UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 1985

  • Douglas Hurd – 1985 Speech on Immigration

    Below is the text of the speech made by Douglas Hurd, the then Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 29 October 1985.

    Following the recent exchanges in the House, I will, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, make a statement about representations made by right hon. and hon. Members in immigration cases.

    Ministers receive large numbers of representations from Members of this House on a wide variety of individual cases. What distinguishes those made on behalf of passengers refused entry at the ports is that they have the effect of securing an immediate change in the action that would otherwise be taken by the immigration service under the relevant statutory provisions. The service is by convention, though not by law, precluded from arranging the passenger’s removal until the hon. Member’s representations have been received and considered. In the vast majority of cases, the passenger is granted temporary admission. In a small minority of cases, he may be held in detention at the port.
    Home Office Ministers received representations on immigration cases about 20 times a week in 1980. Last year, the average was some 70 a week. During the past few weeks there have been 200 representations a week. The increase since 1980 is not the result of some dramatic change in the criteria being employed by immigration officers at the ports in operating the immigration rules. Nor can it be explained by an increase in passenger traffic, which has increased by 25 per cent. while hon. Members representations have increased fivefold taking the year as a whole. What is happening is that hon. Members are being approached and asked to put stops on cases more often than in the past, and hon. Members are agreeing to ask for stops on cases more often than in the past.

    That increase has created real administrative problems for the staff at the ports. People are being temporarily admitted who do not qualify as visitors under the rules, and who often spend a considerable time here. The diversion of staff to deal with increasing representations and the case work involved has meant that visitors who are fully qualified find themselves held up and inconvenienced at Heathrow.

    Against that background, I believe that it was entirely right for my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State to bring the position to the notice of the House. I wish to make it clear that my hon. and learned Friend was not at any time sugesting that the law had been broken. In his letter yesterday to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), he described the ways in which the present arrangements are being misused.

    It was argued yesterday that my hon. and learned Friend should have given specific examples to the House of the action taken by particular hon. Members. As he explained, he could not have done that without revealing the terms of the letters that they had written to or about individual immigrants and, in two cases, letters written by them to third parties. He is writing today to 23 hon. Members, whose cases are examples of the various problems that we are facing, seeking their permission to make such correspondence public.

    There are obvious difficulties, for example when hon. Members make representations on behalf of sponsors of whom they have made no inquiries, and when they arrange for a stop to be placed on a passenger’s removal but fail ​ to follow up the initial telephone call with a confirmatory letter. There is also concern that some hon. Members are willing to take up cases from outside their constituencies, which the constituency Member has chosen not to pursue. Here again, some restatement of the agreed conventions of the House is needed.

    Finally, there are one or two cases in which it seems to us that an hon. Member is deliberately facilitating the attempt to secure the temporary admission of a passenger whom he has every reason to believe would not qualify for entry under the rules approved by this House. I am not suggesting that, even where that happens, hon. Members have acted unlawfully; they have not. But if their actions were to be more widely copied, the result could only be the weakening of our system of immigration control, based at the ports of entry. I believe that our present system suits both our geography and our constitution and that we need collectively to consider how it can best continue to operate.

    I ask the House to accept that we wish to make a genuine attempt to strike the right balance between the representations of hon. Members and the need for an effective and efficient control without the strains at present imposed on it. We are anxious to discuss these difficulties urgently with those in this House who are mainly concerned, in the hope of working out a sensible answer. In any case, there will not be any changes in our procedures before I have reported to the House.

  • Tim Rathbone – 1985 Speech on South Africa

    Below is the text of the speech made by Tim Rathbone, the then Conservative MP for Lewes, in the House of Commons on 23 October 1985.

    I am delighted to return to the subject of British policy towards the problems in South Africa, even after our debate earlier today.

    I have just returned from a trip to South Africa with five colleagues and I am extremely grateful to the South African Government for making it possible for us to go to their country, to learn more about it and to understand it better. Indeed, I am doubly grateful because I feel somewhat better informed than were some of the hon. Members who spoke in our earlier debate.

    I am also grateful for the presence of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who answered today’s debate and who seems to have been almost continually on the Government Front Bench since we returned from the summer recess.

