility she does not. Months later, during a fleeting visit to the region, she told the people there, “Don’t be moaning Minnies.” That was petulant, imprudent and unjustified. Then she ordered, “Stop it.” Such posturings gain her no great credit and it is regrettable and sad that in the time that has elapsed she has taken no opportunity to make some redress and ​ perhaps admit that the region has a long-standing reputation for objectivity in presenting its views. How different it would have been if she and her Government had matched that objectivity. Instead, we have a Government obsessed with promoting failure as success, a Government suffering from tunnel vision, obscuring reality and the consequences of their own policies, and a Government who act out of prejudice against the GLC and spawn a Local Government Bill abolishing all metropolitan county councils, under the pretence of needed reform. Tyne and Wear county council is an important authority and damage to it is damage to the region.

    We have a Government spending many months of parliamentary time on ratecapping legislation and imposing penalties on local authorities and, yes, we have a Government who are oblivious to the social and economic costs of their own surgical operations although in my region there has already been too much blood letting. We have a Government who have become abrasive and intolerant.

    It is no wonder that another former Tory Prime Minister said in another place that it was breaking his heart to see what was happening to Britain. It is breaking my heart to see what is happening to my region; it is breaking my heart to see the despair of young people, the anxiety of parents and the misery of poverty.

    We are not so poor in this land that we cannot afford better regional regeneration. We are not so rich that we can neglect the young and the future that their training, their work and their health can provide. We need the will to do what is right and the guts to find the resources for the support of peace and work and leisure—resources that are so easily found for war and related purposes.

    In drawing attention to unemployment in the northern region, I am pointing to the need to invest in Britain. The Government have had six years. They have had their chance. They refuse to change with the times or from their own course. They have no new strategy and they refuse to consider one.
    No doubt the Minister will seek to deploy some selective material to provide a better face for the Government. It will be of no avail. The balance sheet of failure is there for all to see. We need a new board of directors for the business of Great Britain, and the electors in my region are waiting to make that possible.

  • Theresa May – 2019 Speech at Launch of Augar Review

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, on 30 May 2019.

    Thank you, Philip, for that introduction, for all the work you and your panel have undertaken over the past year, and for sharing some of your findings with us this morning.

    Your report is a ground-breaking piece of work, because it is one that sets out in compelling detail the challenges confronting all of us who care about post-18 education in all its forms.

    It’s a sector that, since 2010, the Government has consistently supported.

    We have increased the funding flowing to universities, delivered more high-quality apprenticeships and developed brand new technical qualifications on a par with A-Levels.

    Yet, as we have just heard, there remains much to be done.

    The UK boasts some of the finest universities in the world, universities that we can proud of and that all governments should pledge to support and protect.

    But in technical education we have fallen behind other leading nations.

    Our further education colleges have the potential to transform lives and grow our economy, but the FE landscape can be confusing to navigate.

    Too many students, parents and employers see further education as a second-best option.

    And successive governments have failed to give it the support it needs.

    For nearly 20 years there has been a relentless focus on getting 50 per cent of young people into higher education.

    Yet most have lost sight of the fact that the original target referred not just to university degrees.

    It, quite rightly, covered the whole higher education spectrum – including vocational and technical qualifications.

    That is why, in February last year as you’ve just heard, I set Philip a clear and ambitious challenge.

    To break down the false boundaries between further and higher education.

    To look at all the options open to young people.

    And to say how they could be improved, and how the state should support students, so that every school-leaver – and indeed every adult learner – can follow the path that is right for them.

    With today’s report, Philip and his expert panel have provided a blueprint for how those improvements and changes could be carried out.

    As we’ve heard, it makes many recommendations across further and higher education.

    The proposals on adult and lifelong learning are also important.

    Decisions about whether and how to implement these recommendations will not fall to me, but to the next Government.

    But regardless of the debate to come, there can be no doubt that this report represents a major landmark.

    And that the data, analysis and insights it contains will help us to deliver a post-18 education system that truly works for everyone.

    That needs to begin with Further Education.

    Our FE and technical colleges are not just places of learning.

    They are vital engines of both social mobility and of economic prosperity, training the next generation and helping deliver our modern industrial strategy.

    But for too long, further education has been allowed to stagnate, with student numbers falling.

    With MPs, civil servants and, yes, even journalists overwhelmingly coming from university backgrounds, it’s no surprise that attention has drifted away from other post-18 options.

    I found it rather telling that, despite the wide-ranging remit of the panel, in the year since the review was launched the debate has concentrated almost exclusively on what it will mean for universities.

    As the panel argues, this focus on academic routes at the expense of all others has left further education overlooked, undervalued and underfunded.

    Routes into and through our colleges are confusing and opaque, with no equivalent of the clear, straightforward and comprehensive UCAS system.

    And this situation isn’t just bad for students – it’s bad for our economy.

    By failing to equip more of our young people with the technical skills they will need to compete in the jobs of the future, we have hampered our ability to compete on the world stage.

    Businesses here in the UK regularly tell me that they struggle to find workers with the technical qualifications they need – but that their rivals overseas have no such problems.

    As the report says, in Germany 20 per cent of the workforce holds a higher technical qualification.

    Here in the UK, just four per cent of 25-year-olds can say the same.

    Behind that statistic lies an immeasurable number of opportunities missed and potential wasted, both for individuals and employers,

    So reinvigorating FE is vital if we are to help all our young people develop the skills they need to get on – and if we are to truly make a success of our modern industrial strategy.

    As Prime Minister, it’s something I’ve worked hard to do.

    This Government has made sure there is an education or training place for every 16- to 19-year old who wants one.

    We’re rolling out T Levels – new, high quality technical qualifications on a par with A-levels – to give students a clear choice at 16.

    We’ve committed to launching Institutes of Technology in every major English city, and this year announced the first 12.

    And we’re creating more high-quality apprenticeships that deliver for students and employers alike.

    But while these reforms have made a real difference, the report is clear that if the half of young people who do not go to university are to have the skills they need for the future then we must go further.

    It’s not enough to simply say that FE and HE should be seen as equals.

    As the report argues compellingly, to make that happen we will have to invest much more in further education – in the buildings, in the equipment and of course in teachers who are expert in their field.

