UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Speeches

  • Gerald Kaufman – 1985 Speech on Inner City Riots

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Douglas Hurd – 1985 Speech on Inner City Riots

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Tim Renton – 1985 Speech on the Palestine Liberation Organisation

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

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

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

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

  • Cyril Townsend – 1985 Speech on the Dartford Tunnel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    “conditions will be unacceptable through the summer months.”

    ​”Unacceptable”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Tom King – 1985 Speech on Youth Training Scheme

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Tom Clarke – 1985 Speech on the Mobility Allowance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    “Michael’s 19 years of hell.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    “post-gastric surgery debility: ataxia”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Tony Blair – 1985 Speech on Lifting the Burden

    Below is the text of the speech made by Tony Blair, the then Labour MP for Sedgefield, in the House of Commons on 16 July 1985.

    It is obviously not possible to give a detailed response at this stage, but we hope that there will be a full debate on the White Paper in due course. In general terms, we would, of course, support the abolition of unnecessary bureaucracy in the interests of small businesses, but the test that will be ​ applied to the White Paper is whether it deals with the real problems of the economy and unemployment or whether it is just another Government gimmick designed to distract attention, and in particular whether we are talking about cutting unnecessary bureaucracy or about subordinating vital protections for the consumers and employees in the interests of ideological obsession with deregulation.

    Turning to the substance of the White Paper, why do the Government identify the one major problem of regulation and then proceed to deal only with the minor ones? Is it not the case that the only area of regulation mentioned by more than one in five of the Department’s own survey was value added tax? Is not that the main problem faced by small businesses? Is it not correct that the White Paper proposes no new action of any substance on that? Why, in particular, did the Government block Opposition amendments to the Finance Bill that would have eased the bad debt relief on small firms?

    Secondly, will the Minister undertake that there will be no less environmental protection from the changes in planning procedure? Will he tell us why they are given such prominence when only a minute percentage of his survey said that they were a major factor?

    Thirdly, any loss of standards—and I think there may be—in fire regulations or health and safety regulations would be a wholly unacceptable and wrong price to pay. How on earth can it be right for the Government to impose different rights and duties in regard to safety for the public and employees based on the size of the firm? Is the Minister saying that the risk of mishap is less with small businesses? If so, may I tell him that all the evidence indicates the contrary, and that small businesses give rise to the most safety risks?

    We shall oppose vigorously the suggestions about unfair dismissal law and wages councils. What philosophy is it that says that fair play and fair rights of employment are a constraint on proper business activity?

    Many of the proposals seem to have been derived not from business experience but from political doctrine. Why is it that the scrutiny which gave rise to the White Paper received views from the organisations representing employers but not from a single organisation representing employees? Why were the Institute of Directors and the Adam Smith Institute so closely involved with the proposal? Is it not the case, as the survey itself found, that

    “most small businesses see problems with finance and sales as more serious than problems with compliance costs”?

    The same survey said:

    “The main reasons for business being good are individual effort and good demand.”

    If those are the main problems, why have not the Government dealt with them? Why create an agency to cut red tape but not agencies for industrial development? Why do we end planning protections but cut back on local authority initiatives which would create more jobs? Why do we cut back on unfair dismissal but not give proper training in the face of skill shortage? Why do we worry about the cost of meeting health and safety regulations but decline to lower interest rates?

    At first blush, the White Paper is a shabby and irrelevant document from a Government whose ideology is unable to solve the real problems of our economy. Will a single job be created by the scheme? If not, of what use is it?

  • John Moore – 1985 Speech on Lifting the Burden

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Moore, the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in the House of Commons on 16 July 1985.

    I wish to make a statement on the White Paper “Lifting the Burden”.

    One of the major objectives of this Government is to make sure that the right conditions exist for enterprise to flourish. This is essential for the creation of jobs and wealth. The country needs more jobs and we need more wealth to pay for all the socially desirable things we expect to be provided—such as pensions, the Health Service and education.