    I am flattered that the Opposition followed my lead in choosing today to debate the problems in South Africa, but I hope that this debate will be more positive than their efforts today and I shall try to leave politicking aside and to think more positively.

    Three things struck me on my visit and I think that they must strike anyone going to South Africa for the first time. They are important in understanding the problem and making comments about it. The first is the visible prosperity, both actual and relative, in South Africa. It is apparent in well-developed natural resources, in industry, commerce and agriculture, in better housing than in most parts of Africa. even, yes, in the townships which should never have been created in the first place, in investment in education, even though there is a terrible imbalance between white education and black education, and in strikingly beautiful countryside and seaside, which are tragically and stupidly unequally shared between white South Africans and others. There is much worth preserving and much to build on for the benefit of all South Africans in the future and it would be ludicrous for anyone to advocate putting at risk that better future for blacks, coloured and Indians, as well as for whites.
    The second striking reality of South Africa is that sources of wealth and well-being are horrifyingly unequal because of the continued evil of the detestable apartheid system. That was mentioned by many hon. Members, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) in today’s debate.
    There are insulting laws of apartheid which allow the continued denial of railway facilities, of restaurant and hotel facilities and of beaches, and laws that deny black business men the right to operate their businesses in the best commercial areas, which are still reserved for whites.

    Reform of some of those laws has been promised, but it has not yet happened and all the signs are that it will not be extensive enough when it does come.
    There are more serious socially and constitutionally divisive apartheid laws of influx control, the Land Act and the Urban Areas Act which regulate the hated pass laws. These are being reviewed, but they should be scrapped.
    There are also the rules of South African citizenship, which is now being restored to homeland blacks but without any commitment to the political rights that ought to go with such citizenship. Reform of those rules has also ​ been promised, but it is slow coming and many share the fear that the Government risk taking too little action too late.

    Most tragic of all is the Group Areas Act, the cornerstone of apartheid, which forces the uprooting of hundreds of thousands of people from their homes, breaks up communities, creates racial ghettoes and prevents blacks, coloureds and Indians from buying property in the more attractive and much more convenient whit-inhabited areas. That symbol of apartheid is defended by President Botha as non-discriminatory, yet talk of a united South Africa, with one shared citizenship and universal franchise, is nonsense while the Act still applies.

    Failure to reform that Act and the Population Registration Act is bound to limit the belief that other promised changes will be the real improvements that they should be. Therefore, moderate leaders from black communities will not readily come forward to discuss and share responsibility for South Africa’s future, and that inevitably underlies the terrible and increasing violence which is the third striking reality of South Africa today.

    Black townships, arranged so arbitrarily by a uniquely white Government, are naturally a tinder-box for violent dissent when people living there are denied economic, social or political freedom. Undoubtedly, violence stems also from the abdication of responsibility by unrepresentative black local government and by other black community leaders who do too little to influence and control the very young people who assault, rob and kill fellow black citizens in the spurious name of liberation.

    There can be little doubt in the mind of anyone who has been to South Africa that black to black violence in the townships is the mark of the start of low key civil war which so far has overflowed only very little into white areas. This, perhaps, may be the best sign that the African National Congress does not truly want violence, whatever it says.

    Violence in the townships is fuelled also by something that I believe was not mentioned in the earlier debate today—by the state of emergency declared just three months ago. Although the state of emergency exists in only certain areas, emergency-style aggression is widespread, including not only indiscriminate shotgun fire, sjamboking and search and arrest but incitement to violence and the hunting and shooting of those so incited, as recent reports from Capetown showed.

    This seems to have become acceptable practice for all security forces wherever they may be operating. There are increasing numbers of allegations of serious police brutality to detainees held under emergency regulations, as most excellently and worryingly documented by Dr. Wendy Orr.

    All this creates fear, and fear is the most dangerous thing in the world because it makes people run amok. Government supporters in South Africa are running amok in pressuring their leaders, under electoral threat, to undertake too little reform far too slowly. The Government themselves are running amok — for instance, in executing Benjamin Moloise in the face of the worldwide clamour for clemency and in withdrawing passports from eight students at Stellenbosch university to prevent them from going to talk to the African National Congress. Those are opposite extremes of violence but both are illustrations of the Government running amok.

