UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Speeches

  • Richard Ottaway – 1985 Speech on the Mental Health Act

    Below is the text of the speech made by Richard Ottaway, the then Conservative MP for Nottingham North, in the House of Commons on 19 June 1985.

    I wish to draw attention in this short debate to what I believe to be a deficiency in the Mental Health Act 1983. Before going into what I believe to be the difficulties with the Act, I shall refer to a case which came to my attention in my constituency involving Mr. Lionel Clarke. I make no apologies for broadcasting his name, as I first heard about the case via the national television channels, so the background to his case is a matter of common knowledge.

    Mr. Clarke, who is a negro in his 20s, has a long history of mental illness, and the social report produced by the Nottinghamshire county council shows that he has a background of aggression and that he is especially difficult to handle. This manifests itself in a number of violent tendencies. He has been in and out of a number of mental institutions. He was in Rampton, and after his discharge in 1980 he returned to his home and was peaceful for a while. However, in 1982 he threatened to kill his neighbour. He went back into a local mental hospital where he caused a considerable amount of damage, including tearing radiators from the hospital walls. His aggression increased over the years until in 1984 he broke down the door of his neighbour’s house after he had been refused entry. He threatened his neighbour’s children and had to be arrested by the police. It required 12 officers to detain him with a number of police cars and police dogs, and the incident caused a great deal of local concern.

    Mr. Clarke was readmitted into Highbury hospital, which is a local mental hospital, and was released in July 1984. His mother was most concerned about his release and expressed her concern. She felt that she could not cope with someone of such violent tendencies living in her home. Her fears were justified, because a few weeks later he broke into his grandmother’s house, broke it up, smashed up the cars of the police officers who came to detain him and generally caused havoc. In January 1985 he broke up his mother’s house and threatened to kill her. He was remanded in custody for the damage which he had caused to his mother’s house. As there were no suitable settings for him in the local health authority area he was put in Lincoln prison where he was remanded pending trial for the offences which he is believed to have committed.

    It was against the seriousness of Mr. Clarke’s background and the nature of his behaviour that Nottinghamshire county council prepared a report for the Nottinghamshire magistrates’ court. The council decided that he was a definite risk to his family, to the neighbourhood and to the community generally. In preparing the report for the magistrates’ court, no fewer than five psychiatrists were consulted over Mr. Clarke’s condition. One psychiatrist came to the conclusion that, though he was a difficult person, he was not mentally ill. Of the other four, they all felt that he should be in a secure unit. Two of the four thought that that secure unit should be Rampton, which is under the control of the DHSS, which is an important feature in this case.
    I shall quote a small extract from the consultant psychiatrist at Rampton. If he does not know what the matter with the man is, no one will. He wrote:
    “I still consider that he presents a grave danger to others and that it is only a matter of time before he causes serious injury to ​ someone. I consider that at the present time he needs treatment under the high degree of security, which is provided by Rampton Hospital.”

    Faced with reports of that nature, the Nottinghamshire magistrates decided that Mr. Clarke should be the subject of a hospitalisation order under section 57 of the Mental Health Act 1983. Under section 39, a request was made to the Nottingham health authority to provide the court with details of a secure setting for Mr. Clarke so that the magistrates could make a hospitalisation order and put him into a secure setting.

    On 23 April the Nottingham health authority said that there was no suitable secure accommodation for Mr. Clarke in the region, or in any other region. Under section 39 of the Act the authority had been asked to provide details of a place in the region and the authority said that no spare place was available. It was not that a place could not be found but that the man was so dangerous and his condition so serious that suitable treatment could not be found in the region.

    My information after that date is a little woolly, but someone then approached the DHSS, which controls Rampton, and said that the man should be admitted to Rampton. The DHSS admissions panel, in spite of the psychiatrists’ report, decided that he should not be admitted to Rampton.

    The magistrates were put in a difficulty because they could not keep the man on remand indefinitely. They had to try him. He was found guilty of offences and fined, and then—lo and behold—he was discharged. This was a man who a consultant psychiatrist at Rampton thought would eventually cause someone injury. No order was made.

    This caused considerable concern to Mr. Clarke’s family and the community. It attracted publicity. He was sent home with no obligation except to behave himself. That clearly could not continue, but it was not until his mother applied to start the process again that the man was taken to a local mental hospital. Within a month he was transferred to Rampton.

    I have not mentioned civil liberties, because it is not appropriate, but civil liberties are a concern. I have not mentioned section 41 of the Mental Health Act, which places a duty upon the Home Secretary to protect the public’s interest in such circumstances. The case that I have described shows that there is a lacuna in the operation of the Mental Health Act in that a man who is clearly mentally unwell can be set free.

    I should like to ask some questions which if not answered tonight should eventually be answered. First, on what grounds did the DHSS refuse to admit the man to Rampton? The psychiatrist’s report was available to the admission panel, but it was ignored. Secondly, why had the process to be restarted? Section 39 of the Act has been shown to be ineffective. The only obligation under that section seems to be to say whether a place is or is not available.
    We should change the legislation to oblige the health authority to find a place for such a person. That was discussed in the Committee considering the measure and the Minister told the Committee that he would rather strengthen the guidelines than rely upon legislation. Clearly, those guidelines are not working. I hope that, if legislation is introduced, they will be reinforced. It is not sensible to set such people free on the streets and cause us ​ great concern. I should like to know about the Department’s plans to block this loophole, which cannot be left in its present position.

  • Roy Hattersley – 1985 Speech on Prices

    Below is the text of the speech made by Roy Hattersley, the then Labour MP for Birmingham Sparkbrook, in the House of Commons on 19 June 1985.

    I beg to move,

    That this House condemns the Government’s policy of intentionally increasing public sector prices through rising tariffs for gas and electricity, increased rents, rates, water charges and bus fares, higher charges for school meals, meals on wheels, home helps and prescriptions, which will result in disadvantage for all but the richest sections of society; deplores the increases in private sector prices resulting from the Government’s extension and imposition of higher levels of value added tax; and strongly disapproves of the Government’s mismanagement of the economy which has produced record interest rates and a consequent level of mortgage repayments which for most families greatly exceeds any gains from changes in income tax.

    Inflation is the area of the economy in which the Government most often proclaim victory, but an examination of the facts shows that boast to be largely bogus. For five years, the Prime Minister has claimed credit for a falling inflation rate, and has rejected all blame for increases in unemployment. In both cases, the truth is almost the exact opposite of what she asserts. That is a demonstrable fact, and it was so even before the increase in the retail price index over the past five months.

    I simply draw the attention of the House to the statistics. During the past six years the British inflation rate has fluctuated between 9 per cent. above the OECD average—that was in the year in which the Government increased VAT from 8 to 15 per cent., and pushed up the RPI by four points at a stroke—and 1·8 per cent. below it. The latter figure came about immediately before the last general election.

    But over the period as a whole, the average rate of inflation in the OECD has fallen from 9 to 5 per cent., whilst in the United Kingdom it has fallen from 10·1 to 7 per cent. That is a comparison of our inflation record with that of our competitors and partners in the developed world. We have certainly done no better—and, indeed, have probably done worse — than the average in the other OECD countries.

    There can be no dispute about unemployment. It is a question not of perhaps having done worse but of certainly having done worse, continually having done worse and remorselessly having done worse. In 1969, United Kingdom unemployment stood at 0·5 per cent. above the OECD average. In 1980 it was 1·1 per cent. above; in 1981, 3·9 per cent. above; in 1982, 4·1 per cent. above; and in 1983, 4·4 per cent. above; and in 1984 it was 5 per cent. above the OECD average.

    In the five years for which there are statistics and in the five years of this Conservative Government, our unemployment rate has continually and remorselessly increased as compared with unemployment in the OECD countries of our partners and competitors.

    Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge) rose—

    ​Mr. Hattersley

    I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. So far I have given only the official statistics, but perhaps he wishes to argue with them.

    Mr. Nicholls

    Was there one single month under the last Labour Government when the rate of inflation was lower than it is now?

    Mr. Hattersley

    As I develop my case, the hon. Gentleman will discover that the problem that he has to face—[HON. MEMBERS: “Answer the question.”]—is whether the present rate of inflation is the lowest that the Government could achieve, or whether, through their wilful policy and despite the advantages that they have enjoyed, they have behaved in such a way as to produce a rate of inflation that is worse than that in the countries of our competitors and collaborators in the OECD. The answer to that question is a categorical yes, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is wisely not prepared to argue with that contention.

    The contention is that, as compared with other developed countries, our rate of inflation has continually and inexorably deteriorated. That has happened at a time when commodity prices have remained relatively stable and when almost all the external factors—I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to oil prices — have encouraged an improving inflation rate. The things that have pushed up inflation in this country during the past five months are domestic factors, just as they were in 1979 and 1981. The causes of inflation are VAT, rents, gas, electricity and, overwhelmingly, mortgages. Things that are the direct result of Government policy have escalated the inflation rate to the 7 per cent. figure at which it now stands. All the increases that I have listed have come about either directly as a result of Government edict or indirectly as a result of Government incompetence.

    It is now accepted that the most immediate cause of the increase in the retail price index is the increase in mortgage rates. About that I want to ask the Chief Secretary an immediate question. If he cannot answer it now, I warn him that we expect the Secretary of State for the Environment to answer when he winds up in five hours’ time.

    When official statistics prove the inadequacy of Government policy, it is the Government’s practice not to change the policy but to change the statistics. That happened when the retail price index was replaced by the tax and price index; that happened when the method of calculating the unemployment total was altered to give a better figure; that happened when the method of estimating the number of people in work was altered to improve the total.
    Is the same about to happen with the retail price index? I understand that the retail prices index advisory committee has been asked by the Government to consider the removal of mortgage rates from the inflation calculations. That is a simple matter to which the Chief Secretary can answer yes or no. If he cannot, the Secretary of State for the Environment can answer later. Perhaps the answer is known already. I shall be pleased to give way to hear the answer to the question. Have the Government, or have they not, invited the retail prices index advisory committee to consider the removal of mortgage rates from the RPI? We look forward to the Chief Secretary enlightening us as the afternoon progresses.

    Whether or not the Chief Secretary admits that what I say is true, the increase in mortgage rates played a major part in the April and May inflation increases. The May increase was described by the Secretary of State for Employment as a “blip” in a downward curve. When he made his usual statement on the unemployment figures, the Secretary of State did not say that there had been a blip in April, a blip in March, a blip in February, a blip in January — that is five blips in a row. Many commentators believe that if blips are the euphemism for upward movements, there will be another blip next month.

    Five blips in a row — possibly six — requires a collective noun. The word of course is “trend”. The trend has been upwards since Christmas. The trend has been established not by external factors, because commodity prices are relatively stable and the pound has not significantly deteriorated since January. The cause is domestic Government policy and the principal cause is the increase in the mortgage rates, for which the Government are wholly and directly responsible.

    The story of the mortgage rates increase is well known, but it bears repetition. For 18 months, the Chancellor of the Exchequer insisted that the pound must float free and find its natural value in world markets. While he was insisting upon that throughout 1984, commentators were saying that, since oil is priced in dollars, depreciation would increase oil revenues, the oil revenue increases would extend the fiscal adjustment, the extended fiscal adjustment would increase the Chancellor’s scope for tax cuts, and therefore the Chancellor was in positive favour of depreciation. Not once did the Chancellor do anything to contradict that view.

    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson)

    Rubbish.

    Mr. Hattersley

    Will the Chancellor say when he contradicted the view that he welcomed depreciation? Will he give an example now? The Chancellor did nothing to contradict that judgment. As a result, on 10 January the pound seemed likely to depreciate to the value of a single dollar. As a result of that, the Chancellor stepped in on 11 January and manoeuvred an interest rates increase, which did not work.

    The following day, not only the Chancellor, but all in Downing street, took a hand. At No. 10, The Observer newspaper was told that intervention to support the pound was imminent, while next door, at No. 11, The Sunday Times was being assured that intervention was out of the question. The result was chaos in the market and panic in the Government. On Monday 14 January, the Chancellor reintroduced minimum lending rates and began the process that ended with base rates at 14 per cent. and the highest real interest rates that this country has endured for 50 years.

    The cause of those interest rates rising to that level was not the old theory of crowding out or the new excuse of international rates. It certainly was nothing to do with the money supply, even though the Government were not meeting their money supply targets. Interest rates in Britain are now 6 per cent. above those in Germany, America and Japan, for reasons that are special to the United Kingdom. Those reasons are and remain the incompetent management of sterling by the Chancellor and the panic that affected the Government thereafter. As a result of that unique increase in interest rates, mortgage ​ rates rose to 13·75 per cent. and 14 per cent.—4 per cent. higher than at the time of the last election and 2 per cent. above the level that the Government inherited in 1979. In fact, those mortgage interest rates have been surpassed only once in our history, and that was under the Tory Government in 1981.

