UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 1985

  • Michael Meacher – 1985 Speech on Child Benefit

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Meacher, the then Labour MP for Oldham West, in the House of Commons on 27 June 1985.

    I beg to move,

    That this House strongly condemns the Government’s breach of their own repeated promises to increase Child Benefit in line with inflation which will result in mothers and children being deprived of £175 million in the current year as the first of the Green Paper cuts; notes that Child Benefit is uniquely effective in countering family poverty, reducing the poverty trap and ensuring that mothers are the recipients of monies needed for child care; and therefore calls upon the Government to restore the real value of Child Benefit both now and for the future.

    Our case in this debate is very simple and very clear. It is that child benefit is uniquely effective in countering family poverty, in reducing the poverty trap and in ensuring that the person who receives the money necessary for caring for the children is the mother. It was a Labour Government who brought in child benefit and, for the reasons that I have just given, we believe strongly that it is a key benefit, central to our social security system, which should be built up and not cut back. It is a benefit which has attracted widespread endorsement.

    I offer at the outset one or two quotations. My first is this:

    “We would all, I suspect, like to see an increase in child benefit; I think that it is one of the most effective ways in which you can deal with the problem of poverty and the problem of bringing help to children.”

    I am sure that we would all say “Heat, hear” to that. Those were the words not of a Labour Minister, but of the present Secretary of State for Social Services when speaking to the Treasury and Civil Service Sub-Committee on 28 July 1982. That was when he still believed in child benefit, just as, when he set up the pensions inquiry, he.still believed in the state earnings-related pension scheme.

    If child benefit was, in the Secretary of State’s own words,

    “one of the most effective ways”

    of dealing with the problem of poverty, does the downgrading now of child benefit mean that the Government are repudiating that objective? The Secretary of State does not appear to want to reply now. No doubt he will do so later.

    On 28 June 1983 the Prime Minister said that the Government’s real increase in child benefit then was

    “evidence of our commitment to the family.”—[Official Report, 28 June 1983; Vol. 44, c. 49.]

    Quite so, but does this latest princely increase of 15p—which is less than one third of the rate of inflation—now indicate that the Government’s commitment to the family is somewhat wilting? That is another question to which we would like an answer today.

    I offer a third quotation:

    “It plays a major part in easing the unemployment trap, and so in our strategy of improving incentives for everyone. It is important for families, and particularly for the low paid. Indeed, ​ it is the benefit which provides the greatest help to many of the poorest families in the country. I refer, of course, to child benefit.”—[Official Report, 15 March 1983; Vol. 39, c. 143.]

    Again that is not some Child Poverty Action Group enthusiast, as one might think, but the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1983.

    If child benefit is so effective in all these roles, according to Ministers, why is it being sidelined now? If all those unsolicited panegyrics applied in 1982 and 1983, why do they not apply now?

    The Secretary of State’s justification for his backtracking on child benefit was stated by him in his answer to me a week ago, when he said:

    “The first priority must be to give help to families in greatest need.”—[Official Report, 18 June 1985; Vol. 81, c. 177.]

    It would indeed be a seductive argument if it were true, but it is not. It simply does not reflect what the Secretary of State has done, for three good reasons.
    First, only a fraction—about 16 per cent.—of the £175 million saved from the child benefit cut is being used to improve benefits for low-income families.

    The improvement in family income supplement will cost just £17 million, and the housing benefit child’s needs allowance £12 million — which had in any case originally been promised for April this year. So the Government are not transferring resources at all; they are cutting benefit to mothers by £150 million.

    Secondly, cutting child benefit and spending more on FIS, which is the Government’s strategy, does not concentrate resources on the poorest families. It has the opposite effect. It cannot be stated too often that take-up of child benefit is virtually 100 per cent., while FIS, because it is means-tested, reaches only about half of all the low-paid families which are eligible. Housing benefit is little better—the take-up there is about two thirds. So the losers from the right hon. Gentleman’s package are clear. They are those entitled to FIS but not claiming it, and that is about 200,000 of the poorest families, those with incomes just above the FIS eligibility levels, and mothers and children in families with reasonable incomes, but where the income is not shared fairly. Far from being helped by what the Government have done, those families will be the hardest hit.