    And making a success of FE is not just about increased funding – it’s about giving these young people a genuine choice about their education.

    So more also needs to be done to ensure that further and technical options are every bit as attractive a path for students as more academic options – including by reforming the sector so that colleges can thrive.

    That will mean more specialisation and collaboration – while also continuing to make sure all young people have access to a college in their local area – and reforms to ensure the courses offered by colleges deliver the skills that are needed by local businesses.

    And of course we also need to make sure that only high-quality qualifications are on offer.

    That FE students are appropriately supported by Government.

    And that the route to Further Education is as streamlined and clear as possible – just as it is for universities.

    Now of course, for many young people, following the path to university is absolutely the right option.

    And prospective students in this country are blessed with many of the best universities in the world – four of the top 10 and almost a fifth of the top 100, according to the latest rankings.

    Our reforms since 2010 have been designed to ensure that success continues.

    We’ve given universities the long-term funding they need, removed the cap on student numbers, and made the system fairer – with the students who will benefit from a university education contributing more and the taxpayer contributing a little less.

    And, as this report shows, those reforms have been broadly successful.

    But I agree with Philip and his panel that, while the core structure of the system is sound, there is room for improvement in the way it functions.

    For example, we need to look again at the level of tuition fees.

    We’ve already frozen the maximum level of tuition fees and raised the threshold at which graduates have to start paying back their loans.

    But when, in 2012, the tuition fee cap was raised to £9,000 most predictions were that the full amount would only be charged by the top universities for the highest quality and most prestigious and potentially lucrative degrees.

    That is not what has happened.

    The vast majority of degrees are now set at the maximum fee – and the panel’s report rightly questions whether that is acceptable.

    After all, plenty of courses do not cost the full current rate of £9,250 per student per year to teach.

    And while the majority provide good outcomes for students, we know that is no longer true across the board.

    Indeed, the report rightly calls for further action to drive out the minority of degrees that are of poor quality – and I hope to see the Office for Students using the powers we have given it to do just that.

    So there is much to be said for the panel’s proposal to cut fees and top up the money from Government, protecting the sector’s income overall but focussing more of that investment on high-quality and high-value courses.

    The top-up funding would come from an increased teaching grant, with funding distributed in a way that reflects each subject’s reasonable cost and value.

    Scrapping fees would also lead to worse outcomes.

    It would, as we have seen in Scotland, force Government to reintroduce a cap on student numbers.

    An arbitrary annual limit that, far from opening the door to opportunity, slams it in the face of thousands of young people.

    And, worst of all, it would be socially regressive – disproportionately benefiting students who go on to earn the most.

    It simply cannot be fair to expect people working hard in low-paid jobs to fully fund the education of students from well-off families who will go on to earn much more as a result.

    All the evidence shows that scrapping fees would simply be the wrong approach –unaffordable, unsustainable and unfair.

    But reducing the cost of higher education would make a real difference to many students.

    And we should also be more upfront about what that cost will actually be.

    When the Office for National Statistics announced that it would be reclassifying student loans as part-government spending, most people focussed on the £12 billion it will add to the deficit upfront.

    But this piece of technical accounting also made clear to the world what the architects of the system already knew: that many students never pay off their loan in full, with taxpayers covering 45 per cent of the cost.

    I believe we should be much more transparent about this.

    Prospective students who are put off university by the idea of borrowing large sums for their tuition bills should know that, in reality, they are unlikely to have to pay back the full amount.

    But tuition fees are not the only bills students have to deal with – the cost of living can also be prohibitively high for students from less well-off families who are living away from home.

    Going to university was one of the biggest privileges of my life, opening the door to so many opportunities that followed.

    And I want this to be a country where every young person, regardless of which school they go to or what their parents do for a living, is able to follow a similar path if they so choose.

    Nobody should feel they have to go to university – and that applies to children from middle class backgrounds just as much as anyone.

    But nor should anybody feel that, because of who they are or where they are from, the world of HE is one that is not open to them because it will cost too much.

    Thanks to this government, universities are legally required to improve access – and if you’re an 18 year-old from a disadvantaged background, you’re now more likely to go to university than ever before

    But improvements are slow and the challenge remains large – the number of young people from working class families who apply to and take up places at universities is still a long way from reflecting the country in which we live.

    That’s why I made access one of the key areas of focus for the Augar Review, asking Philip and his panel to look at the lingering barriers that prevent some young people from applying for university, taking up a place, or completing their course.

    That included the issue of maintenance grants.

    In 2015 the decision was taken to replace maintenance grants with loans, allowing us to raise the maximum level of maintenance support for students in England to among the highest in the world.

    These loans are not like ordinary debt, and are only paid off when you are earning a good salary.

    But talking to young people from less well-off backgrounds, I’ve heard too often how this financial outlay can deter them from applying for university at all.

    I’ve spoken to parents and grandparents forced to scrimp and save to fund their children and grandchildren through university.

    And I’ve seen how young graduates starting out in their adult lives feel weighed down by the burden of student debt.

    So I was not surprised to see the panel argue for the reintroduction of means-tested maintenance grants both for university students and those studying for higher technical qualifications.

    Such a move would ensure students are supported whichever route they choose, and save those from the poorest backgrounds over £9,000.

    It will be up to the Government to decide, at the upcoming Spending Review, whether to follow this recommendation.

    But my view is very clear: removing maintenance grants from the least well-off students has not worked, and I believe it is time to bring them back.

    Securing the right education for every child and every young person is an aspiration that drove me in my earliest days in politics, when I was chair of the local education authority in the London Borough of Merton.

    It drove me from my first day as an MP – indeed, it was the subject of my maiden speech in the House of Commons more than two decades ago.

    And it has driven me throughout my time in Downing Street.

    I have always believed and I still truly believe that, if this is to be a country that works for everyone, then we have to make education work for everyone.

    Because the solutions to so many of the burning injustices that plague so many lives can be found in our schools, our colleges and our universities.

    So as we look ahead to the spending review and beyond, I believe the Government will need to take very seriously the report’s proposals to boost Further Education spending and put right the errors of the past…

    …To restore higher education maintenance grants, so students from the poorest backgrounds no longer leave university with a higher level of headline debt than the richest…

    …And to cut tuition fees, so students pay a fairer price for their education.