    On 1 April, mortgage interest rates rose by a full 1 per cent. That added £9·60 a month to the repayments on a £20,000 mortgage, which is the average new mortgage taken out. That increase in repayments on the average new mortgage more than swallowed the £7·50 tax relief provided in this year’s budget for a married couple. Thanks to the Government, during the past five years, that family with a £20,000 mortgage has faced a 4 per cent. increase in its mortgage repayments and an actual increase of £40 a month. The Conservative party, which claims to be the party of home ownership, has made home ownership more expensive than ever before.

    For some families, especially young couples, the Government have made the price of home ownership prohibitive. Yet, if those same young couples want or have to live in rented accommodation, especially municipal rented accommodation, the cost has increased just as much. Thanks to the Government’s decision virtually to abolish housing subsidies, increases in rents have escalated at a speed that no hon. Member, whatever his persuasion, would have regarded as tolerable five or 10 years ago. In 1978–79 — the last year of the Labour Government — the average council rent was £5·90 a week; last year, it was £14·77. The estimate for 1985–86 is £15·50 a week—an increase over seven years of 163 per cent. gross and 41 per cent. in real terms. These are massive increases which ordinary families find it almost impossible to face and bear.

    The increases in mortgage repayments and in rates are borne by home owners and house renters who are desperately affected by another item of policy for which the Government are generally and directly responsible—the continuing increase in rates. I know that it is the practice of the Government’s propaganda machine to blame the rates increases on individual councils. It may well be the whole absurd paraphernalia of rate capping and all that goes with it was not so much a device for holding rates down as a device for finding scapegoats on whom to blame the increasing rates.

    Whatever the purpose of all these schemes introduced by the Chancellor and his many predecessors who escaped before he arrived, none has worked.

    Between 1974–75 and 1978–79—that is the period of the Labour Government, for hon. Members who enjoy making such comparisons—rates rose by 73 per cent. In fact, the real cost fell by 5 per cent. Between 1978–79 and 1984–85 the rates rose by 146 per cent.—the real cost rose by 46 per cent. Between the first year that this Government were in office and the estimate for next year, the rates increase will be 169 per cent.—a real increase of 44 per cent. That is 44 per cent., to which an additional escalating payment must be made for water rates, which continue to grow at a speed that is inexplicable to most people who have examined the industry.

    The Government blame all this—a 44 per cent. real increase in rates plus the increase in water charges—on spendthrift councils. They justify their blame and substantiate their accusations by giving examples of items ​ of spending which I freely admit are sometimes absurd, but which are almost always trivial in terms of a borough’s total rates bill.

    If councils are to blame for escalating rates, then Conservative councils are at least as guilty as Labour in local administration. I ask the Chief Secretary to consider the average domestic rates precept this year in the shire counties, where the Conservative party believes itself to hold sway and in some areas exercises undisputed power. In the 10 shire counties where Labour sets the rates, the figure is £4·83; in the 19 shire counties where the Conservatives set the rates, the figure is £5·31; and in the 10 counties where there is no overall control the figure is £5·34. By dividing the shire counties into three groups—Labour, Conservative and others—one can see that, according to the Government’s criteria, the Labour party has a better record of thrift than the other parties.

    I am not blaming the independents, the Social Democrats or the Liberals, who have increased the precept the most. I am not blaming the Tory councils which have increased the precept more than Labour councils. To blame them for the increase in rates would be as absurd as to blame all the other groups which have had the unpleasant task of imposing and passing on the price increases required by the Government. Those councils have increased their rates for two reasons — first, because the Government have increased councils’ costs by imposing extra duties on them, such as the administration of housing benefit, and, secondly, because the Government have neglected services, such as local transport, which councils rightly thought it their duty to rescue.

    At the same time as this Government have increased councils’ costs, they have remorselessly and ruthlessly cut the rate support grant, which is central Government’s contribution to local authority spending. In 1978–79 which was the last year of the Labour Government-this is another comparison which will be noted by assiduous hon. Members who like to make these comparisons — the RSG was £12·226 billion; this year it has sunk in real terms to £8·489 billion. If this Government had kept RSG at the level they inherited, local authorities would have received a sum so much greater than the sum they now receive that none of the increases about which there have been so many complaints would have been necessary or imposed.

    In such circumstances, it is dishonest and absurd to blame the rates rises on local councils. It is as dishonest and absurd as it would be to blame the chemists for the increases in prescription charges from 20p to £2, to blame the dentists for the increased patient costs which come from open-ended charges, or to blame the opticians for the increased prices which result from the abandonment of NHS glasses and lenses. The Government are responsible for all those items, just as they are responsible for the rates increases.

    Mr. Tim Eggar (Enfield, North) rose—

    Mr. Hattersley

    I am always happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

    Mr. Eggar

    Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the question of rates, may I ask him to recollect that the Government imposed a limit on the GLC? Does he remember that the GLC then voted voluntarily to go below that limit and announced that it was able to do that without ​ any reduction in the standard of services being offered to the people of London? Did the right hon. Gentleman welcome the move by the Government which forced the GLC to reduce the rate, or did he believe that his friends at county hall should have been allowed to raise the rates as high as they wished?

    Mr. Hattersley

    I will now demonstrate why I said that I am always happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he will recall what happened when the GLC reduced the rate below the figure that the Government anticipated. That required the Government to give more money to county hall, and because that had to be done, they had to take money away from Lancashire and every one of the shire counties.

    Mr. Eggar

    No.

    Mr. Hattersley

    It is no good the hon. Gentleman saying, “No”, because that is exactly what happened. It is what I told the Prime Minister would happen and it is what the Prime Minister justified having happened. Because the GLC remained within the law, the shire counties, many of them Conservative-controlled, were penalised. If the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) regards that as a sensible way of distributing the rate fund, I shall give way to him frequently in the future.

    Mr. Nicholas Soames (Crawley)

    Get on with it.

    Mr. Hattersley

    I long for the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) to intervene.

    Mr. Soames

    Just wait.

    Mr. Hattersley

    The people whom I have described — those who are paying higher mortgage rates and higher rents, both of whom are paying additional rates bills—are also the people who are now faced with massive increases in the cost of gas and electricity.

    I have no doubt that, when the Chief Secretary makes his valedictory speech, he will say that gas and electricity prices rose between 1974 and 1979. I congratulate him on his perception in discovering that. During the lifetime of the Labour Government, gas prices, although they increased by 73 per cent. in nominal terms, fell by 39 per cent. in real terms. Between May 1979 and August 1985, gas prices rose by 128 per cent. in nominal terms and 56 per cent. in real terms.

    Electricity prices rose much more quickly under Labour than they have under the Conservatives. However, I hope that, as the Chief Secretary entertains us with a detailed recital of the figures that I have offered him, he will also give the history of those price increases.

    The Labour Government of 1974 inherited from their predecessor annual losses on gas of £41 million and on electricity of £176 million. I know that it is not fashionable for the present Government to defend their lineal predecessor, and the Chief Secretary may say that many of the problems that the Labour Government faced with gas and electricity prices were the direct result of the Heath Administration. He must make his own judgment on whether he wants to offer that condemnation.

    The facts are beyond dispute—a £41 million deficit on gas and a £176 million deficit on electricity—and the Labour Government moved slowly towards a break-even point. As one of the Ministers who was responsible for this area of policy, I vividly recall that the criticism of the ​ Labour Government was not that we were putting gas and electricity prices up too quickly but that we were increasing them too slowly—that we were subsidising the gas and electricity consumer.

    Mr. Eggar rose—

    Mr. Hattersley

    No, I must get on.

    Mr. Robert Atkins (South Ribble)

    The right hon. Gentleman said that he always gave way to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar).

    Mr. Hattersley

    While I could not lose by giving way, I am motivated solely by compassion. Therefore, I will not give way again to the hon. Gentleman.

    The Government’s attitude towards the gas and electricity industries has been diametrically different from that of a Government who struggled—not completely successfully — to make the industry break even. The Conservatives have used gas and electricity to raise revenue and collect taxes, and I will quote two authorities for saying that.

    I remind the Chief Secretary of what the National Gas Consumer Council said about the gas tariff:

    “We strongly opposed and fought vigorously against the suggestion that the tariff should rise higher than the commercial needs of the industry in order to provide a convenient source of revenue to the Treasury.”

    It went on to say that its opposition to the gas industry being used

    “to provide a convenient source of revenue to the Treasury”

    failed and that the fight to stop the gas tax was lost. It added that the

    “three-year Government imposed programme of rapid gas price rises was…a programme that more than doubled the price of gas.”

    The same rule applies to electricity. I have quoted the report of the Select Committee on Energy in the House before. When I last raised it in debate, the Chief Secretary did not comment on the issue. I invite him to comment on it today. That Select Committee said:

    “the proposed electricity price increase…is not justified on the grounds either of the Financial Target or the Government’s economic pricing policy. The only possible reason for it is the Government’s desire to raise additional revenue.”

    Mr. Andrew MacKay (Berkshire, East) rose—

    Mr. Hattersley

    I had better not give way to the hon. Gentleman, or his hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North will feel cheated

    The Select Committee added:

    “the industry has been required by the Government…to make payments to the Treasury in 1984–85 of some £360 million over and above the figure of £380 million which would be consistent with Financial Targets.”

    The Government now impose a purchase tax on gas and electricity. It is a surreptitious tax, but it is a tax nevertheless on electricity and gas.

    Mr. Andrew MacKay

    The right hon. Gentleman is rightly concerned about price rises. I am sure that he is keen to enlighten the House and the country on his party’s policy. Do he and his party believe in a statutory prices and incomes policy, or would he have some sort of fudge or compact with the trade unions?

    Mr. Hattersley

    My answer to the alternatives that the hon. Gentleman offers me is that I do not believe in a statutory incomes policy. I do, however, believe, as I have always believed, that an agreement must be forged between unions and Government — [Interruption.] I ​ know how concerned the Government are by the increase in wages reported today. I hope that they will understand, if they are concerned about wage increases, that they should not be surprised by today’s news. If the Prime Minister preaches the doctrine of every man and woman for himself and herself, she must expect the trade unions to do exactly the same. As Mr. Sid Weighell once said:

    “If we live in a pigsty economy, everybody will try to get their snouts in the trough.”

    As the Conservatives have encouraged the belief that every man and woman should fight for himself and herself and damn the consequences, they should not be surprised if trade unionists take them at their word.

    Several Hon. Members rose—

    Mr. Speaker

    Order. I do not think that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) is giving way. There will be ample time for other hon. Members to contribute to the debate.

    Mr. Hattersley

    I return to the subject on which—[HON. MEMBERS: “Keep to the point.”] I have not left the point. If Conservative Members will concentrate, when I say that I am returning to the point, it means that I have not left it. I am on exactly the same point.

    The surpluses in the gas and electricity industries which the Government have arranged and have imposed—they would be called profits in private industry, and I suppose that they will be called profits if those industries are privatised — are used to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement. They are taxes, and they are intended to assist in the achievement of the massive tax cuts which the Chancellor pursues so frenziedly but never actually achieves.
    I suspect that this frenzy will increase as the election approaches — not surprisingly from a party which promised to cut taxes but has in fact increased the annual tax bill by £29 billion. That means, I suspect and fear, that there will be additional assaults on public services such as the assault mounted by the Secretary of State for Transport in his direction to the London Regional Transport Board to reduce its level of revenue support. The assault resulted in fares being increased on average by 9 per cent., short journey fares being increased by 25 per cent. and children’s bus fares being increased by 50 per cent. Those are the sort of prices that real families pay for the Chancellor’s frenzied and vain pursuit of a surplus big enough to provide the tax cuts which he once promised and has failed to provide.

    There will be the pathetic pretence that the problems of the economy, while all this is going on, can be solved by the belief and the pursuit of the superstitions which have so failed the economy for the last six years. I have absolutely no doubt that when the Chief Secretary speaks we will hear a repetition of all the old shibboleths that we have heard from him week in, week out, since he first became a member of the Government. He will announce that the policy which has visibly failed is really an invisible success and he will urge us to be patient, telling us that in the end the policy which has so damaged the economy will save the economy. To most people the absurdity of that blind faith is now obvious.

    We were once told that, if the Government held down inflation, every other aspect of the economy would improve. What they have done is to attempt to hold down inflation by damaging every other aspect of the economy. ​ The 2 million extra unemployed, the record level of company liquidations, the deficit on manufacturing trade, the net decline in investment and the negative net investment in manufacturing, construction and transport, are all the prices that we pay for the Government’s belief that, if they hold down inflation, everything will come right. Not even in that particular have the Government succeeded. Not even in that promise have the Government managed to do what they asserted would be done.