    The police are running amok in the townships and in the prisons and they are saved from accountability for their ​ actions by the state of emergency laws. Perhaps most tragic of all, people are running amok in reaction to all this and much more. The emergency powers intended to help to control violence seem in fact to be increasing the violence and it is no wonder that the people whom they are supposed to protect no longer want them. For the sake of greater peace and proper reform, the state of emergency must stop right now.

    To bring about and to hasten other necessary reforms, some countries and many people — including many Opposition Members of this House — advocate a programme of severe economic sanctions and disinvestment. But equally strong voices in South Africa—from the sensible and the liberal-minded, not just from Government supporters—oppose such sanctions. It is likely that the working black population and their dependants would be hit the hardest by such measures, and it is certain that economic sanctions and disinvestment would affect the whole of southern Africa, neighbouring states being hit at least as hard as South Africa itself. I rather doubt the efficacy of applying economic sanctions to keep up pressure on the South African Government to undertake the much-needed and long-overdue reforms that we all want.
    Having said all that, however, I believe that the threat of an ultimate economic sanction might provide helpful pressure, and that we should start planning such a sanction now — a sanction on the purchase of precious raw materials such as chrome, precious stones such as diamonds and, above all else, precious ore such as gold. Such sanctions will be difficult to plan and will take a long time to plan. For instance, they will require complicated demonetarising of gold from South Africa. Such sanctions would be seen as devastating in their effect, if ever applied. More important, they would be compelling in their influence if never applied. As a diplomatic instrument they would be useful and that is why they should be prepared. That is my first suggestion to the Government.

    In the meantime, economic and political signals, like those coming from the Commonwealth conference, have to continue. Economics and politics can no longer be divorced in today’s terms, if indeed they ever could or should be.

    Apartheid and the low wages which accompany it have been a brake on growth, not a fuel for it. Continued pressure and influence must be kept up on business and by business in South Africa to use economic muscle and political might to provide the essential thrust needed to bring about fundamental change in the economic and socio-political structure of South Africa.
    Have businesses and businessmen, even the very best, done enough to eliminate the sociological horror of male hostels, to appreciate and eliminate the fact that a quarter of all black wives in South Africa are separated from their husbands for a large part of every working year? Have they done enough to get rid of the too-long accepted privileges of the racial group which controls high-level skills and the best jobs which go with them?

    There is a need to explore ways in which black management can be trained to take increasing responsibility in large corporations and in their own businesses. Our Government could have a role in that by encouraging cooperative activities between British business schools and the Government’s own excellent Civil Service training ​ facilities and business schools in South Africa. Government influence could also encourage the CBI, the BIM, British chambers of commerce and junior chambers of commerce, which are growing in South Africa, particularly among black South Africans, to build more positive links with counterparts in South Africa in the black community. That is my second suggestion to the Government.

    In terms of a direct Government role, I urge Ministers and diplomats to become actively involved in the efforts which many people are already making to get wide-ranging talks on constitutional reform properly started in South Africa. To be of the greatest help to leaders in South Africa, it is essential for the Government to encourage further talks here with South Africa leaders, whether they be elected representatives or individuals representing a significant body of thought. Such talks, in London or South Africa or elsewhere, cannot have pre-conditions attached, not even the precondition of denying violence that the South African Government demand or, as the Foreign Secretary said this afternoon, that our own Government seem to deem necessary. If the British Government can give a lead in denying preconditions, the South African Government may be encouraged to follow.

    It is not the ANC which has to give peace a chance, as the Foreign Secretary suggested this afternoon: it is ourselves and the South African Government. Only a little magnanimity is required to drop the present requirement for a specific denial of violence before releasing Nelson Mandela and starting talks with him, or before starting talks with the African National Congress. The South African Government have the strength to do that if only they had the determination. They must show that determination, but we can show them the way.