    Now of course, it is always necessary to prioritise when it comes to choices on public spending.

    These decisions will need to be taken in the round, as part of the balanced approach to the economy and public finances that has allowed us to make long-term investments in public services like the NHS.

    But only by taking action now will we be able to deliver the lasting change and improvements we need in further and higher education…

    Give every child and young person in this country the education they need to reach their true potential…

    And ensure that everyone, whatever their background, can go as far as their talent and hard work will take them.

  • Liam Fox – 2019 Article on Trade

    Below is the text of the article written by Liam Fox, the Secretary of State for International Trade, as part of Sunday Times SME Export Track 100 on 28 May 2019.

    I am absolutely delighted to see the huge range of ambitious businesses listed in this year’s SME Export Track 100. I firmly believe that small, dynamic companies such as these are the future of the UK economy, and of our export growth, so this is a great opportunity to celebrate their international success.

    Exporting not only increases the profitability of businesses, it has a positive impact on its local economy, encouraging growth and creating jobs. This year’s cohort of companies employs 8,900 people and has created 3,000 jobs in the past two years – that’s 3,000 families with more secure, stable income thanks to exporting.

    The SME Export Track 100 showcase the best of British innovation and entrepreneurship. I am especially pleased to see some familiar companies, such as such as Rarewaves (No 100), which has sold rare vinyl records, video games, books and CDs to buyers in more than 170 countries.

    This company worked with the Department for International Trade (DIT) to build its overseas ecommerce strategy, and has benefited from specialist advice on launching in China and other complex markets.

    Another is Joe & Seph’s (No 36), the popcorn maker. Co-founder Adam Sopher, 34, recently joined our Export Champion community, a network of inspirational business leaders who have expanded their companies through exporting, and are on hand to share practical advice to help turn exporting ambitions into reality.

    There is a market out there for every business, no matter its size or sector, but it is crucial that companies are given the support and confidence they need to grow, in order to unlock their economic potential.

    The DIT is committed to ensuring that more businesses seize global opportunities, which is why we launched our Export Strategy last summer. This was developed in collaboration with businesses to address the barriers they face to exporting. As we look to ramp up exports to 35% of GDP, it sets out how we will give UK companies the tools they need to enter international markets, offering not just encouragement, but finance, vital connections, and valuable advice on how to expand on the world stage.

    Our website, great.gov.uk , has a tool to help companies identify and apply to sell through a wide range of international marketplaces. Users can also find information on financial support from our award-winning credit agency UK Export Finance (UKEF), plus live export opportunities from across the world.

    In 2017-18, UKEF provided £2.5bn to help 191 British companies sell to 75 markets worldwide. Three-quarters of these were small and medium-sized enterprises. According to the IMF, 90% of global economic growth in the next 10 to 15 years will come from outside Europe, so it is no surprise that 45 businesses on the SME Export Track 100 are targeting future expansion in Asia, while 15 are looking at Latin America.

    Take Nosy Crow (No 89), for example. Under founder Kate Wilson, the children’s book publisher is pursuing Latin American opportunities for its Portuguese and Spanish editions. Cleaning products company Mirius (No 67) recently secured a trio of new contracts its bio-security products to export to the Middle East, Taiwan and Brazil — assisted by a DIT grant that helped it secure the necessary accreditation.

    Many emerging economies have a growing middle class, which is creating even greater global demand for British products. Analysis by Standard Chartered predicts that seven of the world’s top ten economies in 2030 will be made up of markets currently “emerging” — one of the reasons we have appointed nine trade commissioners to promote British trade and prosperity across the world.

    There is no better time for companies to take advantage of the international demand for our products and services. OECD figures show that between 2016 and 2018, UK exports grew faster than those in Germany, France and Italy. UK businesses are already building a truly global Britain through their innovation, ambition and hard work, contributing to our growing economic performance and ensuring we remain the trading partner of choice for so many around the world.

    The UK’s position in the global marketplace will be made stronger with the contribution of the SME Export Track 100, which hail from right across the nation.

    No matter where you are in Britain, there is much to be proud of, and I look forward to seeing greater success for our world-beating companies.

  • Gerald Kaufman – 1985 Speech on Inner City Riots

    Below is the text of the speech made by Gerald Kaufman, the then Labour MP for Manchester Gorton, in the House of Commons on 21 October 1985.

    I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment to his high office and I regret, as I am sure he does, that his first duty in that new office is to come to the House on such a wretched occasion.

    Five people have died in sad and savage circumstances, and the first duty of the House today is to send sympathy to those who are mourning Mr. Kammalia Moliedina, Mr. Amir Moliedina, Mrs. Cynthia Jarrett, Police Constable Keith Blakelock and Mr. David Hodge. We send our concern and best wishes for a speedy and full recovery to Mrs. Cherry Groce, a tragic victim of these dreadful events, and to all others—police, firemen, ambulancemen and ordinary innocent citizens—who have suffered injury in disturbances which have included arson, looting and the dreadful crime of rape.

    Many have undergone serious financial loss, and I must first ask the Home Secretary what action can be taken to speed up the payment of compensation under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 and to expand that Act’s scope to take account of loss of income after the riots.

    The House will be debating these matters on Wednesday, and I must repeat the anger that is felt on this side at the failure of the Government to provide time, which has meant that the House will have only half a day on each occasion to debate this profound issue and the crisis in southern Africa.
    Grave questions arise from these disorders and it is essential that the country receives answers on matters which have caused profound national concern. These relate to the nature of policing during riots, and such questions come from the populations of the affected areas and from the police themselves. What the Home Secretary said today will not allay any of these anxieties. They relate to the relationship between the police and the community, in the inner cities and elsewhere. They include disquiet over the spreading use of firearms by the police, the background to the riots, mass unemployment, especially among teenagers, bad housing, environmental decay and dereliction and racial discrimination.

    The Home Secretary boasted today about funds provided under the urban programme, but such sums are only a fraction of the money that has been taken away from these areas in abolished housing subsidy, reduced rate support grant and rate support grant penalties. It is an absurdity that the Home Secretary boasted at Handsworth of the money going to Handsworth when in this financial year alone more money is being taken away from the city of Birmingham in rate support grant penalty than all those sums given over a period of years.