    The most recent of these promises was made by the Prime Minister somewhere in south-east Asia. I cannot recall the exact country—that does not matter; the right hon. Lady cannot either — but I do remember the promise. The promise was a 3 per cent. inflation rate by polling day. Therefore, I ask the Chief Secretary whether the Government are still committed to that figure or are now edging away from the Prime Minister’s indiscretion. If the Government still believe that 3 per cent. is possible by polling day, let me remind them what they have to do. They have to cut inflation by 4 per cent. in the next two years. What the Government have achieved in six years is a reduction of 3·1 per cent. What they have achieved since the last election is an increase of 3·3 per cent.

    Notwithstanding that, I make my position clear about what I fear most—that the Prime Minister will cynically attempt to keep her promise by further collapsing the economy, by adding to record unemployment, by adding to the number of company liquidations, by increasing the deficit on manufacturing trade and by worsening the position in transport, manufacturing and construction, where net investment is already negative. My fear is that the Prime Minister will cynically deepen the damage in the vain hope of having a least one semi-plausible claim to make about her economic record. I do not think that it will do her reputation very much good. The country no longer believes her economic prescription—how could it when so many promises have been broken and when so many forecasts have proved risibly wrong?
    I conclude with one recent example. On 21 March the Chancellor spoke to the House about inflation which he said

    “will stay low and will get lower.”

    Since then, the retail prices index has risen twice. What is more, even when the Chancellor gave his assurance on 21 March, he must have known that it was going to rise in April, but what he said to the House was that inflation

    “will stay low and will get lower.”—[Official Report, 21 March 1985; Vol. 75, c. 973.]

    It is conduct such as that and words such as those—

    Mr. Lawson

    That is not what I said in the Budget speech.

    Mr. Hattersley

    The Chancellor is assuring the House that he said something different in the Budget speech. It is a sort of defence to say that one said one thing on one day and another on another day, but I do not think that it is a defence that will take him very far. I believe that it is defences like that and statements of the sort that I have just described which make the comment that the Chancellor offered the House on 21 March wholly apposite—apposite not to the inflation rate, but to the Government’s reputation—that it will stay low and will get lower.

    ​

  • Nicholas Ridley – 1985 Speech on Airports Policy

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nicholas Ridley, the then Secretary of State for Transport, in the House of Commons on 17 June 1985.

    I beg to move,

    That this House approves the Government’s White Paper on airports policy, Cmnd. 9542.

    In proposing an airports policy to the House on 5 June, I had to try to reconcile two interests which conflict. The first is the need to provide the airport capacity that is likely to be needed in each region of the country. The second is the strong views of many thousands of people living near airports about whether further development should take place in their localities. These matters had to be decided. Perhaps the worst policy of all would have been to postpone decisions.

    In their 1978 White Paper, the Labour Government foreswore forcing airlines and passengers to go where they did not want to go:

    “The Government rejects the suggestion that the air transport industry should be subject to the damaging restrictions on its operations which could be the outcome of the forced diversion of traffic to regional airports.”

    I agree with that. But by virtue of our joint rejection of that course, there is no alternative to providing more capacity in south-east England.

    However the Labour party may wriggle today, in a position of responsibility it would have had to accept the logic of providing capacity in the south-east for between 72 and 79 million passengers per annum by 1995, just as the inspector did. Economic growth, foreign earnings, and, most important, jobs in the aviation industry are at stake. So is the convenience of both business and holiday travellers.

    On the other hand, the Government are acutely conscious of the inconvenience, noise, and development that airports bring to their neighbours. For these reasons we have not sought to provide any more capacity than is necessary, and to phase it so that it is provided only when it is necessary. I will discuss other aspects of environmental protection later in my speech.

    I particularly understand and sympathise with the worries of people living near Stansted. They have fought long and hard against a busy airport there. My hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) and many other hon. Friends have put their case with consistent force and skill. It is in recognition of this concern that we have restricted expansion at Stansted to the minimum necessary.
    ​

    We have done our best to meet the concerns of those who really speak for Stansted. The development of the airport will be phased, with the first phase restricted to 7 million to 8 million PPA, an increment of only 5 million to 6 million on Stansted’s current capacity. The growth of traffic will be gradual, the new terminal will open around 1990, but it is impossible to say when it will reach capacity. Gradual growth will make it easier for local authorities to plan supporting development which may be needed, such as housing and services, road improvements, and so on. It will help to guard against the strains imposed by rapid expansion on a relatively small community. Good and sympathetic design of the new terminal and associated developments will be very important, and I am sure that the British Airports Authority and the local planning authority, which will need to approve the detailed plans, will strive for it.

    Mr. Bowen Wells (Hertford and Stortford)

    Can my right hon. Friend explain exactly how planning approvals will be given, in view of his statement that the expansion will be phased? Is he aware that many of my constituents would accept a phased terminal expansion—say to 4 million to 5 million PPA at the most, which is what is needed at Stansted according to the White Paper, and not between 7 million and 8 million? Is he aware, further, that the British Airports Authority made it clear to me when I visited its headquarters on Friday that it was bent on building a 15-million-PPA terminal. How will that be handled by my right hon. Friend?

    Mr. Ridley

    My hon. Friend seeks an assurance, which I am happy to give him. The British Airports Authority can apply for a 7 million to 8 million PPA terminal—I think that it is 50,000 sq m in area. It is again controlled by the number of air traffic movements, to which we hope the House will agree to restrict Stansted. If the authority makes detailed application—it has only outline planning permission at present—which is outside that restriction, I would expect the local planning authority to refuse it, and there is always the appeal mechanism if it does not. I assure my hon. Friend that the planning defences are there to make sure that the Government’s phasing of this development is adhered to accurately.

    Our proposal to impose a limit on air transport movements at the airport commensurate with the first phase of development will, I hope, provide further reassurance to my hon. Friends and to local residents about the rate of growth of traffic. The legislation, which I intend to introduce at the earliest opportunity, will provide that the limit can be raised only with the approval of Parliament, which will have to be satisfied that this is necessary to meet the demand. This mechanism will ensure direct control by Parliament over the use of the airport. We cannot now be sure of the amount of demand at any time in the future, how much can be accommodated at Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton, and, above all, how successful the regional airports will be, with the Government’s help, in attracting traffic. Parliament will be able to judge all these factors.

    Aircraft noise at Stansted is being significantly reduced by bans on the noisier aircraft types, and we shall seek further to reduce the impact at Stansted by improving on the current noise abatement measures, which include restrictions on night operations. There is a review of night sleep disturbance currently under way. Quiet take-off and ​ landing procedures and noise preferential routes will be required. They will be supplemented with new measures, including a noise insulation grants scheme for the Stansted area.
    In the light of the decision on phasing the development of the airport, British Rail will be examining the case for a rail link to Stansted. The cheapest option would be a simple spur to the Liverpool Street-Cambridge line, costing perhaps £50 million. The options will be assessed on exactly the same terms as a rail link to Manchester airport. I understand that British Rail thinks that the Stansted study could be completed by the end of this year. The Manchester study could probably be completed sooner than that, I look forward to reading them both.

    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish)

    The Secretary of State will be aware that some people in the Greater Manchester area are worried that British Rail may be loading the question of the Manchester airport link because of its reluctance to see people changing from train to plane to travel from Manchester to London. Will he make sure that the development of a rail link to Manchester airport is looked at in terms of its international impact rather than simply in terms of its competition with British Rail on journeys from Manchester to London?

    Mr. Ridley

    I shall seek to make sure of that. It is for British Rail to work out the figures and appraise the nature of the investment, but it is for me to approve it or otherwise. I shall make sure that this work is done properly. It will also be done in conjunction with Manchester city council and Manchester international airport so that they, too, can make sure that there is no suggestion—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not suspect that there is any such possibility—of the figures being wrongly put together.

    I know there are many people in the Stansted area who oppose any more than a relatively small expansion. But there are also many who welcome the new jobs development will bring. Estimates of the number of jobs arising from expansion of the airport to a capacity of 15 million passengers per annum, both directly and indirectly, vary from 18,000 to 25,000. The inspector appeared to place more reliance on the lower figure; I have no better estimates as yet, but even on this basis it seems likely that development restricted initially to 7 million to 8 million passengers per annum would generate perhaps 10,000 jobs for the unemployed at Harlow, Braintree, Basildon, north-east London and even further afield—for instance, north-east Kent, which now enjoys good road access to the airport. Many people presently commuting to London from the area may obtain airport-related jobs. The more people from neighbouring areas take jobs there, the less will be the pressure for more housing to be provided.

    My hon. Friends representing constituencies near Stansted are also concerned that low charges at Stansted might draw traffic away from the regions. This is also a fear shared by hon. Members from the north of England. For this to happen would be contrary to one of our main objectives, which is to encourage the growth of traffic at the regional airports. I assure the House that we will take the necessary steps to ensure that Stansted does not have an unfair advantage.

    ​ First, under the legislation I shall be introducing, the structure of the BAA, with seven separate companies under one holding company, will require separate accounts for each subsidiary and full financial transparency; this will inhibit cross-subsidisation. Secondly, the role of the Civil Aviation Authority, in regulating the general level of airport charges, will prevent any predatory price cutting at Stansted. Thirdly, if individual airport companies borrow from within the group or outside it, they will have to pay full commercial rates of interest. The expansion of Stansted will have to be a commercial investment. It follows that charges at the airport will need to rise steeply to meet the costs of expansion. The BAA board, since the decision on 5 June to approve the development of Stansted, has said that it will be consulting its airline customers on the increased charges required to meet the costs of providing the new capacity. The Government are determined to ensure that traffic is not attracted away from the regions by unfair competition.

    Mr. Cecil Franks (Barrow and Furness)

    My right hon. Friend said that the structure of the British Airports Authority and the seven subsidiary companies would inhibit subsidy. Many Conservative Members would like the word “prohibit” to be substituted for the word “inhibit”, for many people are very sceptical about the good faith of the British Airports Authority.

    Mr. Ridley

    With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks), I said that to set up seven separate companies will require separate accounts for each subsidiary and full financial transparency, but that is only part of what I said. I went on to say that we should insist—most probably through the articles of association—upon a commercial rate of interest being charged upon inter-company loans. Furthermore, the Civil Aviation Authority will supervise all charges to ensure that none of them is predatory. That is perhaps the most important measure. Any one of them, taken alone, is not adequate but, taken together, I believe that they will prove to be adequate for the purpose.

    Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe)

    The Secretary of State is referring to the future. Is he aware that what is happening now is a scandal? Last year, Stansted lost £3·88 million, an average subsidy of £8 per passenger. Its landing charges are one quarter of the landing charges in Manchester. Is the Secretary of State unable to take some action immediately to end that scandal?

    Mr. Ridley

    If the right hon. Gentleman will support the Bill which is to be placed before the House not only by his vote but by curtailing his speech, the sooner shall we have the power to do what he seeks, but in advance of that legislation I have no such power.

    Mr. Robert C. Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne, North)

    The Secretary of State has said that he does not wish Stansted to draw traffic away from the regional airports. Will he give a categorical assurance that there will be no hidden subsidies or cross-subsidisation for Stansted?

    Mr. Ridley

    I have already said this at length twice, so the hon. Gentleman already has my assurance. Our policy is the reverse of Stansted being in a position to attract traffic away from the regions. Its purpose is to help to meet the growth of unavoidable demand in the southeast, not to divert traffic which would otherwise have used the regional airports.

    ​Finally, on Stansted, we have made it clear that no second runway should be built there. I am requiring the British Airports Authority to sell all surplus land that would be needed for a second runway. Its external financing limit will be set on the basis of receiving the proceeds of sale of this land.

    Mr. Gerald Howarth (Cannock and Burntwood)

    Will my right hon. Friend say how many international airports operate in the 1980s with one runway?

    Mr. Ridley

    Without notice I am unable to give to my hon. Friend the answer that he seeks, but perhaps he would answer this question: how would our airports policy fare if I were to propose second runways at the three London airports which have only one runway at present?

    Mr. Tony Favell

    (Stockport): Will my right hon. Friend confirm, first, that the intention of the British Airports Authority is that Stansted should primarily be a charter flight airport? Secondly, how does he intend that the CAA should supervise the charging policy at Stansted? Thirdly, is there anything to prevent Stansted from making losses and also is there anything to ensure that it declares dividends to the holding companies?