    For far too long, successive Governments—albeit with good intentions—have tended to stifle much-needed enterprise with restriction and regulation. Today, we are publishing a White Paper called “Lifting the Burden”, which sets out to put that situation right.

    As the House will recall, in March of this year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry published a report entitled “Burdens on Business”. This showed that Government requirements constitute a major drain on business—particularly small business—in terms of direct cost and of management time.

    “Lifting the Burden” is the result of the Government’s consideration of the recommendations in that report and of looking more widely at the scope for change. It also reflects the widespread representations on the report which the Government have received.

    The White Paper is the first major step in a continuing programme of removing unnecessary regulations. It refers to about 80 measures covering a wide range of initiatives in a number of areas, including planning, tax and social security, employment protection, and trade and industry—some of which have already been undertaken and some of which are for the future. Each is designed to allow firms to divert scarce resources away from complying with bureaucratic requirements and towards developing and expanding their business.

    This is but the beginning of the process, for one of the most important elements in the White Paper is the setting up of a new system within Government to assess proposed and existing regulations from the point of view of the burden the may impose on business. The primary responsibility for this must be within the appropriate Department, but a Central Task Force is being set up, within the Enterprise Unit in the Cabinet Office, to assist Departments in their consideration of how the burden on business of regulations can be minimised.

    I should emphasise to the House that we are not seeking to remove all regulations. Essential protection for workers, consumers and the general public must be maintained. And we must protect our quality of life. The Government have sought to strike the right balance between liberty and licence. The White Paper adopts a balanced approach. It represents a major step forward in giving businesses the freedom to flourish and grow. I commend it to the attention of the House.

  • Charles Kennedy – 1985 Speech on NHS Pay

    Below is the text of the speech made by Charles Kennedy, the then SDP MP for Ross, Cromarty and Skye, in the House of Commons on 15 July 1985.

    From one argumentative Scot to another I beg to move,

    That this House believes that district health authorities and Scottish health boards should not be expected to find the extra resources in the current financial year that are now necessary to implement the Government’s decisions arising out of the recommendations of the pay review bodies; and further believes that if no extra money is provided from the Contingency Reserve there will be a damaging in and unacceptable reduction in real terms in standards of health care.

    Mr. Speaker

    I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister

    Mr. Kennedy

    In moving the motion, our task and objective is to highlight the disgraceful state of affairs into which the Government are plunging the National Health Service and important branches of it by rather inadequate and third-rate stealth, and to offer a constructive solution to the present financial paralysis facing many health authorities and the nation.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright), in a question to the Prime Minister, asked whether

    “any pay settlement for the nurses which is above 3 per cent. must be paid for by savings inside the National Health Service? … Is that not an appallingly unfair way to treat a dedicated profession?”—[Official Report, 4 June 1985; Vol. 80,c. 153.]

    If the Minister for Health speaks this afternoon, he may have to behave more in his capacity as a Queen’s Counsel than a Privy Councillor. The more one studies the Government’s financing of the NHS, the more one realises that the description applied to the former Chancellor of the Exchequer in the previous Tory Government could well be applied to the Minister for Health, who displays all the attributes of a barrister trying his best to defend his client without realising that his client has seen the light and changed his plea to guilty.
    The unfairness which my hon. Friend tried to highlight was that the lack of extra cash to fund the rewards would lead to job reductions. The complete lack of extra cash in the aftermath of the pay review body recommendations will, as an inevitable and direct consequence of ministerial decisions, lead to a lowering of health provision and a decline in the quality of patient care. That is why the alliance describes the Government’s NHS policy as cuts by stealth at the expense of patients. Today we seek to highlight the plight of the NHS, and to persuade the Government to make extra cash available from the contingency reserve.