    Only two days after the Brixton disorders, in April 1981, Lord Whitelaw, as Home Secretary, announced to the House an inquiry under Lord Scarman to start right away. After the latest riots, however, the Government stubbornly refuse an inquiry. The Police Complaints Authority inquiries do not begin to be a substitute because, as Lord Scarman in his report insisted,

    “It is necessary before attempting an answer to the policing problem to understand the social problem.”

    It is all very well for the Home Secretary to boast of the increase in police resources under the Conservatives, but he said nothing about the terrifying crime wave from which the county is suffering and which the clear-up rate shows the police are increasingly unable to combat.

    The social problem referred to by Lord Scarman has broadened and deepened. in the four years since his report, and the need for action is that much greater. Lord Scarman warned in his report that

    “to ignore the complex political, social and economic factors … is …to put the nation in peril.”

    Our fear is that, unless the Governments response is much more far-seeing than has so far been demonstrated, Lord Scarman will have been right in his grim warning that

    “disorder will become a disease endemic in our society.”

    Those are the dimensions of the challenge which we face and which the nation expects us to meet.

  • Douglas Hurd – 1985 Speech on Inner City Riots

    Below is the text of the statement made by Douglas Hurd, the then Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 21 October 1985.

    With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the recent disorders. During the past six weeks there have been three serious riots — in the Lozells road area of Birmingham, in Brixton, and Tottenham. Four people have died, one a police constable who was savagely killed. There have also been disorders in Liverpool, Leicester and Peckham in south London. Many police officers and others were injured. There were appalling attacks on the police with petrol bombs and other missiles, and especially in Birmingham and Brixton there was extensive looting of and attacks on shops and cars.

    All responsible members of our society will condemn the disgraceful criminal behaviour which has occurred and all responsible members of our society will applaud the courage and dedication of the police in doing their job of maintaining and restoring order on the streets and the housing estates of our major cities. Public order is essential for the maintenance of a civilised way of life and for the safety of individual citizens—on that there can be no compromise. So far 700 people have been charged with offences arising from the disorders.

    The riot in Brixton was triggered by the tragic shooting of Mrs. Groce, and the riot in Tottenham followed the death of Mrs. Jarrett after a search had been made at her home. These police operations are being investigated by senior officers from other police forces under the supervision of the independent Police Complaints Authority. These arrangements will ensure that they are fully investigated and that any necessary action is taken. In the case of the Lozells road riot, the chief constable of the west midlands is preparing a report which will be published. Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary is being associated closely with the preparation of that report.

    So far as police operations are concerned, although the other disorders were serious enough, the riot at Tottenham stands out for the problems which it presented to the police. In that riot, a police officer was killed, firearms were used and the police had to face a ferocious barrage of petrol bombs and other missiles. The design of housing estates like that at Tottenham poses particular difficulties in such circumstances. The Metropolitan police commissioner is urgently reviewing the tactics of the force on such occasions. There must be no no-go areas in any of our cities.

    The riot at Tottenham was the first occasion in Great Britain when the chief officer of police gave authority for plastic baton rounds to be used if necessary, though in fact they were not used. Plastic baton rounds and CS gas were made available to the police in Great Britain for public order use following the riots in 1981. They may be used only in the last resort, where conventional methods of policing have been tried and failed, or must from the nature of the circumstances be unlikely to succeed if tried, and where the chief officer judges such action necessary because of the risk of loss of life, serious injury or widespread destruction of property. That threshold was reached at Tottenham. The commissioner had my full support in making it clear that such weapons would be deployed if similar circumstances arose in the future.​

    Other matters need to be looked at. The defensive equipment introduced in recent years—helmets, shields and protective overalls — proved its worth. Without it there would have been more serious casualties. The Metropolitan police are acquiring more shields and other defensive equipment. We have to consider whether any further equipment is required, and that is being done. There may be lessons to be learnt in relation to police training and deployment. The commissioner is pursuing these matters and I am in close touch with him. I shall ensure that any lessons learnt are disseminated nationally.

    This Government have done more to meet the needs of the police than any in recent history. Since 1979 the Metropolitan police have increased in strength by nearly 4,500 officers; and other forces in England and Wales are stronger by a similar number. Including civilians, strength has increased by some 12,000. Even after a welcome intake of recruits, the Metropolitan police still have scope to increase strength by about 300 within its present establishment of 27,165. I support the commissioner in his efforts to make good this shortfall as quickly as possible. The force’s reorganisation should, in addition, release 200 officers for operational duties; and I have authorised an increase of nearly 50 in the civil staff ceiling next year for further civilianisation.

    Following my predecessor’s announcement in July on drugs, I have told the commissioner that I am prepared in principle to agree to an increase of 50 officers in the establishment next year specifically to strengthen his efforts against drug trafficking. Taken together, these steps mean that there will be a substantial strengthening of the Metropolitan police in the months ahead. Beyond that I have set urgent work in hand to assess where there are specific needs for further increases in the Metropolitan police establishment, and I shall consider applications from provincial police authorities on the same basis—namely, that the police should have what they need in the fight against crime.

    In recent years, much effort has been put into establishing good liaison and consultation between the police and the community in inner city areas, particularly, for example, in Brixton and Handsworth. These disorders must be—I know that they are—deeply depressing for those community leaders and police officers who have put so much effort into establishing a better understanding. But it would be wrong to assume that these efforts were misplaced. On the contrary, they must be continued and redoubled if the police are to protect and serve the community efficiently.

    More broadly, the Government will continue their strong commitment to urban regeneration. The urban programme has more than tripled, from £93 million in 1978–79 to £338 million in 1985–86, and there has been substantial expenditure in all the riot areas. The Department of Employment and the Manpower Services Commission are spending more than £100 million in the partnership areas, and my Department plans to spend some £90 million in 1985–86 through section 11 grants.

    We must ensure that the very substantial sums that now go, and will continue to go, to inner city areas are spent to the best advantage and directed to the real needs of the people who live there. The city action teams have been set up to improve the co-ordination and targeting of ​ Government programmes in the partnership areas. We shall do everything to ensure that our objectives in the inner city areas are achieved.