    Mr. Ridley

    I do not confirm that the intention is that Stansted should be a charter airport. The White Paper has asked the CAA to consult all the airlines to establish what would be the right traffic distribution policy. I very much hope that the growth of scheduled services as well as charter flights will take place at Stansted. Secondly, with the information provided by separate company accounting, the CAA will undoubtedly have the power to supervise charges, both to prevent the exploitation of monopoly and to prevent predatory pricing. That is, there will be a limit both at the top and at the bottom. We shall ensure during the passage of the legislation that the powers to be made available are adequate. Thirdly, it is probable that Stansted will make losses in the early years as it develops. It is making losses already. Whether it is a separate company or whether it is part of the BAA, there still has to be the ability for it to make losses. Prestwick is also making losses. We cannot prevent a company from making losses, but we can roll up those losses in the balance sheet of the company so that it has to pay interest on them and finally redeem them when it enters a profitable period.

    Mr. Anthony Steen (South Hams)

    Does my right hon. Friend agree that if besides privatising it we changed the management structure of the British Airports Authority we might find that no losses would be made? Will he consider changing the management of the BAA as well as privatising it?

    Mr. Ridley

    I have complete confidence in the management of the BAA, and it is not part of my plans to do as my hon. Friend suggests. We shall have enough on our plate with this legislation.

    Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones (Eccles)

    Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

    Mr. Ridley

    I must make a little more progress.

    Mr. Carter-Jones

    Perhaps the Secretary of State would give way just on this point.

    ​Mr. Ridley

    I shall give way to the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones), but after that I shall have to restrict interventions to those who have a constituency interest, otherwise I shall never finish my speech.

    Mr. Carter-Jones

    I am most grateful to the Secretary of State. I served, as did the Secretary of State, on the Standing Committee on the Civil Aviation Bill, which fell apart and disappeared. He mentioned that there is to be legislation. A White Paper has been published and eventually legislation will be introduced. Will he say in what way that legislation will differ from the Bill that we considered earlier this year?

    Mr. Ridley

    The contents of the legislation are to be found in the last chapter of the White Paper, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman has studied. The Bill will contain the proposals that were included in the Civil Aviation Bill which the Government abandoned. It will be a wider Bill than the Civil Aviation Bill, but it will include many of the same powers.

    On the subject of Heathrow, I must make it clear that we have not simply postponed or fudged the building of terminal 5. I have not ruled out the possibility for all time, but I am not convinced on present forecasts that it is necessary at all. Terminal 4, which is due to open early next year, will handle some 8 million PPA. Thereafter, the major constraint at Heathrow will be runway, not terminal capacity. When the runways reach saturation in the rush hours, growth in passenger throughput at the airport can come only from spreading the traffic to off-peak periods, which is unattractive to both airlines and passengers, or from an increase in the average number of passengers carried on each flight.

    During the 1970s, particularly the first half, there were substantial increases in average passenger loads per aircraft at Heathrow, resulting from the introduction of larger aircraft. That growth has slowed down in recent years.

    Some have suggested that rapid growth in the average number of passengers per aircraft will be resumed, once runway capacity is reached. But many of the signs point in the opposite direction.

    First, it is our policy to increase competition between airlines on domestic routes and to continue pressing for more liberalisation in European markets.

    Secondly, commuter routes are growing in importance, with a preference for frequent services and smaller aircraft. Thirdly, we are determined to maintain access to Heathrow for services from regional airports. Fourthly, aircraft manufacturers’ order books suggest that there is now less interest in bigger “stretched” aircraft for long-haul services and, indeed, more airlines are considering operating twin-engined jets across the Atlantic.

    The conclusion that I draw is that growth in passengers per flight at Heathrow is likely to be relatively slow, and that it is the runways which will be the constraint. Even if I am wrong, it will be a long time before extra capacity is needed. I ask the House to support the Government’s decision to abandon the 275,000 air traffic movement limit, and to allow us to go back on our undertaking. The Government tried to implement this commitment in the Civil Aviation Bill, but the House did not entirely support us.

    Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North)

    I appreciate the impossible problem that my right hon. Friend had with that Bill, from the Labour and Liberal parties and from the ​ SDP, as well as from one or two of my hon. Friends. However, any decision to abandon the 275,000 flight limit will be viewed extremely seriously in west London. Will my right hon. Friend go instead for an increased number of passengers on each flight and stick as near as humanly possible to the 275,000 limit? Will he give an undertaking not to increase the number of passenger flights using Northolt?

    Mr. Ridley

    The market will determine the size of aircraft and the number of passengers carried. On our forecasts, it is unlikely that the number of passengers per aircraft will increase or that there will be a very great increase in the number of flights, as Heathrow is already fairly close to capacity. It would be better to let Heathrow determine how best to use its capacity to the full.

    Mr. Robert McCrindle (Brentwood and Ongar)

    Should not my right hon. Friend turn his attention to another factor—the type of flying that is likely to become more popular as we move into the 1990s? Do not many in the aviation industry predict a far greater use of scheduled rather than charter flights? If Stansted were developed primarily as a charter airport, might not any future decision about expansion come down quite easily in favour of terminal 5?

    Mr. Ridley

    I have already said what the Government think about terminal 5. With an ever more competitive and free airline industry, which extends into Europe, the difference between scheduled and charter flights will probably become less and less clear. I do not want to bind any given airport or airline to a particular policy. After all, the operators know best what they want to do and where they want to go. I believe it wise to run traffic distribution policy with the lightest rein possible.

    On the subject of the ATM limit, I do not quite understand the point made by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). On 5 June, she criticised me for abandoning the limit, yet on every occasion her troops voted against a Bill that would have imposed it. I should make it clear that we shall continue with the policy of restricting night flights at Heathrow. Indeed, the studies that I referred to earlier could well alleviate night disturbance there. Quieter aircraft are already beginning to alleviate the nuisance at night, as well as during the day.

    Dr. Alan Glyn (Windsor and Maidenhead)

    My right hon. Friend has given the impression today that terminal 5 will not be constructed at Heathrow in the foreseeable future. That is in direct conflict with what the White Paper says on page 59. Furthermore, there is a widespread belief that the removal of the sludge works must be a first step towards constructing terminal 5. Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that terminal 5 will not be constructed in the foreseeable future?

    Mr. Ridley

    My hon. Friend has anticipated my comments. If the House will allow me, I shall proceed, as interventions take up too much time.

    We attach the utmost importance to airline competition and liberalisation. It has already yielded substantial benefits for the passenger. It is the most effective stimulus of all for extra regional traffic. If the choice is between more passengers using Heathrow and more competition, there is no doubt that the passengers have more to gain from competition. That explains why we may not need terminal 5.

    In addition, the development of Luton and Stansted will bring more runway capacity into effective use in the London airport system. It may be possible, as a result, to improve the utilisation of the existing terminals at Heathrow to cater for up to 42 million PPA, thus again reducing the need for a fifth terminal. But I accept that there are uncertainties about the mix of aircraft and the pattern of demand in the longer term, and that a fifth terminal might—I emphasise “might”—one day be needed, although possibly of lower capacity than 15 million PPA. That would not be a realistic option if the Perry Oaks site continues to be occupied by a sludge disposal facility.

    The Perry Oaks works were there before the airport began to develop. They are an incongruous neighbour for the airport and I do not doubt that they would be better moved. The land they occupy would in any event provide valuable relief for the cramped Heathrow site. We have therefore asked the BAA and the Thames water authority to study the possibility of moving them, the costs, the alternative sites and methods of disposal, and the time that it would take. When those questions are answered, and we have a clearer view of how traffic will develop, we shall be in a position to assess whether there is a need for more terminal capacity.

    On the question of road and rail links to Heathrow, we undertook in the White Paper to examine urgently what could be done to reduce congestion and to improve passenger access to the airport. I intend to appoint consultants to look at options for investment in the corridor between London and Heathrow. The study will cover road access by public and private transport, the Underground, and rail services. The large number of options to be considered inevitably means that this study will take some time. I am also establishing a working group, with the local authorities concerned, to look at options for traffic management in the vicinity of Heathrow.

    As I said, all forecasts suggest that we need to provide capacity in the south-east for 72 million to 79 million PPA by 1995. Capacity will run short in the early 1990s. Even if we could provide a fifth terminal at Heathrow after the Perry Oaks sludge works have been moved, that would not solve the problem because it is primarily one of runway capacity. Further provision is needed at airports with spare runway capacity, which means Luton and Stansted.
    Looking further ahead, south-east traffic can grow only by use of the five runways we have: two at Heathrow and one each at Gatwick, Luton and Stansted. Our policy is to make the best use of those resources. We have provided for 1995 and allowed room for expansion. We need not commit ourselves before we have to, but equally it would be senseless not to retain the capability to meet the growth in demand, if it happens. I believe that our decisions will provide the scope that our civil aviation industry needs to expand and prosper.

    Our decisions have been widely welcomed by the industry, especially the independent airlines operating from regional airports. The airlines know that more capacity is needed at the London airports to provide for the growth of air traffic and the jobs that go with it. Nothing would stifle competition and damage the interests of the travelling public more than a shortage of capacity.

    That is why they have welcomed the Government’s decisions.​

    Mr. Allan Roberts (Bootle) rose—

    Mr. Ridley

    I shall not give way because I must make progress. I am about to talk about the regions, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait to see whether I cover his point.

    Our assumptions for the capacity needed in the southeast include an appreciation of how much traffic can be attracted away from the south-east to regional and Scottish airports. It is a prime aim of our policy to seek to get more traffic to go there, for three reasons. First, it will encourage development and activity in those parts of the country. Secondly, it will serve the interests of passengers there better to fly from local airports. Thirdly, it will relieve the pressure on the south-east. That is why we will look for every possible way of encouraging more flights to regional airports. Our record, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) said on 5 June, bears witness to our determination. In the last six years we have authorised £200 million of capital investment at regional airports, compared with only £14 million in the last five years of the Labour Government. International scheduled services from Manchester now total 33—of which 14 are new this year. The figures for Birmingham are 15, of which four are new this year.
    What regional airports need is more concrete flights, not more concrete. We cannot force airlines to provide unprofitable services, but we can help by pressing for more liberalisation in Europe and by promoting regional airports when we negotiate air service agreements with other countries. No one can gainsay what we have already achieved. We have indeed done far more for regional airports than the Labour Government who preceded us, and who published a White Paper with dismissive comments about

    “Limited scope for diverting passengers from the London airports to those in other regions.”

    Imagine, therefore, the brazen nature of the Labour party’s amendment today, which states:

    “totally fail to foster a modern strategy for the regional airports”.

    Since we are the first Government to do that very thing, the hon. Lady’s amendment can be described only as breathtaking.

    Mr. Allan Roberts

    The Minister has not dealt with the point that I wished to make—and nor has the White Paper. Nowhere is Liverpool airport mentioned—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may groan, but it is important to the people of Merseyside. There is great anxiety on Merseyside that the proposals in the White Paper, coupled with the Bill to abolish the Merseyside county council, will cause Liverpool airport to close. Will the Minister give an undertaking that he will protect Merseyside from that eventuality?

    Mr. Ridley

    Liverpool airport will belong to the joint board that will be set up after abolition. However, if the districts can agree, it could belong to them in proportion to their shareholding after abolition. The decision of what to do with Liverpool airport will rest entirely with the districts and/or the joint board. I cannot give an assurance that it will or will not close; the decision is theirs, nor mine.

    Mr. Churchill (Davyhulme)

    May I, as a Manchester Member, say how much I appreciate the fact that since we last debated this matter in February, due to my right hon. Friend’s liberalisation policy there has been a 75 per cent. ​ increase in the number of scheduled destinations to which one can fly from Manchester? It is important to my constituents and to the north-west as a whole, and we thank him for it. We further appreciate his undertaking that landing fees at Stansted will cease to be predatory. How soon is that likely to happen?

    Mr. Ridley

    I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As I said earlier, the BAA board has already decided to start consultations with airlines about the increase in charges at Stansted that will be necessary. I imagine that those will come in within the reasonably near future.

    The Government are committed to the development of Manchester as the major hub gateway international airport for the north of England. British Airways has begun services to New York this summer and will be adding Dubai, Bangkok and Hong Kong from November. But we have also encouraged foreign carriers to operate long-haul services from the airport—Qantas to Australia, El Al to Israel, and Singapore Airlines to the far east. We are also ready to negotiate with the United States Government the basis on which their airlines may operate direct scheduled services to Manchester, and an early date had already been fixed for these negotiations.