    For our part, we can provide, directly through our own Government representation and through a group of international wise men as suggested by Mr. Hawke of Australia, and indirectly through informal channels, advice to South African political leaders of all parties, but most particularly, of course, to the Government leaders in the National party, on how political strategies can best be prepared so that political and constitutional reform may be achieved with the least dissent and with the greatest consensus across party political, social, economic and tribal groupings. That is not dictation: it is advice. It is unlikely that this process will be completed in six months, which is the deadline now set by the Commonwealth conference, but a good start can quickly be made. The British contribution to policy development and to political strategy could be unique, drawing upon our long involvement in Africa and our knowledge of constitutional development in both Europe and the Commonwealth. The question can no longer be whether there should be majority rule in South Africa but what kind of majority rule is appropriate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) made clear earlier today, we have a shared responsibility because of our involvement. Shared responsibility should be the basis for encouraging shared enthusiasm for reform.

    There is another area in which the British Government can help directly by improving standards of education for blacks, for Indians and for coloureds in South Africa. Tragically, thousands of black students will fail their end of year examinations as a vicious, turbulent school year finishes within the next two months. Thousands more will ​ not be able to take their examinations because of the violence. For many the educational system has entirely broken down.

    The core of the problem is a highly segregated educational system and widely differing standards for whites and other races. For instance, there are five times as many black pupils as whites, but the educational budget for whites has been nearly twice that for blacks. Fewer than a quarter of black teachers have a matriculation qualification, which is approximately equal to GCE. Of every 100 black children who started their 12 years of schooling in 1973, only 10 will sit their matriculation examinations this year. Each year the system is producing a new cadre of dropouts to feed the embittered and violent throng of school leavers who believe that liberation is more important than education. Education has passed them by and they have nothing to lose through violence.

    To help overcome this huge problem, Britain should expand vastly its educational contribution to South Africa, a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Knowles) earlier. At the moment the British Council spends £750,000 on four South African teaching posts and on a handful of young blacks to study in the United Kingdom. We should aim to have a far larger number of teachers, more scholarships to study here and a British Council presence in each township. Only by doing that and encouraging other English-speaking countries to do the same will we be doing our bit ourselves and in co-operation with educational bodies like READ and the Alpha training centre spreading the proper use and comprehension of English, which interestingly is becoming a common tongue for all races in South Africa.

    In South Africa today every child has some schooling, however bad. A qualitative improvement in that schooling is imperative and Britain must help.
    The BBC overseas broadcasting service can help, too, both in building better English comprehension and in maintaining an even balance in broadcast news reporting. This is all the more important in South Africa where broadcasting is very much under direct Government control, although one must mention in this context that there is complete freedom of the press. The overseas service broadcasts in English to South Africa for 18 hours per day and has done so for the last five years. That is a magnificent amount of broadcasting. The Government must maintain that commitment. The BBC itself must seek new ways to promote programmes to the maximum audience.

    South Africa is a pariah state because it purports to uphold the standards of western civilisation and democracy and yet insists on ordering its affairs through laws which uphold racism and inequality rather than forbidding them. Britain with its wealth of experience must raise the belief of the South African Government, of officials and of all of the South African people in reform as the only way to get security, peace and prosperity for themselves and for everyone in the South African region. Peoples and Governments do things not because they know they can do them but because they believe that they can do them. That is what is so tragically lacking in South African Government circles. We must help.

  • Keith Joseph – 1985 Speech on the Teachers’ Dispute

    Below is the text of the speech made by Keith Joseph, the then Secretary of State for Education and Science, in the House of Commons on 22 October 1985.

    With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the teachers’ dispute in England and Wales.

    Intense efforts have been made in recent months by the Government to bring this damaging dispute to a satisfactory conclusion. I regret to say that they have, so far, been unsuccessful. Some of the teacher unions have chosen to continue to disrupt the education of the pupils in their charge rather than accept—or even to discuss—the offer made to them. I deplore this, the damage it causes, and the example it sets.

    In August, the Government offered the prospect of an additional £1,250 million for teachers’ pay over four years from next April, a sum equivalent to an extra 4 per cent. on the present pay bill rising to an extra 9 per cent. by the fourth year. On 12 September, the employers made an offer constructed upon the conditional Government willingness to see this substantial extra investment on teachers’ pay. Under that offer, all teachers stood to receive increases in April and November. Those on their scale maxima would have got additional increases in either September or next March. The average end-of-year increase would have been over 8 per cent. in addition, one in five classroom teachers would have benefited significantly from the additional 70,000 promotions planned from September 1986. All of this would have been on top of any normal annual increase negotiated from April 1986.