    These disorders are shocking events. It is of paramount interest of us all, young and old, people of all ethnic backgrounds, that public order should be maintained. I acknowledge—we all acknowledge—the social problems which exist in these areas, but it is no solution to loot and burn shops which serve the area or to attack the police. Mob violence must be dealt with firmly and effectively and criminal acts punished according to the criminal law. The police should have the support of all of us in striving to maintain order and uphold the law. It is their first priority. It is the Government’s also.

  • Tim Renton – 1985 Speech on the Palestine Liberation Organisation

    Below is the text of the speech made by Tim Renton, the then Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in the House of Commons on 21 October 1985.

    Following my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s announcement in Aqaba on 20 September, it was agreed that my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary would receive a joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation led by the Jordanian Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister and including two Palestinian delegates whose names had been put forward on the understanding that they personally supported a peaceful settlement of the Arab-Israel dispute on the basis of the relevant United Nations resolutions and were opposed to terrorism and violence. Our ambassador at Amman negotiated with the Jordanian Prime Minister the text of the statement which it was agreed would be issued by the delegation after their talks in London.

    Unfortunately, after their arrival in London, one of the Palestinian members of the delegation said that he could not accept a specific reference in the agreed statement to Israel’s right to exist. We concluded that in these circumstances the meetings with the joint delegation could not take place.

    We are deeply disappointed by this setback but remain convinced that the international community must be ready to encourage those who are working for a peaceful settlement in the middle east.

  • Cyril Townsend – 1985 Speech on the Dartford Tunnel

    Below is the text of the speech made by Cyril Townsend, the then Conservative MP for Bexleyheath, in the House of Commons on 21 October 1985.

    I am grateful to have this opportunity, on the first day that the House is back from the long summer recess, to raise an issue of considerable interest and importance to my constituents in Bexleyheath, Barrehurst and Welling, and to the travelling public—the Dartford tunnel. To be more precise, there are two deep-bored tunnels between Dartford and Purfleet, just to the east of my constituency. The first was opened in 1963, the second in 1980. They are the joint responsibility of Kent and Essex county councils, which built them and operate the toll booths. The Dartford tunnel joint committee acts in a proper and prudent financial manner.

    Technically, the two-lane tunnels are part of the A282, which runs from the M25/A13 junction to the M25/A2 junction. They are not part of the new, and yet to be completed, M25, which is a Department of Transport responsibility. They have a unique position in the national motorway network, and one that is clearly ludicrous and should have been tackled years ago by a Secretary of State for Transport.

    Rightly, the M25 is the Government’s motorway priority—the jewel in the motorway crown. The delays in its construction—a regular subject for Adjournment debates over the years—are a national disgrace, but we all hope that by Christmas next year we in Greater London will at last have a bypass. When it is complete, there will be much trumpeting by Transport Ministers, both male and female, and much joy among Britain’s ever-expanding army of drivers. However, that army will soon become painfully aware that the jewel is flawed, and that while the motorway may be splendid, the growing queues at Dartford are certainly not.

    The success of the M25 in attracting traffic, and each year more traffic is attracted, is far beyond that originally envisaged. The density at the Dartford tunnels is becoming similar to that on parts of the M1 and the M4. Inevitably, breakdowns in the tunnels are becoming more frequent. The highest recorded figure so far for vehicles travelling through the tunnels was 83,379 on 25 August this year, a bank holiday weekend, when traffic, involving many of my constituents, queued for five miles north of the tunnels. Regularly, the Department’s forecasts of traffic flows have been absurdly low. A Government-commissioned traffic forecast study was published in July. It predicts long delays at Dartford by the late 1980s and the early 1990s. After making some sensible assumptions the report suggests that about 85,000 vehicles per day will want to use the tunnels on an average day in six years’ time. The study states:

    “By the end of this decade excess demand is likely to be causing summertime delays of between one and two hours.”

    This is on a major motorway. It claims that when the annual average weekday traffic reaches 70,000, public complaints about the traffic delays will become fierce because drivers will have become accustomed to fast and free-flowing progress along the M25. The report thinks that when the annual average weekday traffic reaches 75,000

    “conditions will be unacceptable through the summer months.”

    ​”Unacceptable”.

    Exactly so. Already the Government have foolishly left it too late to avoid these problems, because it would take about seven years to construct another deep bored tunnel. Last week The Economist said 10 years. The Department has blundered and people know it. We debate tonight bad Government administration. The motorist and lorry driver will pay the price for years ahead—and British industry, too.

    The Dartford tunnel began life as a purely local crossing. The planners should have seen the clear need for the M25 to have its own crossing. The Dartford tunnel is Britain’s biggest planned bottleneck. Future queues may be 10 miles long. Time won by the £1 billion M25 will be turned into time lost at Dartford. It is futile for the Department to go on talking about median flows and isolated peaks. At this late hour the Minister of State must carefully consider all the possible new ways of improving the M25 crossing at Dartford, and some of them are most interesting. A bridge at Dartford, either suspension or stayed girder, might be constructed. This might take less time and money than a tunnel. The local topography would make it difficult to align the bridge approach roads with the A282 in Kent. Perhaps the private sector could take up the challenge and fund and build a new crossing, using the very latest technology. The great need is for action. That is what I call for tonight.

    In a recent letter to the British Road Federation the Minister of State wrote:

    “We are well aware that time is not on our side in the Dartford tunnel and we do not intend to let more of it slip past without taking action in this matter.”

    With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend — I am grateful to her for coming along tonight to reply to this debate—that is exactly what my constituents fear will happen.

    The Minister will remember that I led a delegation from Movement for London, which has done excellent work on this subject, to raise this matter in November 1984. I have had lengthy correspondence with her Department. She has taken the trouble to visit the tunnels but I do not need to tell her that the Government’s response to this long-contemplated congestion has been ridiculously inadequate, presumably because she has not had the support of the Treasury.