    American Airlines wishes to begin a Chicago-Manchester service next summer. I hope that the negotiations with the United States Government, which could pave the way for other United States airline services, can be speedily and satisfactorily concluded. Manchester International Airport is being fully consulted about these negotiations. We have established a good working relationship with MIA and are discussing with its management a five-year plan for increasing the range of international services. We have already asked for work to be put in hand to assess the viability of a joint rail link to Manchester airport.

    I think that that meets 95 per cent. of the demands of the North of England Regional Consortium—a limited development at Stansted, fair competition on airport charges, and positive policies for developing traffic to and from regional airports. But it has also asked for free access to regional airports for foreign carriers. That particular suggestion is not in its best interests. There are indeed advantages in services by foreign airlines, but a reasonable price must be paid by foreign Governments in return in the form of new rights for United Kingdom airlines or a more liberal agreement between us.

    Even the United States, with its liberal policies and competitive aviation industry, insists on a satisfactory quid pro quo for its airlines, and so will we. To give up in advance any advantage we can obtain in negotiations for British aviation interests would be the worst possible deal, particularly for the regions.

    The reason for that is simple. More jobs at any airport derive from the services flown by United Kingdom airlines than by foreign-based airlines which centre their operations overseas. The key to the development of regional airports is a strong network of services by British Airlines and the creation of local hubs, locally-based airline support services and local employment. We must strengthen their position, not damage their commercial prospects. The role of foreign airlines is important, but complementary.

    These proposals have been welcomed by regional airports. Manchester airport welcomed our White Paper. The chief executive described it on television as: ​

    “Good news for Manchester and good news for job prospects in the North West”.

    Even the northern consortium, formed by northern local authorities, stated that the White Paper:

    “may form the basis for the kind of development of regional airports which we would have liked to have seen after the 1978 White Paper”.

    It called for an assurance that the Government and their successors would honour the White Paper’s commitments. As long as this Government and this party are in office, it has that assurance.

    So why did the hon. Lady call the White Paper a

    “slap in the face for regional airports”?—[Official Report, 5 June 1985; Vol. 80, c. 312.]

    Why did the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) describe it as a “kick in the teeth”? Why did the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) describe it as a “hammer blow” to the regions, or the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish say that most people in Greater Manchester would be “disgusted”? The same day, the Manchester Evening News carried the banner headline, “Boosts for Ringway”. Evidently Opposition Members are not even in touch with opinion in the North.

    Just as we seek to encourage more direct services from Manchester to meet the demand in its catchment area, so we seek more direct services from the Scottish airports to meet Scottish demand. We will encourage new long-haul transatlantic services to Scotland, and more direct services to European destinations from Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen. Glasgow and Edinburgh have done very well in attracting new services; Glasgow now has scheduled services to 10 international destinations, three of them new this year, while Edinburgh serves six European destinations, two of them new this year.

    I have recently confirmed the present traffic distribution policy. We now look to the BAA to develop Prestwick as Scotland’s gateway international airport for long-haul services, by exploiting Scotland’s undoubted attractions for tourism and by providing services to assist its important new businesses. Prestwick, as a separate airport company, will probably operate at a loss initially, but I hope that it can be brought into profit very shortly. Our proposals give Prestwick a new opportunity to thrive.

    These are our measures aimed at providing additional capacity in the south-east and encouraging more flights from regional and Scottish airports. Time allows me to deal only briefly with our proposals to privatise BAA and convert the major local authority airports into companies. We will have opportunities enough to discuss these proposals during the passage of the legislation.

    These policies are complementary to our general aviation policy of encouraging airline competition, leading to an efficient industry providing a cheap and attractive service to consumers. We need to provide the country with an efficient and enterprising airports system responsive to the needs of airlines and their customers. Selling the BAA and imposing company disciplines on local authority airports will, I believe, meet this objective.

    It is interesting that, apart from the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich, no hon. Member on 5 June questioned the decisions to privatise the BAA and to make the local authority airports into public limited companies. There are arguments we can have about whether the BAA should be privatised in one or two or seven airports. But they will arise in debating the legislation, as I said, and ​ I believe that we have the right answer. I also assure the Liberal party that there will be adequate proposals for regulating these airports and their changes as described in the White Paper, and I say that in view of the amendment which stands in the names of Liberal and SDP Members.
    I believe that the policy described in the White Paper will provide the right framework for the expansion of our civil aviation industry, that it will allow enough, but not excessive, airport capacity to be built, and that it will cause the least possible disturbance to those who are adversely affected by airport development. I commend it to the House.

  • Austin Mitchell – 1985 Speech on Legal Profession Reform

    Below is the text of the speech made by Austin Mitchell, the then Labour MP for Great Grimsby, in the House of Commons on 11 June 1985.

    I beg to move,

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the development of a more unified legal profession by enabling solicitors, as of right to exercise rights of audience in all courts and tribunals, civil and criminal, in England and Wales; to regulate and provide for advertising of pupillages and tenancies in barristers’ practices and to enable barristers to establish practices anywhere in England and Wales with direct access to those seeking legal advice and when appropriate, representation, there being no mandatory intervention of any solicitor’s or barrister’s clerk or any other person whatsoever; to enable barristers and solicitors to practise together in any mutually acceptable form; to enable barristers to litigate for professional fees; to enable barristers to advertise; and to abolish the rank and title of Queen’s (or King’s) Counsel and the two Counsel rule.

    The first thing that we must do is summed up in the words

    “let’s kill all the lawyers”,

    as Dick said in Henry VI, part II. Ever moderate, and because some of my best friends are lawyers, I am not proposing to take that extreme course, but I am proposing to save the lawyers from themselves, and to save the consumer from them.

    My Bill deals with three problems. The first is the ever-escalating scale of legal costs. In the BBC libel case it is estimated that of £900,000 of legal costs, £650,000 were fees. It worked out at £1,149.42 per day for QCs and £574.71p for their juniors. Secondly, the processes are slow, arcane, cumbersome and inefficient. Thirdly, the system is characterised by monopolies and restrictive practices that are at variance with the competitive ethos of the times. Too much is regulation by barristers for barristers.

    Therefore, the first thing that my Bill does is give solicitors rights of audience in every court, thus ending the barristers’ monopoly of the higher courts, which will be welcomed by most customers. After all, there is no point in having a Rolls-Royce when a Mini will do equally well. Most people prefer to be represented by someone who knows them, and knows their problems and their case, rather than by a total stranger who is thrust on them at the last minute, all too often on the day of the case itself. The rich can buy the barrister of their choice, but the poor get Murphy’s law, and all too often Murphy himself.

    The Bill will be welcomed by most solicitors. It allows those who want to specialise in advocacy to do so. Indeed, on 27 March last year, the Law Society launched a campaign to end the Bar’s monopoly of advocacy. It said:

    “citizens should be entitled to retain the advocate of their choice and not to have to employ more lawyers than are necessary for the case.”

    I say, “Hear, hear,” to the Law Society, for once. I am afraid that the Law Society has gone a little quiet about it probably because of the threat by barristers that conveyancing will be handed to banks and building societies unless the Law Society lays off. I have to tell the Law Society that conveyancing will go to banks and building societies anyway, and the principle of equal access to the courts is right.

    Secondly, the Bill abolishes the distinction of QC, a title conferred by the Lord Chancellor in his doubtless idiosyncratic and wholly undemocratic way, behind closed doors, with no appeal. It is essentially a mark of status. As one QC wrote to congratulate a newly appointed QC:

    “You’ll talk the same rubbish—but now they’ll listen to you.”

    ​ If people are going to charge higher fees, as QCs do, it should be for quality as designated by the market place, not for status. They should not be able to charge for a junior on half fees to milch the customer at the same time.
    The third and most important part of my Bill will democratise the Bar. How wrong it is that we should have a self-selecting, self-regulating elite of some 4,800 barristers whose training is shorter, more amateurish and less adequate than that for solicitors. The profession is exclusive and amateurish, and there are rich rewards. I am talking of incomes of up to £250,000 a year, and even higher. Such incomes are showered on the top, while at the bottom penury prevails. There is a struggle for survival so intense that one has to have either private means or well-placed connections to get in and survive the starvation years.

    The right hon. Lady the Prime Minister has testified to what a struggle that is. I was deeply moved in her biography by Penny Junor to read what a struggle the right hon. Lady had to get into chambers, and how much prejudice there was against a woman, just as there is now prejudice against blacks, and how Sir John Senter promised her a place in his chambers and then threw her out at the end of her pupillage, together with the present Secretary of State for the Environment. It was the right hon. Gentleman’s first experience of abolition.
    Many are called, but few are chosen, and especially not working-class provincials. Mr. Norman Lloyd, the careers officer at Manchester university, quotes one barrister as saying:

    “My advice to working class students would be to avoid the bar at all costs.”

    Mr. Lloyd says:

    “The entry route is an obstacle route so elaborate and so bizarre that it might have been invented by the producer of It’s a Knockout.”

    He is right. That is why my Bill regulates pupillage to ensure that it is a proper training and that it is paid. That is why it regulates tenancies to ensure that they are advertised openly, encourages the co-operative pooling of fees, as in Lord Gifford’s chambers, and stops exploitation by the head of chambers.

    The Bill allows barristers to set up practices wherever they please even in co-operation with solicitors—as the Royal Commission on legal services recommended — without the intervention of barristers’ clerks.
    Barristers’ clerks have been variously described as an untrained legal mafia or as barristers’ pimps. They have been described as a “unique and disturbing breed” — unfortunately I forget where that quotation comes from —who manipulate the monopoly power of barristers, all too often for their own purposes because clerks take between 5 and 10 per cent. of all fees. They can earn from £30,000 to £100,000 a year, much of it from public money. Their power must be restrained, and my Bill proposes to do so.

    The Bill allows barristers to set up anywhere without the necessity of having clerks. It allows barristers to take customers without going through the intermediary of a solicitor, as they can already take cases from abroad. It is interesting to note that barristers have girded their loins and revised their practices to deal with Common Market competition, but they will not give customers in this country the same benefit. The Bill allows barristers to advertise—something that solicitors have now begun to do, with great benefit to the profession and to the public.

    Most other countries have a unified legal profession, and it works well for them. It would here. I see no reason for our obsession with keeping two or even three legal taximeters ticking over, shuffling papers and people to and fro, aggregating dramatis personae in cases, and with not setting up a common training for barristers and solicitors.

    It is important to note that my Bill only opens the way to unification. It allows solicitors and barristers to work together in any way that suits them and their purpose. It does not enforce a unified profession.

    The Bill keeps specialisation, but it eliminates its excesses. What is most important is that it opens the gateway to change at the Bar. It ends the rigidities and inflexibilities. It paves the way for a more democratic, open and efficient profession which can adjust to the times, because this Government of barristers have made a gospel of competition.

    I am not seeking to inflict the same damage on the legal profession as the Government have on manufacturing, by the misguided application of competition. I am saying that the test of restrictive practices, wherever they are, must be public interest and not the convenience of a dreadfully complacent, conservative profession.

    On that test, barristers need to be brought kicking, struggling and, no doubt, pleading into the 20th century if we are to have a healthier and more open profession and a better and cheaper service to the public. We want not a closed, proud, restrictive and exclusive profession, but one which serves people and protects their rights and liberties. That is what my Bill will provide for.

  • Leon Brittan – 1985 Statement on Sri Lankan Tamils

    Below is the text of the statement made by Leon Brittan, the then Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 3 June 1985.

    With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.

    On 20 May, in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples), I announced my future policy towards Sri Lankan Tamils who expressed a fear of return to Sri Lanka. In the week following that statement, more than 500 Tamils arrived here seeking asylum. I decided that further measures were necessary to reduce the influx and, after consultation with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, I announced on 29 May the imposition of a visa requirement for Sri Lankan citizens, to come into effect the following day. The need for such a measure was demonstrated by the fact that 244 Tamils arrived on 29 May. A further 76 Tamils arrived shortly after the visas requirement came into effect, but there have been no further arrivals over the weekend or so far today.

    The imposition of a visa requirement will not prevent the entry of those Sri Lankan citizens who qualify for admission in the normal way—for example, as visitors or students — although they will, of course, have to obtain visas before travelling. It will save the cost and disappointment of wasted journeys for those who would not be allowed to enter because they do not qualify under the immigration rules. If a Tamil not qualifying under the rules and seeking in present circumstances to leave Sri Lanka wishes to come to this country, he will be able to apply for a visa. Such applications will, however, be granted only if the individual can show that he is suffering severe hardship and the circumstances—including, for example, family links with this country — warrant the exercise of discretion in his favour outside the normal immigration rules.

    The position of all the Tamils who have recently arrived will continue to be considered individually on the basis set out on 20 May. Where an application for asylum is refused, there will be an opportunity for the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to consider the case and representations from Members of Parliament will continue to be considered.