    All classroom teachers at present on scale 1 or scale 2, even without promotion, could have looked forward to £10,500 a year plus whatever is negotiated each year on pay. In return for these proposals, which would have brought real benefits to the education service, as well as substantial improvements in pay for large numbers of teachers and in promotion prospects, the teachers were asked for a clear commitment to the professional fulfilment of their duties and an acceptance of a pay system which would have offered relatively greater rewards to promoted teachers and to those holding senior leadership posts.

    The teacher unions took just 20 minutes to reject this offer. Since then some unions have been engaging in forms of industrial action explicitly intended to cause the maximum disruption to the education service at the minimum cost to the teachers involved in the disruption. This is deplorable and underlines why we so urgently need an agreement to define more clearly the teachers’ professional responsibilities.

    Since then I regret to say that the employers, by a small majority, have been willing to make offers relating to pay alone. Even before the teacher unions confirmed that their demands far outstripped the employers’ capacity to pay, I repeated the Government’s position. We refuse to provide any additional resources for a “no strings” pay deal which would be a reversion to the discredited approach where negotiations on pay are separated from negotiations on pay structure and conditions of service. Separation has for years meant, “You pay us now and we will talk about reform later.”

    Simultaneous negotiation of all elements provides the only credible way forward. Notwithstanding the passage of the original deadline, therefore, the ​ Government remain ready to consider whether additional resources could still be approved within the £1,250 million envelope for 1986–87 and subsequent years provided the conditions for reform are met. The Government are also willing to set aside resources from within the total of £1,250 million to help employers cover the cost of supervising pupils at midday. I have discussed that proposition with the employers, and it is agreed between us that officials should now clarify the way ahead.

    The Government will continue to make every effort to see a bargain struck, which would provide improved pay and prospects for teachers in return for a better career and promotion structure, the clarification of teachers’ duties, and an end to the disruption.

    Our objective is to improve the standard of teaching in schools and the quality of our education system. That is why we have agreed to the commitment of such substantial additional resources towards improving teachers’ salaries. But we are not prepared to release the resources without simultaneous action on teachers’ duties and the pay structure to ensure that the nation receives a fair return for the extremely large investment.

  • Ray Powell – 1985 Speech on Public Opinion Polls

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ray Powell, the Labour MP for Ogmore, in the House of Commons on 22 October 1985.

    I beg to move,

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the holding of and publication of the results of opinion polls about voting intentions at times prior to general elections and by-elections for the House of Commons.

    To try to help the House after the laborious points of order and everything else, I shall try to be as brief as possible and not deal extensively with market research opinion and so on.

    All right hon. and hon. Members fully understand chat the only poll that matters finally in an election is the result of the votes counted at the ballot box. Many years ago that depended on the political parties’ presentation of their policies. The electors listened to speeches on street corners, in parks or local halls and coverage by radio or other means had very little impact. But now, in 1985, with mass media coverage on the box in the corner of many homes, electors are easily persuaded by the announcement of the result of opinion polls.

    Considerable sums of money are spent on the commissioning of those polls. We are all aware of the international code of practice that pollster organisations are obliged to follow. Nevertheless, the honesty, objectivity, efficiency and techniques used can result in the presentation of biased, manipulated results for partisan political purposes. Most hon. Members are well aware of many polls that predicted a totally different result from the actual result at the counting of the votes.

    I refer in particular to the recent by-election at Brecon and Radnor. On the day of the election, one opinion poll gave the Labour candidate an 18 per cent. lead. That undoubtedly resulted in many known voters not voting, thinking that the candidate would be elected with a substantial majority. In fact, the alliance candidate won by 1·5 per cent.

    I could give many more examples of similar results and predictions, such as one recent announcement that was not only a maverick but was absolute nonsense. It was bold enough to suggest to thinking, intelligent electors on 19 September that the alliance had a 9·5 per cent. lead over Labour. Surely that is proof enough that the Bill, with its objectives, is absolutely necessary.