    The Government gave a grant of about £7 million to build 12 extra toll booths, making 24 in total, which opened in July, and to widen the approach roads. This temporarily relieved the pressure, but it was like thickening the walls of a sandcastle as the tide comes in. Six lanes of motorway cannot go into four lanes of tunnel, and sometimes one tunnel is blocked for repairs.

    I should be grateful if the Minister of State could answer the following questions. If she cannot do so immediately, perhaps I could have a written reply in due course. The Minister has announced that she will commission an engineering feasibility study into how a new crossing could be built. Who are the consultants to be, when will she receive the results of the study, what is the earliest date when we can expect a Government decision, and exactly how will the new crossing be provided? Is it possible to bring the date forward?

    What measures are her Department taking to warn motorists of delays next summer so that they can divert from Dartford if necessary? Where are motorists supposed to go instead of Dartford? Will they have to go into the London borough of Bexley? Will EEC funding be available for the new crossing?​

    It is wrong to argue that a third crossing at Dartford will remove the need for the east London river crossing, which is long overdue and essential for dockland. The routes serve entirely different functions. When it is built, the Bexleyheath constituency will have protection on all sides from strategic traffic crossing it.

    Current predictions are that, with the increasing flow of traffic, existing debts for the Dartford tunnels will be repaid before the end of the century. I hope that my hon. Friend will not argue tonight that the imposition of tolls is appropriate because the tunnels provide a local service to road users with the need to travel between Essex and Kent. Believe it or not, that has been the Department’s line until recently.

    We are discussing a national asset. It is located on the country’s motorway network and provides direct access between the M1, M11 and the Dover ports. Tolls are not paid where the M25 crosses the Thames to the west of London.
    Bexley council fears that if the tolls continue, traffic travelling from or to the Dover ports and the other eastern and southern locations, once on the A2, will continue through to Falconwood and use the east London river crossing to travel northwards.

    My constituents who face ever-increasing costs to travel through the tunnels, would like tolls to be abolished before too long. Bexley council has said:

    “no bridges within London are tolled; the Rotherhithe and Blackwall tunnels are not tolled; the Woolwich Ferry is the “Woolwich free ferry” and it has been made clear that it is not proposed to charge tolls on the proposed East London River Crossing. It is unlikely that any of these crossings of the Thames have the national significance of the Dartford Tunnels. Kt is apparent, therefore, that the imposition of toll charges only at the Dartford Tunnel is inconsistent.”

    If we are to have such tolls, far more sophisticated thinking must go into their collection. I have in mind a range of possible reductions and easy ways to pay for special users and the latest electronic aids to cut out delays.

    Some of my hon. Friends may believe that all that can be done at this stage is damage limitation, after too little has been done too late for too long. But problems have their possibilities. If the Government can summon courage and imagination, bring into play the skills and enthusiasm of free enterprise and, above all, act decisively, the problem could be solved in a manner that will be of lasting benefit to the people living in the locality and to the country’s transport needs.

  • Tom King – 1985 Speech on Youth Training Scheme

    Below is the text of the speech made by Tom King, the then Secretary of State for Employment, in the House of Commons on 1 July 1985.

    With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on youth training.

    My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget statement that he was making extra resources available which could fund a two-year youth training scheme. On the same day I asked the Manpower Services Commission to consult and develop proposals for such a scheme to start from 1 April next year and to report to me in three months.

    On 27 June the commission, which includes representatives from the CBI, local authorities, education interests and the TUC, unanimously approved proposals for the two-year scheme. The chairman immediately submitted these to me and asked for the earliest possible approval.

    I am pleased to inform the House that I have now approved the broad framework of these proposals and I have today authorised the commission to proceed with implementation, within the resource levels previously announced and on the planned date of 1 April.

    The proposals represent a major step forward in improving the opportunities for young people both in training, and work experience. The scheme will give broad-based training in the first year, with a greater emphasis on more specific training in the second year, with the opportunity for all to obtain a vocational qualification. This will be building on the foundations laid by the current youth training scheme, which more than three quarters of a million young people have entered so far. The youth training scheme has opened new horizons for young people and employers and has brought home to many the contribution which training can make to improving employability and productivity. I pay tribute to the work of all the individuals and organisations who have played their part in the development of the one-year youth training scheme.

    The main features of the new scheme will be as follows: There will be a quality training programme leading to vocational qualifications and there will be at least 20 weeks off-the-job training over two years. In addition to a planned programme of on-the-job training and work experience. There will be two years’ training for 16-year-old school leavers and one year for 17-year-old school leavers.

    There will be a training agreement between the trainee and those responsible for his training setting out their respective rights and responsibilities, including the detail of each young person’s training programme.

    From April 1987, only approved training organisations will be able to take part, after they have satisfied criteria drawn up by the Manpower Services Commission, and a new training standards advisory service will be set up to monitor the quality of the training provided. Trainees will be paid an allowance of £27–30 per week in the first year and £35 per week in the second year.

    A basic grant of £160 per month will be payable in respect of each trainee to his training provider. There will be a managing agent’s fee of £110 per annum.
    We recognise the special needs of some areas and some young people who may find it difficult to find employer-based training places and it is proposed that a premium payment of £110 per month per trainee will be paid in such cases to those providing alternative training.

    In approving that broad framework I have approved an increase in the existing trainee allowance to £27·30 with effect from the beginning of September this year, as recommended by the commission.

    Under the new scheme, up to 200,000 more young people will be in training than under the existing youth training scheme, bringing the total to over half a million in training at any one time. This will mean a major improvement in the opportunities for training and work experience for our young people and one that will become a permanent and essential feature of vocational education and training provision in this country.

  • Tony Baldry – 1985 Speech on Voluntary-Aided And Church Schools

    Below is the text of the speech made by Tony Baldry, the then Conservative MP for Banbury, in the House of Commons on 19 July 1985.

    I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of the funding of voluntary-aided and church schools and especially the problems of two schools in north Oxfordshire, the Blessed George Napier school and Bishop Carpenter school. I am also grateful for the support today of other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Minister for Oxford, East (Mr. Norris).