    It was only with great reluctance that I decided that it was necessary to impose a visa requirement on a fellow Commonwealth country. The need for it will be kept under review and I hope that it can be lifted in due course.

    Mr. Alfred Dubs (Battersea)

    Is the Home Secretary aware that his statement represents a major departure from two important traditions? For the first time, Commonwealth citizens — albeit from only one Commonwealth country at the moment—will require a visa to enter this country. Secondly, the British tradition of offering haven and hospitality to those seeking asylum has been breached.

    Does the Home Secretary agree that some Tamils who came here were very much in fear for their safety in Sri Lanka and that that was the motive which prompted them to seek asylum in this country, as it prompted many of their fellow countrymen to seek asylum in Germany and other countries in Europe? Is the Home Secretary aware ​ that we are asking that the tradition of granting temporary admission for those in fear for their safety which has operated for many years should be continued?

    How long will those applying for a visa in Sri Lanka have to wait before it is granted? Have those who are fearful for their safety any chance of being granted a visa to come to this country and seek temporary admission while their claims for asylum are being considered? How many Tamils arrived in this country seeking asylum in May?

    My final point was not mentioned by the Home Secretary: What is the reason for the diminution of the rights of hon. Members to make representations on behalf of our constituents or relatives of our constituents? Why has the tradition of making such representations been whittled away to a 24-hour period? Will the Home Secretary explain the reasons for that and tell us how the system is to work? In fact, will he drop that provision?

    Mr. Brittan

    With regard to the alleged major departures, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that up to now visas have not been required for Commonwealth citizens coming to this country. I regret the fact that it should be necessary to impose such a requirement for the first time. However, other Commonwealth countries, such as Australia, Bangladesh, Nigeria and India, require British citizens to have visas. It is also the case that most Western European countries require persons from Sri Lanka to have visas.

    With regard to a breach of our tradition of haven and hospitality, I cannot accept that the position is for a moment as the hon. Gentleman said. It seems to me to be far more sensible that the question whether someone is likely to suffer severe hardship should be considered in Sri Lanka itself by appropriate representatives of the British Government than that people should simply come to this country, having nowhere to go to, and have to be dealt with at Heathrow or Gatwick. There is nothing in the slightest bit more humane than a policy that allows people to come in, provided that there is machinery for considering whether they would suffer severe hardship and whether this country is the appropriate place for them to go. Let us not forget that large numbers have gone to India and not been refused admission.

    With regard to coming here to seek temporary admission, that is inconsistent with the changes that I announced on 20 and 29 May. For the reasons that I gave just now, it is preferable for the question whether someone is suffering the sort of severe hardship that would lead to them being admitted to the United Kingdom to be considered in Sri Lanka itself. The number of officials dealing with the matter is being strengthened—two have gone out, two more are being transferred by the Foreign Office and another two are going there on 1 July. I cannot say how long it will take to consider applications.

    I can give the numbers coming to Britain during the month of May. From 1 May to 15 May, approximately 240 arrived. From 16 May up to and including 20 May, when I made the previous statement, 218 came. But between 21 May and 27 May, a total of 532 came; 26 came on Tuesday 28 May; and on the day that I made the announcement about visa requirements, 244 came. Therefore, the number was accelerating. Of that there is no question.

    Referring to the rights of Members of Parliament, the hon. Gentleman has, I am sure unwittingly, misrepresented the situation. There was never any question of these ​ cases being considered within 24 hours. I made that clear in my statement. I said that in the process of proper consideration, which of course will be given to people whether they are here or applying for a visa in Sri Lanka, it was reasonable, in the case of those who are here, to ask Members of Parliament to make their representations, which are only a part of the process, within 24 hours if at all possible.

    A delegation of hon. Members came to see me about that matter, and I made it clear to them that if, in a particular case, there were special difficulties that made it impossible for them to make their representations as quickly as that, they should inform the Home Office and we would consider a short extension of the time during which the representations could be made. However, I believe that it is reasonable, in the interests of the Tamils as much as anything else, that the representations should be made quickly, and that it should not simply be possible for Members of Parliament to take an indefinite period of time to make representations, particularly when, as I have made clear, the machinery for considering all the points in an individual case, whether put forward by the individual, UKIAS or the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, was fully in place.

  • Michael Meacher – 1985 Speech on the Social Security Review

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Meacher, then then Shadow Secretary of State for Social Services, in the House of Commons on 3 June 1985.

    Is the Secretary of State aware that, behind all the rhetoric about restructuring, this statement represents the erosion of the fundamental principle of a welfare state for all citizens? [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker

    Order. The Secretary of State was given a fair hearing.

    Mr. Meacher

    Is the Secretary of State further aware that the statement represents the reintroduction, for the first time this century, of Victorian values in an invidious distinction between deserving and undeserving poor? Is he also aware that this package as a whole will bring about a net loss in the next few years to pensioners and the unemployed of at least £1,000 million a year even before the huge losses from the abolition of SERPS begin, and that the main beneficiaries, whom he did not mention, will be the rich, who will receive even bigger tax handouts in future Tory Budgets?

    We welcome the Government’s limited reprieve on SERPS, in response to our demand.[Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker

    Order. We have a full day ahead of us.

    Mr. Meacher

    It is patently clear that the Government lost their nerve after their original intention had been made clear in repeated leaks. Is the Secretary of State aware that the Government’s longer-term abolition of SERPS, which is the central arch of the welfare state, is still a betrayal of an unequivocal pledge by the Prime Minister three weeks before the last general election, when she said:

    “nor are there any plans to change the earnings-related component of the State pension.”

    Is the Secretary of State aware that if SERPS were to continue it would roughly double the pension in the next 13 years, and that if it is abolished millions who would have enjoyed dignity and security without a means test in retirement will be forced into poverty? How does the Secretary of State justify the fact that women, low-paid workers, and the longer-term sick and disabled and the millions of carers who look after them will be shifted compulsorily into private schemes to which they will be forced to make higher contributions for less benefit?

    Is the Secretary of State aware that there can be no justification for claiming that SERPS cannot be afforded in the next century, when the Government’s own Social Security Advisory Committee said explicitly less than two years ago:

    “At this distance of time we do not think there can be solid grounds for altering the scheme now for fear of all the worst outcomes occurring steadily for 40 years.”

    Is the Secretary of State aware that any allegations that SERPS cannot be afforded reflect not adverse demographic trends but an admission that the Government’s policies will lead to longer-term economic stagnation?
    Secondly, is the Secretary of State aware that the huge cuts in the housing benefit package will bring a loss to tenants of about £750 million a year, forcing up rents for ​ tens of thousands by £7 to £12 a week? Is he aware that the poverty trap will be enormously intensified by his decision to increase the loss of housing benefit as wages rise from 38p in the pound to 70p in the pound? Is it not harshly unjust that the 7 million people receiving housing benefit, of whom 4 million are pensioners, will for the first time have to pay 20 per cent. of their rates and all of their water rates? Is he aware that nearly 2 million households now receiving housing benefit, of which the great majority are owner-occupier pensioners, especially widows with small occupational pensions, will lose it altogether?

    Thirdly, this statement virtually makes the unemployed into the outcasts of society—the new undeserving poor in the Prime Minister’s vision of this new Victorian poor law. Not content with clawing back £650 million a year from the unemployed by taxing unemployment benefit for the first time over the past three years, and not content with ending, three years ago, the earnings-related supplement to unemployment benefit, worth £16 a week to an average paid worker, the Government are now proposing to force the unemployed on to the lowest rate of the new income support scheme. Is the Secretary of State aware that that will take about £5 a week from those who are 25 or younger, will deprive them of all help with heating bills and of single payments for clothing and furniture, will force them, for the first time, to pay 20 per cent. of then-rates and all of their water rates, and will replace the present basic benefit safety net by a discretionary and recoverable loan? The Government have trebled unemployment. With these cuts, they are now gratuitously twisting the knife in their victims.

    Fourthly, families across the nation will be hit. Will the Secretary of State confirm that child benefit will be frozen or uprated by less than inflation, so that the benefit for 7 million mothers and 12 million children will begin to decline in real value? Will he confirm, too, that the new, vaunted family credit will begin to be phased out when earnings exceed £40 a week, which is lower than for the family income supplement, and that the rate of withdrawal will be 60p in the pound, which is higher than the 50p in the pound under FIS, so that the poverty trap will be worsened? Will he also confirm that benefit will be transferred from the woman to the man, which is not publicly supported, and that entitlement to free school meals and school milk will be ended? The Prime Minister has not only become the pensions snatcher — she remains the milk snatcher that she always was. Changes such as this will not strengthen family life, but will undermine it.

    Fifthly, will the Secretary of State confirm that the death grant will be abolished and that the discretionary help will be available to the deceased’s relatives only on the basis of a means test? Is he aware that this means bringing back for hundreds of thousands of our poor elderly the shame and indignity of a pauper’s funeral, which no civilised society should inflict on its citizens?

    This is a black day for the people of Britain — a monument to six harsh years of Thatcherite rule. The themes of this statement are more means testing, bigger cuts, penalising pensioners, the unemployed and low-paid in order to enrich still further the already rich, and the privatisation of the welfare state on the American model, which the people of this country want no more than they want the Prime Minister’s fancy for the Americanising of our hospital management. There is no shred of political mandate for the proposals, since they derive from partisan ​ committees hand-picked by a partisan Government for pre-determined ends. Today’s statement opens up the central issue which will dominate the next general election and, because the Government have profoundly misunderstood the commitment of the British people to the welfare state, it will pave the way for the election of the next Labour Government.

  • Norman Fowler – 1985 Statement on the Social Security Review

    Below is the text of the statement made by Norman Fowler, the then Secretary of State for Social Services, in the House of Commons on 3 June 1985.

    I will with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a statement on the review of social security.

    During the last 18 months the Government have been examining the major areas of social security provision. In that time more than 40,000 consultation documents were issued, 4,500 pieces of evidence were received, and 62 organisations and individuals gave oral evidence at public sessions. The Government are today publishing a Green Paper which sets out their proposals. We will now be seeking comments on the proposals from interested organisations and will be providing an opportunity for the House to debate them.

    The social security system in the United Kingdom owes a great deal to the report of Sir William Beveridge in 1942. Although much of what he proposed was changed when it came to implementation, and more has been changed since, many of the principles on which his proposals were founded remain sound. The Government remain committed to the concept of a national insurance system, under which entitlement to the major benefits is earned by the payment of contributions during a working life. The Government also believe that our tradition of state support for those in need is one which should be maintained and developed. However, social security is not a function of the state alone. It should be a partnership between the individual and the state—a system built on twin pillars.

    Any review of social security must recognise its considerable achievements, but the review has shown that there are several major causes for concern. By common consent the social security system is too complex. That is to the disadvantage of both the public and the staff. In particular, the research evidence shows that substantial numbers of supplementary benefit claimants do not understand how their entitlement is worked out, in spite of the fact that 38,000 staff are now working exclusively on supplementary benefit. With the pressures now being faced there is a danger that some parts of the system will break down. It is, therefore, a matter of urgency that we devise a simpler and more coherent system.

    The social security system also needs to be modernised. It is not properly co-ordinated with the tax system and operates with outdated equipment. We now need a major computerisation strategy for social security, which can link effectively with other Government systems, including that of the Inland Revenue.

    In terms of spending, the cost of the social security system has increased fivefold in real terms since the war and now totals some £40 billion a year. That is over 30 per cent. of all public spending and represents over 11 per cent. of gross domestic product compared with only 4·7 per cent. after the war. Nor has the pressure for growth in spending ended. In the first part of the next century we need to provide for an extra 4 million pensioners. That, taken together with the state earnings-related pension scheme, means that spending on pensions will at least treble. We must ensure now that we have a soundly based social security system which the country can afford.
    Above all, perhaps, the social security system does not always help those most in need. More than half of those living on the lowest incomes are in families with children. This affects not only the unemployed, but families where ​ the head is working. Yet, under the present system, low income working families can face both the difficulty of escaping the poverty trap, where they may get no increase in total income when their earnings rise, and the unacceptable position that they can be better off out of work. That position must be changed.

    To make better provision to meet the needs of poor working families with children has been a major priority of the review. We therefore propose to introduce a new benefit, to be called family credit, to provide better help for such families. Family income supplement will be abolished. Family credit will have three main features. First, it will be paid on the same basis as help to unemployed families, in that help will be related to the age of children. That means that families with children cannot generally be better off out of work than in work.