    There is a third important reason, if one follows through the logic of the right hon. Gentleman’s package, why the outcome contradicts his own claims. It is that even those families which get the family income supplement will find that the so-called extra help that the Government are providing by increasing the FIS prescribed amount by more than 7 per cent. will be swallowed up by the loss of child benefit and the consequential changes in housing benefit.

    I shall give an example which effectively demolishes the Government’s case. In March of this year the average FIS payment for a two-child family was £12, which implied an average wage of around £76 a week. Assuming that their earnings increase in line with inflation, this family’s FIS award will increase by £1 in real terms as a result of the higher FIS levels announced by the Government a week ago. However, at the same time, no less than 70p of this £1 increase will be snatched back by the cut in child benefit.

    Indeed, the result will be even worse because of the infernal logic of the interconnection between means tested benefits. Because increases in FIS are taken into account ​ for calculating housing benefit, many parents will find that the gain in housing benefit due to the increased child’s needs allowance will be outweighed by the downward adjustment to housing benefit resulting from the higher FIS levels. The Secretary of State looks puzzled, but I hope he realises the logic of his own proposals. That is exactly what will happen even to those who get the fullest benefit of his increases.

    The result of all that was the boast by the Secretary of State a week ago:

    “The first aim is to direct help to the poorest … That is precisely what we are doing”.—[Official Report, 18 June 1985; Vol. 81, c. 177.]

    That is not borne out by the facts. Indeed, the truth is the reverse. Downgrading child benefit and upgrading the odds and ends of means tested benefits at the margin does not bring the greatest help to the poorest families, but traps them even more deeply in their own poverty.

    We know the Government’s real motive behind this child benefit cut. It has next to nothing to do with targeting the needy, which is Fowlerspeak for more means-testing. It has everything to do with cutting expenditure on benefits to safeguard future tax cuts, which, as usual, will go mainly to the better off and the rich.

    Mr. Jerry Hayes (Harlow) rose—

    Mr. Meacher

    If the hon. Gentleman was in his place at the start and heard my argument, he knows how compelling it is. If it has a fault, I should like to know what it is. It contains the compelling fact that even those who will benefit most by the increase in FIS levels will probably lose in net terms, leaving aside those who, because they do not claim FIS, do not get the benefit.

    Far from concentrating resources on poorer families, which will not happen as a result of this package the proposal paves the way for concentrating resources on the richer sections of society — a redistribution which has become the characteristic hallmark of Thatcherite Toryism. That connection was made absolutely explicit yesterday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he made a ringing call to bankers and business men at the Carlton Club in favour of further tax cuts at the expense of further public expenditure cuts, and child benefit is the first victim of that renewed Treasury drive.

    Mr. Hayes

    How can the hon. Gentleman say, hand on heart, looking at the figures, that the Government’s proposals are not designed to help families most in need, when he has not mentioned that one-parent benefit has increased by 7 per cent., that the child’s needs allowance has gone up to £15.40 a week, and that there is a new higher prescribed amount for families with older children?

    Mr. Meacher

    I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman ran away after a single day when he was setting up a new organisation in the Tory party, if those were the sorts of arguments that he had in mind. He obviously has not listened to my remarks. I mentioned the increases in housing benefit, in the child’s needs allowance and in the FIS prescribed amounts. I agree that for one-parent families the FIS increase is an improvement, but would the hon. Gentleman care to give the details of the increases and the number of families who will receive them? They are minuscule compared with the 12 million children who are losing 35p every week this year as a result of the cut in child benefit.

    ​This switch from public expenditure to taxation cuts has precious little justification. The Financial Times—scarcely a Left-wing publication—commented on 20 June, just after the Secretary of State announced his package:

    “By looking for economies in the benefits but not in the tax allowances which form part of the welfare system, the Government is open to the charge of unfairness. The real value of child benefit, in reality a substitute for child tax allowances, is to be cut by nearly 5 per cent., yet the Chancellor recently raised the married man’s tax allowance, enjoyed by couples without children, by twice the rate of inflation.”