    As I was educated at a Quaker school run by a religious minority, I am well aware of the contribution that religious and church schools make to the richness of education in this country. I have no doubt that Conservatives have a continuing commitment to seeing church schools flourish as a purposeful demonstration of our desire not only that parents should have the widest possible choice in the education of their children but that they should be able to see their children educated in such a way as to encourage regard for Christian values and to instil self-discipline, courtesy and respect for others, and I know of my hon. Friend the Minister’s support for church schools.
    Church-aided schools depend for funding of building projects on three sources—the relevant church authorities, the local education authority and central Government. Before any building or improvement project can go ahead, the support of all three sources is required. In north Oxfordshire, we seem to be experiencing difficulty in getting money allocated from central Government to provide for necessary improvements at two local schools.

    The Blessed George Napier school in Banbury is a Roman Catholic secondary school for children throughout north Oxfordshire. It sets high standards, it is a popular school and it is not suffering from falling rolls. The local population of Roman Catholic children wishing to attend the school is likely to remain stable at least until the turn of the century.

    In 1968, the then Secretary of State for Education and Science approved the enlargement of the school by about 150 places and the number of pupils duly increased by about that number. It has not been possible, however, to carry out the building works necessitated by that increase in numbers. The school urgently needs upgrading to meet the standards laid down by the Department of Education and Science guidelines, and I ask for nothing more than that the necessary funds be made available to enable the school to meet the standards set by the Department itself.

    There is an urgent need for additional classrooms, accommodation for the sixth form and increased space for science, crafts and art. The need for that work to be carried out without delay is obvious. Architects’ plans have been prepared and costings made. The Roman Catholic diocesan authorities are anxious that the work should be carried out as soon as possible. Oxfordshire county council is also anxious that the work should be carried out as soon as possible. In truth, I know that the Department of Education and Science recognises that the case is well made, as officials from the Department who visited the Blessed George Napier school on 27 March readily conceded the need for that work to be carried out.

    Yet no money is forthcoming from the Department. Why? The reason is that money has been made available only for schools in areas of population growth or for schemes that are intended to remove surplus school places. It is claimed that this project, the Blessed George Napier, does not fall into either category, so money has not been made available.

    I simply make the following brief points to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science and to the House. If these criteria continue to be applied rigorously, funds will never be available for school building works, however urgent they may be, in areas of stable population. In any event, Banbury as a town has a consistently increasing population and is one of the main areas of intended population growth in the Oxfordshire structure plan. Furthermore, the building works at Blessed George Napier are needed in any event to accommodate and increase in the school’s population that was agreed by the Secretary of State for Education and Science as long ago as 1968. I urge my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to see whether money can be made available for this project now, and certainly to make funds available for Blessed George Napier from the 1986–87 programme for voluntary-aided schools. I would also put this question to the House. Whatever this project might cost now, how much more will it cost the community by being delayed?

    Bishop Carpenter school at North Newington near Banbury is a primary school which presents a similar problem. Bishop Carpenter is a voluntary-aided, Church of England primary school. It has about 95 pupils who are drawn from a number of nearby villages. It has a high overall reputation, and a number of parents express a clear preference to send their children to this Church of England school.

    For a considerable number of years, the governors of the school have wanted to improve its buildings. While structurally sound, it is an old Victorian school with very limited space which, not surprisingly, restricts teaching and other school activities. Some of the facilities, such as the lavatories, are positively primitive. The teaching area available and the hard playing area are both well below that which is recommended nationally. As the school has no hall, there is very little opportunity for physical exercise and drama productions, and meals have to be taken in the classrooms. The headmaster has nowhere private to interview parents, and the staff have nowhere of their own.

    This school is seeking to serve the best educational needs of the local community but its buildings are desperately in need of improvement. The church now has the necessary funds. This project is at the top of the Church of England’s diocesan priorities for Oxfordshire. The county council is prepared to meet its share of the necessary funds. Likewise, the project is at the top of the county’s application for moneys for church-aided schools. In short, whether or not these urgent building works can go ahead is dependent on central Government.

    For a number of years now, Oxfordshire county council has applied to the Department of Education and Science for such funds as may be necessary to tackle this work. ​ Year by year, these funds have not been forthcoming, and consequently year by year the project has slipped. Year by year the present facilities continue to deteriorate. The parents and governors have drawn up plans to improve the school that will retain all the best features of the present building while ensuring proper facilities for a mixed, three-class primary school.

    To fulfil the needs of an active, living village school with high educational standards and a high reputation in the community would, I should have thought, be exactly the sort of objective that the Department of Education and Science would want to meet. Simply to look at this matter local education authority by local education authority inevitably means that well-deserving individual projects are neglected within those local education authorities which overall may have falling rolls, even though some schools within an LEA, such as Bishop Carpenter, may have expanding numbers, in less than adequate conditions, because parents have chosen to send their children there.

    I very much hope that the Department of Education and Science will be able to make available as soon as possible the necessary money for its share of the work on Bishop Carpenter school.

  • Tom Clarke – 1985 Speech on the Mobility Allowance

    Below is the text of the speech made by Tom Clarke, the then Labour MP for Monklands West, in the House of Commons on 18 July 1985.

    I am particularly grateful for this opportunity to debate the case of Michael Starrs, and I welcome the interest which the Minister’s Department has shown and look forward to the hon. Gentleman’s response.

    Michael Starrs is a father, aged 47. Clearly he is very severely disabled and an extremely ill man. Until his first serious illness struck in 1965, the year when a fateful operation for a duodenal ulcer was performed, Michael was extremely fit and far from work shy. As a national service man, he served in the 15/19 King’s Royal Hussars in Northern Ireland in the late 1950’s. Apart from that period, and until his illness, he worked as an apprentice and then as a welder in Tollcross foundry.

    Prior to his illness, Michael’s average weight was 10 stone 7 pound. Now it is just 8 stone. He has twice applied for mobility allowance and had been refused on both occasions.

    Tonight I have to ask the Minister why and, grateful though I am that the hon. Gentleman is present to reply to the date, I have to tell him that I shall listen very carefully, as will my constituents, to his reply, because it is a case which has baffled many people and continues to baffle me.