    Many countries ban opinion polls before elections— Portugal recently adopted legislation on similar lines. If we are to preserve the true democratic process of electing a Government by the majority accepting the presentation of political parties’ policies, we must ensure that pollsters are not the deciding factor and that they are not allowed to sway electors to vote for a party the policies of which are not liked just to keep out another party that is liked even less. Tactical voting is encouraged by the present applied system. Until the electorate votes according to conscience, principle and the policies presented, uninfluenced by somewhat bizarre pollster predictions, we are allowing the franchise won for us after a considerable struggle by former generations to be lost to the fancies and favourites of the few large influential pollster organisations.

    I conclude by hoping that those organisations will understand the real need for legislation. Only today I received a letter from the chairman of the Market Research ​ Society, Mr. Peter Bartram, confirming discussions that I had with Phyllis Vangelder, Gordon Heald and himself welcoming the setting up of an all-party parliamentary working group to discuss matters of concern relating to the commissioning, execution and reporting of election polls.

    I therefore urge all hon. Members to support my request for leave to bring in the Bill so that a fair, sound and practical solution is found for this extremely worrying problem.

  • Alan Clark – 1985 Speech on Northern Unemployment

    Below is the text of the speech made by Alan Clark, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment, in the House of Commons on 11 October 1985.

    In an eloquent and finely constructed speech the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) raised a number of issues about unemployment in the northern region and in his constituency. I shall try to answer fully.

    The Government, who now have two Ministers in the Cabinet dealing with employment matters, are only too well aware of the seriousness of unemployment, particularly in the north where there have been longstanding and deep-seated problems. I shall try to answer all the hon. Gentleman’s questions, although he did not observe the convention under which we share the time available equally on such occasions.

    I shall first dispel the legend which the hon. Gentleman described. The Prime Minister did not call the people in ​ the north of England “moaning Minnies.” The context in which those words were used has been distorted and gone into mythology. It is inaccurate.

    Mr. Don Dixon (Jarrow)

    The words were used.

    Mr. Clark

    The Prime Minister was describing some of the success stories in the region. Alas, they are few, but she was trying to give hope to those who live in the region. The journalists round her would not accept that and pressed her with unpalatable and familiar statistics. She reproached them for not allowing her, even for a few minutes, to disclose some of the good news to encourage people and to emphasise that the north is not a total and abject failure. The Prime Minister was behaving correctly, but the incident was portrayed as if she categorised the people living in the area as “moaning Minnies.’ That is inaccurate, as those who saw the incident on television will confirm.

    I admit that over the past 20 years more than 200,000 jobs in traditional industries in the north-east have been shed, largely as a result of the world recession, technological change and market shifts. The people of the area have, therefore, had the difficult task of moving away from the old heavy industries towards the growth sectors of the economy. That brings continuing problems and much still needs to be done, but it is encouraging that the rate of redundancies in the region is about half what it was in 1981.

    There are many encouraging signs. We should emphasise them without minimising the problem. For example, self-employment in the region has grown significantly. The number of self-employed people is now 87,000, which is over 50 per cent. more than when we took office.

    Growth sectors are increasingly important. About 16,000 people are engaged in electronics in firms such as Isocom, the components manufacturer whose new factory in the Hartlepool enterprise zone will be employing up to 500 workers by 1988, and Middlesbrough’s CADCAM computer centre which could bring 5,000 jobs to the area by 1995.

    The pharmaceutical industry has grown from virtually nothing to an industry employing 5,000. The north-east has a firm foothold in the future with such industries as biotechnology and advanced manufacturing technology. Much of the good news is not publicised as widely as it should be.

    Another example is the Nissan factory at Washington which should create 4,500 jobs if all goes well, with a further seven overseas companies attracted to the region this year—[Interruption.] Unfortunately, I cannot hear everything that is said from a seated position. I was not left as much time to reply as I should have liked. I have detailed some of the good news and some of the new growth sectors. If another hon. Member succeeds in obtaining another Adjournment debate, we may deal with other matters.

    On the retail side, the Metrocentre, due to open in Gateshead in 1986, will be the largest out-of-town shopping complex in the United Kingdom creating up to 5,000 new jobs.