    In truth, the married man’s tax allowance has been increased by about 17 per cent. — that is, if it was increased by the statutory price-linked formula which the Government use—whereas child benefit is 3 per cent. lower in real terms — that is, if it was pitched in accordance with that formula. That demonstrates how, long-term, the fiscal trend under Tory policies has worked against families.

    Mr. John Butterfill (Bournemouth, West)

    When does the hon. Gentleman intend to depart from the brief prepared by the Child Poverty Action Group? Is he aware that most of us have read it?

    Mr. Meacher

    I am pleased to hear that. I hope that many Conservative Members, including the Secretary of State, will read it, because it represents a devastating indictment of the Government’s social policies. If the Secretary of State read more documents such as that at bedtime, rather than the briefs from his Department, we might get better policies from him.

    I quote again from the document, this time from the Conservative Women’s National Committee, the publications of which I do not normally read. In a passionate plea on behalf of child benefit, that organisation said:

    “We recommend that as economic circumstances permit, child benefit is increased in line with increases in tax allowances, or at least protected against rising prices.”

    Poor old Emma Nicholson. She really did her best among the upper echelons of Conservative women. Just her luck that the present Government are led by a women who happens to be more like a man. [HON. MEMBERS: “Sexist.”] I am sure that the Prime Minister will be delighted by that reaction from the Government Benches.

    There is a further important reason why this attack on child benefit cannot be justified on the grounds of public expenditure costs, which is what I suspect the argument is really all about. Even if child benefit had been indexed fully in line with inflation—as we believe it should have been—expenditure on it would still be falling in real terms. That is because the number of children qualifying for it has been, and still is, falling. It fell by 1 million in the six years up to 1984, and that reduction saved about £300 million at present benefit rates. Moreover, the number will continue to decline in the immediate future because of the relatively low birth rates of the late 1960s.

    All of that is in addition to the fact that the Conservatives have cut spending on child support since 1979 by allowing child benefit to fall below its 1979 level during the period up to the November 1983 uprating, and by the steady and continuing reduction in the real value of child support for national insurance beneficiaries. For those reasons, there is absolutely no excuse today, in expenditure terms, for chopping back child benefit even further.​

    Mrs. Edwina Currie (Derbyshire, South)

    The hon. Gentleman referred to the position in 1979 and then carefully spoke of the November 1983 uprating. Is he aware that in that uprating, and in the November 1984 uprating, the resulting real value of child benefit was higher than in any year under any Labour Government back to 1951?

    Mr. Meacher

    Quite, and we are approaching November 1985. It is true that at November 1984 prices the value of child benefit rose to £6·85, the level from which it is now being increased. That is marginally, by 15p, above the level in April 1979. However, at November 1984 prices, in the same real terms, it is now to be lowered to £6·57. That is precisely our objection. Child benefit is not being increased steadily in line with rising prosperity and increasing growth, as we are always being told, but is being lowered.

    There is even less excuse for any cut in child benefit. The Government are mortgaged to the hilt in terms of promises about child benefit. The previous Secretary of State for Social Services, the right hon, Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) said in 1980:

    “We are committed to the child benefit system and it is our intention, subject to economic and other circumstances, to uprate child benefit each year to maintain its value.” — [Official Report, 28 July 1980. Vol. 989, c. 1063.]

    Perhaps we should now ask: are the Government saying that the economy is in a worse shape than in 1980, so that the promise of the then Secretary of State no longer holds good? Otherwise, we should like to know how their actions are justified.

    Equally important, I quote from the letter from the 38 organisations, including the National Federation of Women of Great Britain, to the Prime Minister in March this year. The letter reminded the Prime Minister of her pre-election assurance:

    “there are no plans to make any changes to the basis on which child benefit is paid or calculated.”

    Nothing could be more unequivocal than that. Moreover, the letter went on to say:

    “In our view, the retention of child benefit, paid at a reduced level in real terms, alongside a restructured system of means-tested child support would mean a ‘change in the basis of that benefit’. The Government would be seen, we believe, to be paying lipservice only to the principle of a benefit for all children, and would be widely suspected of intending to allow the reduced universal benefit to decline in value until it withered away and was replaced entirely by means-tested provision.”

    In a nutshell, that is exactly what is happening, despite all the Government’s solemn pledges which are churned out like confetti before an election and then disappear like snowflakes on a boiler after it.