    Secondly, family credit will be related to take-home pay, not to gross earnings, as is family income supplement. The worst effects of the poverty trap will be eliminated by making it impossible for people to face a marginal tax rate of more than 100 per cent. Thirdly, it will be paid by employers through the pay packet. Families will see their benefit as part of their income from work, whether as an offset to tax and national insurance, or, in the case of the lowest paid, as an addition to gross pay.

    Family credit will be paid in addition to child benefit. The Government believe that the extra responsibilities carried by all those bringing up children should be recognised. Child benefit will, therefore, continue to be paid for all children, irrespective of the means of the family.

    Family credit will be part of a coherent system of income-related benefits. That system, covering basic income support, assistance with housing costs and help for low income families, will be based on a common income test and a common structure. It will be simpler, fairer and easier to administer, and it will provide the same level of help at the same level of income for those in and out of work.

    We propose to replace supplementary benefit with a new income support system. The central concept of the income support scheme is that the regular extra payments, now made on the basis of detailed individual assessment, should be absorbed into the main rates of benefit. Those rates will provide a special higher level of benefit for pensioners, the long-term sick and disabled and lone parents. Families with children will not only receive assistance for each child, but a premium to reflect the extra pressures that they must cope with. At the same time, the capital rule will be eased by introducing a taper between £3,000 and £6,000, instead of the present inflexible £3,000 cut-off. We shall also ease the earnings rule for the long-term unemployed and the disabled.

    The income support scheme should provide for the needs of almost all claimants, but we recognise that the system must be ready to cope flexibly and quickly with particular problems. Instead of the present single payments system, we propose to set up a social fund which will be operated on a discretionary basis by specially trained staff at Department of Health and Social Security local offices. It will provide emergency help where needed, and help those who face particular difficulties. We also expect that ​ the social fund will, in time, provide a better basis for contributing cash help to enable people to be cared for in the community rather than in institutions.

    Today I am also publishing the report of the housing benefit review team, and have accepted most of its recommendations. The review team found that housing benefit was excessively complicated, involving six different tapers applied to different groups at different income levels. It is also expensive and poorly targeted, with more than one third of all households, some with incomes up to average earnings, receiving benefit.

    We intend to move to a simpler and clearer system. It will be based on the same net income assessment basis as the income support and family credit systems. It will also provide help on the basis of rent and rates together rather than separately, as at present.

    For the poorest families, housing benefit will meet 100 per cent. of rent. At present 100 per cent. help goes only to those on supplementary benefit. In future, it will apply equally to those in and out of work.

    We believe, however, that the basis on which help is provided with rates needs to be changed. At present some 7 million householders receive help with some or all of their rate bills and over 3 million householders pay no rates. As a result, a large proportion of people live in households in which no rates are paid. This means that there is no effective link between payment for and use of local services. The whole structure of rates is currently under review, but the Government believe that, so long as domestic rates remain, all householders should be directly responsible for making some payment towards them. The Government have in mind a figure of the order of 20 per cent.

    The review also examined the contributory national insurance benefits for unemployment, maternity and widowhood. As I have already made clear, the Government remain committed to the principle of basic provision for these contingencies organised by the state through the national insurance system. We propose no change in unemployment benefit, which will continue to be paid for 12 months.

    For widows under 60, we propose to replace the widow’s allowance currently payable for the first six months after bereavement by a single lump sum payment of £1,000 to give them more help when it is most needed. In addition, widowed mother’s allowance will now be paid from the time of bereavement rather than after six months as at present. Widow’s pension will also be paid from the time of bereavement, but the rules of eligibility will be modified to concentrate help more on older widows who are least likely to be able to resume work. The changes will not affect the benefit paid to any existing widows.

    In maternity, we propose to adjust the rules governing maternity allowance so that the mother can have greater freedom in choosing when, around the time of her confinement, she wishes to be paid the allowance. We also intend to change the qualification period so that the benefit is more likely to be paid to women who have had to give up work in order to have their babies.

    The maternity grant and the death grant have been left at their present level—£25 and £30 respectively—for many years and are now quite inadequate for their purpose. The average cost of a funeral is now over 10 times as much as the death grant, and it costs £20 in administration to pay out each £30 grant.

    We propose instead a new maternity grant of £75—three times the level of the present grant ​ —available to all low income families. Help with the full cost of funerals will also be made available more widely than at present to anybody who has responsibility for a funeral and lacks the resources to pay for it. Help will be provided through the social fund to ensure that it can be given quickly and flexibly and with the minimum of detailed inquiry. These changes will concentrate help where and when it is most needed instead of providing a token contribution to everybody when it may be of little practical use.

    The largest single area of social security spending is on pensions. The basis pension alone accounts for over £15 billion a year and is paid to 9 million people. That pension accounts, on average, for half the income of pensioners and has been a major factor in raising pensioners’ living standards since the war. It is, and must remain, the basis on which individuals can build additional pension provision. The question is how that extra provision should be made.
    At present only about half the working population belong to occupational pension schemes. The develop-ment of occupational pension schemes has been an important factor in improving living standards since the war, but the coverage of schemes has not increased since the mid-1960s. The development which it was hoped would follow the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 has not taken place. Nor has the forecast of cost on which the 1975 scheme was based proved sound. The analysis undertaken during the review has shown that the number of pensioners for whom we will eventually need to provide is 3 million greater than was recognised in 1974 and 4 million higher than it is today. It is clear, therefore, that the long-term costs of state pensions are set to rise steeply in the first 30 years of the next century. If the basic pension was uprated in line with prices, its cost would increase in real terms by half to £22 billion. If it kept pace with earnings, the cost would treble to nearly £45 billion. On top of that, the cost of the state earnings-related scheme will add another £23 billion. Thus, the total pensions bill will at least treble and could increase by over four times. At the same time the ratio of contributors to pensioners will worsen, and it is estimated that there will be only 1·6 contributors for each pensioner compared with 2·3 now.

    As a country we cannot ignore these emerging costs. If the best estimates available to us lead us to question whether we will be able to afford the promises we are making, we have a duty to re-examine the position. It would be an abdication of responsibility to hand down obligations to our children which we believe they cannot fulfil.

    The real question is not whether action should be taken on the state earnings-related scheme, but what action. There are those who argue that we should restrict the emerging cost of the state scheme by changing its provisions. The difficulty of that course is that contributions would remain the same while benefits would be reduced. There is no reason to believe that there would be any increase in occupational pensions to fill that gap. The Government have concluded that it would be better to adopt a different approach. This would be based on the aim of ensuring that in addition to the basic pension everyone has his own pension with his job—whether it be an occupational pension, membership of an industry-wide scheme or a personal pension. In all cases every employee would have the right to a contribution from his employer.
    ​ We recognise, however, that relatively older workers would have difficulty in building up adequate occupational pension cover. We have decided, therefore, not to make any changes for those within 15 years of retirement. For men aged 50 or over and women aged 45 and over at the time of implementation, the existing state earnings-related arrangements will continue. This means that no one retiring during the rest of this century will be affected by the change and nor will any existing pensioner.

    All rights built up in the state scheme at the time of the change will be honoured. In addition, we also intend to give a special enhancement of rights for men aged between 40 and 49 and women aged 35 to 44. They will be given a bonus of added years of entitlement, which will give them higher pensions when they eventually retire.

    For those to be covered by the new arrangements the Government will lay down a minimum contribution level of 4 per cent. of earnings, at least half of which must be provided by the employer. The new arrangements will be phased in over three years. These changes will mean that in due course all employees will be contributing to their own additional pension through their jobs. This will represent the biggest ever extension of occupational pension coverage in this country and will add to the reforms of occupational pensions, involving improved rights for early leavers and transfer of pensions, currently in legislation before Parliament.

    The Government must also ensure that the social security system is managed as effectively as possible to provide the best possible service to the public. The Government’s benefit proposals will in themselves make the system simpler, but we are now to embark on the largest programme of computerisation ever undertaken in this country to modernise and improve its operation.

    The benefit changes and the computerisation both of my Department and the Inland Revenue will provide opportunities to achieve better co-operation and closer working between the tax and benefit systems. The Government intend to take advantage of those opportunities and will be considering this further in the context of the Green Paper on personal taxation.

    Meanwhile, we have decided to take a major step towards better harmonisation by aligning the tax and benefit years. Instead of benefits being uprated in November each year, the uprating date will be moved to April. This means that all tax and benefit changes will be implemented at the same time. It will also be of considerable assistance to local authorities which at present have to reassess housing benefit cases twice a year.

    The change in the benefit year will be brought in at the time of implementation of the major structural reforms. We expect this to be in April 1987. After the uprating of benefits due at the end of November 1985, there will, therefore, be a 16-month period before the change in April 1987. It would clearly be wrong to allow such a gap between upratings, but it would not be practicable to have upratings both in November 1986 and April 1987. Accordingly, the Government have decided that, following the November 1985 uprating, there will be two upratings at eight-month intervals, the first in July 1986 and the second in April 1987.

    The programme of reform that I have announced will provide a system which is easier to understand and simpler to administer. It will mean the most substantial changes in income-related support for 50 years, and for the first time give equal support for those in and out of work. It will ​ provide more help for low income families with children.It will establish a better partnership between state and individual provision, especially in pensions, giving everyone the right to his own pension with his job. Above all, the reforms will provide a modern social security system to take us into the next century.

  • Neil Kinnock – 1985 Speech on the Heysel Stadium Tragedy

    Below is the text of the speech made by Neil Kinnock, the then Leader of the Opposition, in the House of Commons on 3 June 1985.

    First, I should like to repeat my complete condemnation of the violence that led to the deaths and injuries at Heysel stadium last Wednesday. Naturally, we in the official Opposition join all others in offering our deepest condolences to the relatives of all those who died and of those who were injured. As I have already said, we agree with the Government’s decision to give £250,000 to the relief fund set up by the Italian Government. I welcome the assistance being given, and announced in the Prime Minister’s statement, in bringing to justice the criminals of any nationality and of any affiliation who were responsible for the tragedy in Brussels.

    As to today’s statement by the Prime Minister, I should like to tell the right hon. Lady that the Opposition support the Government’s decision to bring in legislation similar to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980. However, we are frankly surprised at the rather restricted action proposed by the Government, and disappointed at the decision to extend Mr. Justice Popplewell’s inquiry beyond its already stretched limits. Does the Prime Minister really consider that the learned judge, with all his vigour and undoubted thoroughness, has the resources and facilities necessary for yet another major area of inquiry?

    Surely it is not enough to hope, as the right hon. Lady said in her statement, that Mr. Justice Popplewell will produce an interim report in time for proposals to be implemented before the beginning of the next football season. We need a firm assurance now that the report will come in time for proposals to be implemented before the season begins, and that any necessary resources will be available for practical implementation.

    I refer to the problems of football and football hooliganism. May I specifically ask the right hon. Lady whether she will bring forward proposals to ensure that some of the revenue taken out of the game is returned in the form of improved safety and security at football grounds? That is clearly necessary to assist with the cost of better accommodation and effective policing. Frankly, the proposals that we have heard so far do not begin to match the scale of the crisis in British football, both in and near to British football grounds. When we consider that it is now 12 weeks since the awful scenes at the Luton ground in the Cup match against Millwall, and that it is exactly the same period—12 weeks—until 24 August, the beginning of the new football season, that shows how ​ much speed and effectiveness is necessary to tackle the problem directly before we are afflicted again next season by the scenes that we have witnessed in this and previous seasons.

    In the official Opposition and, I think, in the House generally, we are and must be intent on securing arrangements by both the Government and other relevant authorities, which will help football clubs and genuine football supporters, who are in the vast majority, and the police, to defeat the criminals who are destroying the game, terrorising spectators and inflicting misery on people who live near football grounds or who travel when football games are taking place. In the Opposition, as a basic principle, we seek properly to maintain the civil liberties of the decent and innocent majority to go to games in safety, and to live in peace. To that end, I say to the Prime Minister that our responses to this matter cannot relate simply or solely to punishment or to policing; neither can they relate only to a period of probation for English football.

    On 14 March, I asked:

    “Will the right hon. Lady agree that we need action to identify and deal with the causes of these afflictions and the breakdown of behaviour in society?”—[Official Report, 14 March 1985; Vol. 75, c. 431.]

    We want the thugs caught and punished, but does the Prime Minister agree that in addition it is essential to discover not only those who commit the crimes but why they commit such crimes? Therefore, can we look forward to a quick and thorough investigation with that in view, which would involve the police, youth and social workers and others with direct practical experience from week to week of dealing with the issues posed by the spread of thuggery? [Interruption.] If it is the case, as Mr. John Smith and hon. Members have suggested and as others have noted in years gone by, that any of this thuggery is related in any way to political organisation by racists, Fascists or anyone else, that must be among the areas to be inquired into so that the menace to democracy is taken out.