    It is worth putting into context the role and position of nurses within both the NHS and the community as a whole. Who better to quote than the Minister? In a debate on the NHS, referring to the nursing profession’s pay increase, the Minister said:

    “The Government have made it available to them, because we recognise their abstention from industrial action and the fact that the country, the Government, and the patients in particular, owe them a great obligation. It is irrefutable that it is good news for nurses to have major pay increases, in the second instalment, particularly for the staff nurses and ward sisters. It is irrefutable ​ that it is a major advance for the nursing profession to have a lasting system.”—[Official Report, 2 July 1985; Vol. 82, c. 216.]

    Those are noble and honourable sentiments, which will command support from both sides of the House. It is sad that, characteristically, the Minister is not living up to his rhetoric at the Dispatch Box in his funding of the NHS.

    The Minister and the Secretary of State for Social Services have confirmed that the cost of the pay review body awards would be about £240 million in England in 1985–86. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay) who is responsible for health in Scotland, is present, and I shall deal with the Scottish position later. DHSS Ministers make great play of the fact that this year they are cash allocating an additional £500 million, which is equivalent to 5·5 per cent., to branches of the NHS. They refer in particular to the hospital and community health services, and rightly so. However, we must consider what the figure means when it is analysed carefully and beyond the rhetoric of Ministers.

    The January 1985 public expenditure White Paper notes that the hospital and community health services will account for more than 70 per cent. of the NHS budget. In 1985–86, current expenditure will increase by 5·8 per cent. over last year’s total. The inflation rate, which the Government estimate at 3·5 per cent. and which will produce a notional real terms increase of 2·3 per cent., reflects the Government’s general illustrative assumption of a 3 per cent. pay rise in the public sector and a 5 per cent. general price rise in the NHS sector. Those figures are taken directly from the Government’s White Paper.

    However, there is an important qualification and, for the purposes of the debate, a fundamental point to be made. The assumptions about wage and price increases are fundamental to the forecasts, because the 2·2 per cent. real growth figure has disappeared as a result of the 6 June doctors and nurses pay review body reports. The additional pay costs in 1985–86 for cash-limited NHS services will be 5·4 per cent. for doctors and 5·6 per cent. for nurses. The inflation rate or relative price effect estimate has been pushed up to nearly 6 per cent.—I shall return to that figure and quote the Minister shortly—according to the Social Services Select Committee’s sixth report, which was published on 22 June. That would mean a real terms decrease of about 0·3 per cent., which is 0·2 per cent. higher than what the DHSS now concedes was one tenth of a 1 per cent. decrease in 1984–85.

    Those detailed figures are based on a careful and serious analysis of the projections and on hard accurate statistics, which the Government have made available in their forecasting and White Paper. The figures are extremely damaging because they point the way to further reductions in patient care and health service facilities to fund the costs of legitimate and well-deserved pay increases for the professions allied to medicine—nursing, health visiting and midwifery.

    Mr. Richard Hickmet (Glanford and Scunthorpe) rose

    Mr. Richard Tracey (Surbiton) rose

    Mr. Kennedy

    I shall take my pick, but it is something of a Hobson’s choice.​

    Mr. Hickmet

    That is not a nice way to describe my hon. Friend and me.

    The hon. Gentleman talks about further cuts. Why does he expect further cuts when, since May 1979, the NHS budget has increased by 20 per cent., there are 55,000 more nurses, 6,000 more doctors and dentists, more outpatients and inpatients have been treated, and there are more day patients and home visits? Why does he speak of further cuts when that is manifestly not the case? Does the hon. Gentleman concede that the Government’s record on the NHS is the finest since the war?

    Mr. Kennedy

    I have been a Member of the House for only two years, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman, who entered at the same time as me, that the gullibility of Tory Back-Bench Members never ceases to amaze me. Let us consider the real world and leave the Thatcherite monetarist universe which the hon. Gentleman seems to occupy. Let us consider what those in the front line of the service say about the figures. The hon. Gentleman did not listen—[Interruption.] The public school boys on the Treasury Bench should keep quiet, because we are quoting their figures.