    My Department has recently taken responsibility for tourism, and here, too, there are good opportunities for new employment — not only in the traditional tourist areas but in regions such as the north-east.

    Over the past three years, the Northumbria tourist board has been able to assist directly more than 84 tourism projects with Government assistance of £1·3 million. There has also been substantial Government support for major tourism and leisure developments in the region, such as the Beamish open air museum.

    The English tourist board has set up tourism development action programmes at Tyne and Wear and Kielder to develop the potential of the areas which will create new sources of employment for the local population. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that there is significant scope for new employment in tourism in the region.

    The region is far from being without hope and there are no insuperable disadvantages. With the right help much has been achieved and much more will be achieved. The right help includes a major infusion of Government assistance of various kinds, all of which has a direct effect on employment.
    The hon. Gentleman will be aware that almost the whole of the region has assisted area status. It has benefited by well over £500 million since 1979 through regional development grants and selective assistance. The Department of the Environment has funded economic, social and environmental projects of nearly £300 million, especially in inner urban areas in the region. Only last week my hon. Friend the environment Minister announced an additional £15 million to tackle inner-city deprivation, £2·5 million of which will go to the north-east.

    Middlesbrough, Hartlepool and Newcastle-Gateshead have enterprise zones. Newcastle-Gateshead also has a city action team to co-ordinate local and central Government action, especially on job creation, environmental recovery and housing improvement. In Cleveland, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned on a number of occasions, the Department of the Environment has launched the Cleveland initiative for a co-ordinated programme of action on major areas of derelict and underused land.

    I must mention the Manpower Services Commission schemes. Government aid to support and encourage economic recovery and the creation of jobs in the region amounts to well over £1 billion since 1979. In that period, the Manpower Services Commission spent more than £300 million—and the planned expenditure this year is £151 million—in helping to create work or provide vocational training. As a result of the expansion of the community programme to help the long-term unemployed, 27,200 places are to be provided by May 1986 in the region—more than double last year’s target.
    In vocational training, lack of qualifications among the young is a particularly worrying problem. We recognise ​ the value of a well-trained young work force, which is why the youth training scheme is to be extended nationally to two years, leading to vocational qualifications for school leavers from 1 April 1986.

    That is a major step towards ensuring that all young people under 18 are in work, in full-time education or undergoing high quality training, so that unemployment need not be an option for them from now on.

    Organisations in the northern region have generally responded positively to YTS and the Manpower Services Commission plans to provide more than 25,000 places for young people on the scheme in the northern region this year.

    Under the adult training strategy, we are focusing on known labour market needs. We plan to help to train nearly 13,000 people in the northern region this year under the adult training programme—an increase of 82 per cent. over the last year—and to help more than 18,000 people next year. At least three quarters of those helped this year will have been unemployed.

    We recently announced our endorsement of the expansion of jobclubs to 200 by the end of the year. We were particularly encouraged to do that by the success of two of the first jobclubs, which were established in Durham and Middlesbrough. They have been doing an excellent job in helping the long-term unemployed to help themselves by providing advice and facilities for job hunting. So far, three quarters of unemployed people leaving jobclubs have found jobs, the majority of them quickly.

    My Department has recently taken over responsibility for policy on small firms, which have an excellent potential as job creators through their ability to respond quickly to market demands, their flexibility in filling gaps in the market and their capacity for innovation. We aim to stimulate the development of small businesses and to create an economic climate which will be conducive to their sustained growth. There are nearly 80 proposals in my noble Friend’s recently published White Paper, “Lifting the Burden”, further to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and regulation in this sphere.

    I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept that the Government fully recognise the problems faced by many areas in the north. A great deal of well-focused assistance has been directed to those places that have been worst hit by the world recession. We should recognise also that there are encouraging signs; people in the north-east are responding well to the problems and challenges that they face.

  • Ted Leadbitter – 1985 Speech on Northern Unemployment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    “Region is dying on its feet”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Liam Fox – 2019 Article on Trade

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Gerald Kaufman – 1985 Speech on Inner City Riots

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Douglas Hurd – 1985 Speech on Inner City Riots

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Tim Renton – 1985 Speech on the Palestine Liberation Organisation

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

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

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

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