    We have witnessed a terrible tragedy in Brussels, and we now know UEFA’s response. The thuggish minority, who are a stain on British football and British society, are the cause of both. It must be our determined purpose now to ensure that they have had their day once and for all. On football grounds and anywhere else in society we shall never permit them to show their ugly and thuggish face again.

  • Margaret Thatcher – 1985 Statement on the Heysel Stadium Tragedy

    Below is the text of the statement made by Margaret Thatcher, the then Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 3 June 1985.

    With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about the events at the European Cup Final in Brussels last week and the measures which have been put in hand in this country to deal with football violence.

    Last Wednesday, television viewers throughout Britain and the world witnessed the appalling scenes of violence at the European Cup Final in Brussels, which resulted in 38 deaths and a much larger number of injuries; 27 people are still in hospital. I know that the whole House will share the nation’s profound sympathy for the bereaved and injured, and the sense of outrage and shame at the behaviour of some of our citizens which led to the tragedy. The House will also wish to associate itself with the message of sorrow and condolence sent by Her Majesty the Queen to President Pertini of Italy and King Baudouin of Belgium. I have sent similar messages on behalf of the Government to Signor Craxi, Mr. Martens and President Mitterrand. The immediate contribution that we have announced of £250,000 for the families of the victims is an expression of our deep sympathy and support for those involved.

    The Belgian authorities and UEFA are conducting formal inquiries into the arrangements for the match and into the disaster. They will no doubt report on the extent to which the internationally agreed guidelines and precautions for spectator safety were followed. We cannot prejudge the outcome of those inquiries, but we must recognise that there has been a terrible record of violence at European football matches in which, I regret to say, English supporters have played a large part over many years.

    In those circumstances, the Government welcomed the initial decision of the Football Association to withdraw English clubs from participation in European competitions next season, and we fully understand the subsequent decision of UEFA to ban English clubs from European competition for an indefinite period, and we believe it to be right. This withdrawal gives English football authorities the opportunity to introduce effective measures to combat violence and to convince other countries that they have done so.

    Last week, I was able to have discussions with several people, including the chairman and secretary of the Football Association, who returned immediately from Mexico after receiving news of the tragedy, the chairman of Liverpool football club, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment, who happened to be present at the match and was an eyewitness to the events, and a number of football correspondents, who were also present at this and similar occasions in the past.

    The following measures will be taken, or are already in hand, to put our own house in order.

    First, we shall introduce as soon as possible legislation similar to that contained in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980. That Act makes it an offence to be drunk or to possess alcohol on football coaches, on entry to grounds and in most areas of grounds. It also makes it an offence to be in possession of containers that could be used as missiles. Subject to discussions through the usual ​ channels, it is our intention to have this legislation on the statute book by the summer recess, in time for the coming football season.

    Second, we shall proceed next Session with the legislation envisaged in the Government’s White Paper on the review of public order. The proposals on assemblies in the open air will considerably strengthen the powers available to the police to guard: against the risk of disorder. Wherever they have reason to expect disorder at a football match, the police will, in effect, be able to limit the gate and impose other conditions. Under this provision, the police should be able to stipulate whatever steps they judge necessary to minimise the risk of disorder.

    Third, Mr. Justice Popplewell will continue with his inquiry into the events at Bradford City and Birmingham football grounds on 11 May. His terms of reference are already wide enough to allow any lessons learnt from Brussels to be taken into account. I understand that Mr. Justice Poppelwell hopes to submit an interim report before the beginning of next season.

    Fourth, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has set in hand the procedure for designating under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 all clubs in the third and fourth divisions. We have, in addition, agreed with the football authorities on a number of measures, including acceleration of the introduction of closed-circuit television, with the help of the Football Trust. I have been informed today that the trust is proposing to allocate £500,000 for this purpose as a first step. That would give cover in more than 30 grounds, in addition to the 11 at which experiments are already taking place.

    Events at Brussels last week have, however, made it clear that more is now needed. I shall be discussing urgently with the football authorities proposals for the introduction of a practical scheme of membership schemes, either on a club or national basis, proposals for far more all-ticket matches and stricter controls or, in some cases, a ban on visiting spectators.

    I recognise that such measures would mean a radical change in the way in which football is conducted in this country, but radical change is needed if football is to survive as a spectator sport and if English clubs are once more to be acceptable abroad.

    Fifth, in parallel with our own action, we shall continue to co-operate in developing international measures to deal with hooliganism. Next week, my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport will be attending a meeting of European Ministers for that purpose.

    In the meantime, we are anxious to give the Brussels authorities every possible assistance in bringing to justice and dealing appropriately with people from this country who have committed offences in connection with last Wednesday’s match. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has sent a message to the Belgian Minister of the Interior offering the assistance and co-operation of British police forces. The Merseyside police and the Metropolitan police are examining television film closely to see whether they can identify those responsible for last Wednesday’s violence.

    We also want to do everything within our power to remove any possible difficulty in the way of any charges that the Belgian authorities may decide to bring. Arrangements already exist between the United Kingdom and Belgium for the extradition of those accused of serious offences of violence such as murder, manslaughter, ​ wounding or serious assault. If the Belgian authorities were to seek the extradition of someone accused of such an offence, we should naturally give them every assistance to meet our requirements on evidence.

    One disincentive for the Belgian authorities may be that it is less trouble simply to expel Britons who may have committed offences rather than to prosecute and sentence them appropriately. We intend to offer the Belgians the opportunity, in accordance with the Repatriation of Prisoners Act, of removal to prison in this country of anyone who may be given a prison sentence in Belgium.

    I hope that last Wednesday’s sickening events will unite all decent people in helping to eradicate hooliganism. To curb violence requires effort and commitment from us all. If English clubs are to play football in Europe again, they can do so only when their good name, and that of their followers and supporters, has been restored.

  • Robert Parry – 1985 Speech on Soccer Violence

    Below is the text of the speech made by Robert Parry, the then Labour MP for Liverpool Riverside, in the House of Commons on 11 June 1985.

    I am sad to have to raise on the Adjournment the question of soccer violence. Now that the dust has settled and temperatures have dropped after the tragic European cup final between Juventus and Liverpool, perhaps we can take a cooler look at the causes of the disaster.

    Let me, at the outset, make my position clear about the terrible rise of soccer violence and state unequivocally my condemnation of hooliganism at football games or anywhere else. I speak not as a Liverpool supporter but as a lifelong Evertonian. Like a true sportsman, I have for many years marvelled at and envied Liverpool’s magnificent record in domestic and European football and its unique record of 22 successive years in European competition. In none of those years were Liverpool fans involved in any violence on opponents’ grounds. On 1 March 1984, following violence at the France-England international, I told the Minister that I was concerned about football hooliganism at home and abroad and referred to the examples set by Liverpool and Everton football supporters over the years. The Minister replied:

    “I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman and endorse his statement I am confident that on 25 March the two great clubs from that great city will continue with their excellent behaviour.” — [Official Report, 1 March 1984; Vol. 55, c. 396.]

    That was prior to the Milk Cup final, when Liverpool played Everton.

    On 4 April 1984, following a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) — he is the chairman of the all-party football committee—I congratulated both Liverpool and Everton supporters on their outstanding behaviour at the two finals. I said that I wished that Everton would reach Wembley in the FA Cup. The Minister replied:

    “I must refrain from partiality, but I pay the highest tribute to the football supporters and spectators from both clubs, not only for their exemplary behaviour in recent weeks, but for their continuing good behaviour over many years.” — [Official Report, 4 April 1984; Vol. 57, c. 955.]

    In view of those replies, one must now ask, how did this great Liverpool reputation get trampled in the dust at the Brussels stadium? The name of Liverpool football club and its supporters, the name of our great city and its citizens were knocked by the media hastily in days of tension following the tragedy.

    UEFA’s decision to ban English teams from competing in European competitions was a panic decision, but FIFA’s decision to ban all English teams from playing in foreign countries was a shattering blow to most sane football fans, including the Football League. I understand that the chairman of the Football League, Mr. Jack Dunnett—a former Member of Parliament—has made his feelings clear. The Football Association has also let its feelings be known.

    I am not speaking as a Johnny-come-lately football supporter or a know-all, like some of the commentators who made wild statements following the tragedy. I played amateur football for many years in the Liverpool boys’ association league, the Catholic men’s society football league and the Liverpool and district Sunday football ​ league. When I was 17 I played in trials for the Everton football club. I have been a lifelong Everton supporter and have a great love for the game.

    I had the misfortune to fracture my right ankle and break my nose when playing for my local team of Holy Cross. I am therefore aware of football violence in the field, not off the field. For the past 14 years I have acted as president of the Liverpool and district Sunday football league—the biggest league in Europe.

    Now that temperatures have cooled, UEFA and FIFA should think again and allow innocent teams to compete in European competition. A small team like Norwich City, which has been relegated from the first division of the Football League but which would have had its first taste of European football, should not be penalised or its fans prevented from seeing their team play in Europe.

    A team like Everton, which won the first division championship by a record number of points, should not be banned from the champions’ cup. We all recall that Everton played in Rotterdam only two weeks before the Brussels disaster, and 20,000 Everton fans attended the game. The Dutch police made it quite clear that they felt that the Everton fans were the best supporters they had ever seen. Everton football club went to Wembley not once or twice but four times last year, and there was no trouble whatever among Everton fans at any of those games. Therefore, a team such as Everton and its fans should not be penalised.

    I believe that appropriate measures should be taken to ensure that there is never again a disaster such as the one in Brussels, and I hope that the Government will give deep consideration to the question of sensible measures to prevent such a disaster.

    I have given my deepest condolences and sympathy to the families of the Italians who were killed. I also offer condolences on behalf of scores of thousands of my constituents and Liverpool citizens who grieve deeply for the people of Turin. Recently there were services at the Roman Catholic cathedral and the Anglican cathedral in Liverpool. Both those great cathedrals were full to overflowing. At the latter service the Italian ambassador and the Secretary of State for the Environment were present, together with other people showing their deep distress at the Brussels disaster.

    I am greatly concerned — as are many of my hon. Friends — about the large number of National Front supporters who were present at the game. I have here a book called “Hooligans Abroad”. It is a first-class book and I urge the Minister to read it. On the front cover it shows a Fascist thug with a Union Jack painted on his face. Anyone who has watched football on television in recent years will have seen those people, in different parts of the country, carrying Union Jacks with them, sometimes with Union Jacks tied round their necks, and shouting racist slogans from the terraces at coloured footballers. I am sure that those people played a part in the Brussels disaster.

    In a ground with 60,000 people the tensions are very high. It does not take many people to get others excited. Unfortunately, when flags are flying all over the ground, people tend to become nationalistic or patriotic. The chants and the shouts then tend to bring out the baser instincts of ordinary, decent football supporters.

    I believe that the Brussels stadium was in a very bad and dangerous condition. There should be a full investigation into it. I hope that the Government will take a keen interest in the state of the ground. Indeed, the chief ​ fire officer of the London fire brigade has made it clear in a recent report that the ground was not suitable for staging the match and would not have been licensed even for a friendly game in England, let alone a cup final between teams from two different countries.

    I should like to read the conclusion of the report, which was given by a professionally qualified person with no axe to grind. It says:

    “The stadium is 50 years old and all the installations (in section Z)”—

    that is where the trouble arose—

    “appear to be of the same age. There is no evidence of any recent repairs to the barriers, walls, fences or terraces. The general impression is that of long-term neglect, with the exception perhaps of the pitch perimeter fence which appears to be fairly new. Under our legislation the stadium would not have been allowed to operate. It appears that while the attack by Liverpool supporters caused the panic and the resulting stampede, the main direct cause of the deaths was the collapse of the safety barriers near the bottom of the terraces.”

    I make a plea to the media to realise that the majority of Liverpool supporters are decent people. Anybody who knows the Liverpudlians or the Scousers knows that they are warm-hearted, good people with a sense of humour. We feel this tragedy, and I hope that we shall not be blamed as animals; in fact, I would not even call some of the thugs animals, because that would be an insult to animals.

    I hope that the Government will seriously consider supporting the football league and football associations in appealing against the hasty ban by FIFA and especially UEFA in view of the fact that there appear to be other factors involved in the terrible disaster. It is wrong that English football should be isolated from the world football stage, and that we should be considered as the football lepers of the world. I hope that in the near future we shall see English football taking its rightful place in Europe, that both we in England and UEFA have learnt from this terrible tragedy, and that in future all major matches will be played on first-class grounds, which are examined and inspected regularly and policed by professional policemen who are properly equipped and have experience in dealing with riots and big crowds. 1 hope that the Minister will not speak from a prepared brief but will answer my points.