    The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet) did not listen to what I said. When he talks about last year’s figures, he should remember what I said about a 0·1 per cent. cut in real terms, which, on current predictions, will be trebled this year. That will be extremely damaging.

    I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the National Association of Health Authorities is aware of the difficulties and realities of providing health care. The Minister for Health visited Cardiff last month, and much good that did the Tory party when the voters were asked for their opinion—[HON. MEMBERS: “Cheap.”] It was not cheap. I was an expensive mistake for the Tory party to send the Minister to address the annual conference of the National Association of Health Authorities. To be fair to the Minister, we should argue on his terms this afternoon and use his words as the parameters within which the debate should be conducted. When the general manager of West Lancashire health authority asked him what the funding consequences would be for next year’s allocation, the Minister said:

    “I do not accept that the award poses any threat to standards of care.”

    Within the NHS, the Minister’s is a lone voice compared with what is being said in the authorities of England and Wales and in the Scottish boards. He continued:

    “I just hope we are not looking too far ahead”—

    it is good to know that the Health Service is being governed by ad hoc expediency

    “with the implications of this”—

    —[Interruption.] Those are the Minister’s words. Hon. Members should heckle him, not me. The Minister continued:

    “After all, we have until next February to fund the full award and I hope we will not hear about cutbacks, which I frankly regard as the routine small talk of NHS politics and not necessary in a well-managed and well-run health service.”

    That demonstration of arrogance and insensitivity to those who must make the painful choices that will be made necessary by having to fund the nurses’ pay award is extremely disturbing.

    We should examine what some of those who live in the real world said in response to the Minister’s comment. The ​ national association passed a motion calling on the Government fully to meet the costs of the award. The member of Salford health authority who moved the motion said that her authority had already used its efficiency savings—no doubt the Minister will try to tell us about those—and faced a burden of £1 million for wage claims during next year. The person who seconded the motion, who came from North Tees authority, said that patient care would suffer if authorities had to find the cash for awards. Simply to balance the budget, his authority would have to make a 2 per cent. cut, and he referred to this as “crisis management” leading to inefficiency. I ask the House to compare that statement with the Minister’s statement that the routine small talk of NHS politics is

    “not necessary in a well-managed and well-run health service.”

    We now know who realises the damage that will be caused by the Government’s decision in relation to the nurses’ pay award.
    However, the matter goes deeper and further than that. During a debate on nurses’ pay on 25 March this year, the Minister talked about the expected outcome of the pay review structure. Hon. Members should not let him off of that hook this afternoon. He said:

    “The result is that all we are doing is facing everybody—Government, health authorities, staff and review body—with the reality that there is a relationship between pay and service provision.”—[Official Report, 25 March 1985; Vol. 76, c. 195.]

    I am glad that we have established that reality, because the thrust of the argument by alliance Members today will be that, given that the Minister has signalled clearly that we cannot divorce the two elements of Health Service management and delivery of patient care, it is wrong for the Government to argue that, even if they do not provide additional funds to meet the pay increases, there will be no detrimental impact on patient care.

    Mr. Tracey rose——

    Mr. Kennedy

    We have had Tweedledum, so we had better have Tweedledee.

    Mr. Tracey

    Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give serious instead of frivolous consideration to my point. He talked about service provision. Has he heard about cost effectiveness in service provision? Will he say anything about putting ancillary services out to tender? Has he said a word to the officers of his local health authority about putting services out to tender? He must realise that many costs can be saved in that way.

    Mr. Kennedy

    Like the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe, the hon. Gentleman did not listen to what I said at the outset. I quoted from a representative of one authority at the NAHA conference, which the Minister addressed, who recognised immediately that the efficiency savings that the authority had achieved, and which I hope the Minister will confirm have been achieved in many cases, have already been swallowed up as a result of the Government’s decision. I was extremely interested to note that the Institute of Health Services Management said that it makes nonsense of Health Service management to try to encourage efficiency savings and then to tell managers that those savings cannot be ploughed back into providing better patient care.