    I have to ask the Minister why there should be a refusal in the case of a man who is qualified for and has been given a wheelchair by the National Health Service, presented by Belvedere hospital. Why should there be a refusal in the case of a man who was informed by letter on 8 March 1983 by the Ministry of Transport that the restricted condition of his legs meant that his driving licence would cover hand controls only? Why should a man who is fed intravenously or who is otherwise dependent on baby food or a liquid diet be judged so harshly? Why, when a man suffers from such obvious fatigue that his walking is considerably impaired and when it would be cruel in the extreme to make demands beyond his present limited capacity, is this not taken into account?

    Those questions are also being asked by my constituents, 3,500 of whom have petitioned me to insist on a full inquiry into the whole of Michael Starrs’ case, including his medical history, and some of those people themselves receive mobility allowance. Some of them are the same constituents who got together in a local social club and presented Michael with a hand-controlled car, which gives him the little comfort that he has when he can afford to run it.
    Last year the local newspaper in my constituency, the Airdrie and Coatbridge Advertiser, published a prominent article headed

    “Michael’s 19 years of hell.”

    It reflected, quite properly, the views of those in my community and strong views generally that those involved in social security have not yet found a satisfactory conclusion.

    In March 1965, at the age of 26 years, Michael was admitted to Hairmyres hospital, East Kilbride. He underwent an operation for a duodenal ulcer. From that date until now he has never had a normal meal because his ​ digestive system cannot cope with one. As it was not in his nature to be voluntarily without work, he applied for and was given a light job in the Gartcosh strip mill from 1965 to 1970. However, even that became too much for him and his consultant wrote to British Steel and told them so. After a lengthy period as an out-patient and sometimes as a in-patient, yet another operation, the third in all, took place in 1970 to deal with the complications which had arisen from the earlier operation in 1965. It is a matter of medical history that a piece of silk, which lingered from Michael’s first encounter with surgery, had to be removed. Michael tried to resume work but found that his condition had deteriorated so badly that he experienced a burning sensation every time that he attempted to swallow, a condition which persists to this day.

    Michael finally accepted early redundancy and left his employment with £800 for his 20 years’ service. With that he was left to face the future. Michael has existed on invalidity benefit since then. It is not surprising that his faith in social services has been somewhat shattered. Astonishing though it may seem, in 1976 he was called before a medical tribunal and his invalidity benefit was discontinued. He appealed to the health commissioner, who restored it. That establishes that tribunals are not always right, and certainly have not been so in Michael’s case.

    The first tribunal that heard Michael’s application for mobility allowance sat on 13 October 1980. It concluded:

    “We have considered the evidence and observed the claimant walking out of doors. He walks slowly with a hesitant gait and with the aid of a stick hut without apparent pain or severe discomfort.”

    The best person to make a judgment on his ability to walk and his discomfort is Michael. On that evidence, which is supported by all who know him, there is and has been considerable discomfort. I find it incredible that the tribunal could have reached such a conclusion.

    I gave evidence at the second tribunal hearing in January. It had before it a great deal of information, including the opinion of Dr. Ian Bone, a consultant neurologist, who said:

    “‘He walks in an extraordinary manner, bent forward as though walking on a treadmill. The walking is symmetrically abnormal but becomes more bizarre when the stick is held in the left hand. On general examination, he is a small emaciated man.”

    Having heard the evidence and made my contribution to the tribunal. I believe that my constituent suffered in the conclusions reached because of aconflict of medical evidence about his condition. There were several diagnoses from various doctors. Doctor No. 1 said that Michael suffered from multiple sclerosis, doctor No. 2 said that it was

    “post-gastric surgery debility: ataxia”

    and a third doctor concluded that Michael’s condition was caused by a psychosomatic illness.

    The doctor who knows most about the case is Mr. Starrs’ own medical practitioner, Dr. Edward McCabe, a man who does not use words lightly and thinks carefully before he reaches a conclusion and offers it for consideration. He said:

    “Mr. Starrs suffers from a difficulty in locomotion which I feel qualifies him for a mobility allowance.”

    That is the unreserved view of a doctor who knows Michael and has seen the condition develop and Michael’s health deteriorate.

    Unfortunately, the tribunal did not share that opinion. It concluded: ​

    “We have observed the claimant walking a distance in excess of 100 yards outside. The claimant can walk such a distance, as was confirmed by Mr. Clarke, slowly and gingerly with frequent short pauses for no apparent reason and without any evidence of distress.”

    I found that conclusion astonishing and I regret to have to say that it was a distortion of the evidence that I gave. I made it clear that on a very cold winter’s morning I walked 100 yards with Michael Starrs and I had to stop with him on five or six occasions. He was unable to continue and was caused considerable distress. I was cold and Michael, in his condition, must have felt much colder. How the tribunal could have reached that conclusion is a mystery which still invites an explanation.

    I have discussed all the papers in the case and the facts known to me with my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who introduced the legislation that provided the mobility allowance. He would have spoken in the debate. but unfortunately he has to be out of the country on parliamentary business. However, he has encouraged me to say that he finds it astonishing that Michael Starrs has not been given a mobility allowance. He would have supported my case, and I find that support a great comfort.

    On the basis of the evidence in this case, there must be a suspicion that applicants for the allowance, at least in Scotland, if not elsewhere, are being subjected to more stringent tests than many people would feel are desirable. I know of the independence of adjudication authorities, yet there is a clear injustice in the case of Michael Starrs and it worries me that similar injustices might be occurring in other cases.

    If the Minister tells the House that he cannot intervene in the case, there will be considerable disquiet amounting, yes, to disgust in Coatbridge and throughout my constituency.

    I invite the Minister to share my contempt for the procedures which have condemned Michael Starrs to immobility and dependence whereas with the allowance which the thousands of people who know him think he should have he could be mobile and independent.

    I cannot believe that a man and his family who are experiencing such stress and pressure will not be compelled later to make even greater demands upon the National Health Service. No saving is made by not granting the allowance.
    I say to the Minister and to the adjudicating authorities that I cannot accept their view. I cannot accept that Michael Starrs should be treated in this way. The fight will continue beyond this debate.

    I sought the opportunity to ensure that we had an Adjournment debate on the issue because I profoundly believe that the case speaks for itself and invites correction. I should be delighted if the Minister responded positively, not just in the interest of Michael Starrs and his family, important though that is, but in the interests of humanity.