    What is most worrying is that this attack on child benefit is not a “blip”—to use a word which I believe is beloved of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—but part of a calculated long-term strategy on the part of the Government to run down child benefit. I quote from paragraph 4.49 of the Green Paper, which is a very important statement by the Government:

    “The Government believe that it will be right to give greater priority to assistance for families in the income range covered by family credit than to the assistance given to families as a whole through child benefit. We will therefore have regard to the need to concentrate resources in this area … in determining the overall level of child benefit.”

    That says it all. Today we are debating the beginning of the end of child benefit. All that I would add is that to embark on this strategy—​

    The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler)

    As the hon. Gentleman is about to conclude, are we to understand that we shall have this debate without him informing us of his own policy in this area? Does the hon. Gentleman still stand by the pledge that he made only two months ago to abolish the married man’s tax allowance?

    Mr. Meacher

    I shall certainly outline not only our future policies but what we have done in the past. In April 1974 the Labour Government inherited child benefit at £5·14, at November 1984 prices. We increased that to £6·70. We shall not cut child benefit. We shall seek to increase it, not in line with prices as we did previously, but to do better than that. We stand on our record. If only the right hon. Gentleman could do the same. He inherited the level of £6·70, and it will fall this November to about £6·57.

    Mr. Fowler

    The hon. Gentleman said in a statement only two months ago that he would double child benefit and abolish the married man’s tax allowance. Are we to understand from what he has just said that that part of his policy has been abandoned?

    Mr. Meacher

    I think that the right hon. Gentleman is used to the terminology of Green Papers. I hope he believes that Green Papers are the subject of consultation. I made it clear that the document I released was not party policy, but a consultative paper. There should be serious consultation about whether we spend £4·5 billion on the married man’s tax allowance, which is in no way concentrated on those who need the money, instead of increasing child benefit, which is far and away the most cost-effective and direct way of assisting those in need. That is a serious question, and if the right hon. Gentleman seeks to make a mockery of it I think that his view will be taken into account by the people of this country.

    It is a travesty of consultation that the Secretary of State, having issued a Green Paper, which we presume is for consultation, embarks on carrying out the policy with his first statement no less than two weeks after he issued the Green Paper. Is that his idea of a Green Paper and consultation? That is also a pointer to the shape of things to come from the Green Paper. So far we have been given no figures from the right hon. Gentleman’s policy document, after the most important review of the welfare state for 40 years, except for two. One is a £500 million cut in housing benefit, and now we have a £175 million cut in child benefit. It does not exactly fill us with a great deal of confidence as we await the rest.

    It is our contention in this debate that the Government’s family policy—if I can dignify it with that title is fundamentally flawed and misconceived. In seeking to justify the cut, the Prime Minister argued on 20 June that the alternative to raising tax thresholds is

    “of particular benefit to families”. [Official Report, 20 June 1985; Vol. 81, c. 433.]

    It cannot be said too often and too strongly that that is absolutely wrong. An increase in tax thresholds gives most money to the highest paid and least to the low-paid lifted out of tax, while the half a million working families with children below the tax threshold gain absolutely nothing. An increase in child benefit, on the other hand, is pound for pound a far more discriminating way of assisting families and concentrating help on low-paid families in need.
    ​

    Even the Government’s Green Paper accepts, at paragraph 4.44, that

    “Child benefit is simple, well understood and popular.”

    Yet, perversely, the Government now want to give higher priority to family income supplement, which is complicated, poorly understood and unpopular, and moreover, worsens the poverty trap. Not only that, but the problems associated with FIS will be compounded by the shift to the proposed family credit scheme. In particular, not only will payment through the pay packet be used. I suspect, to subsidise low-pay employers, but the benefit is less likely to be spent on the children, and the take-up could be reduced still further.

    Last November the Government clawed back £1 a week from pensioners on supplementary benefit who were getting heating allowances. This June they are clawing back £1 a week from families with three children. That cut further threatens the diet and health of children, especially since the Government have already withdrawn school milk and run down school meals, when one third of all children in our society are in families living either at or only just above the Government’s own poverty line. It is not a policy for families; it is a policy for cutbacks at the expense of families. Because 7 million mothers and 12 million children will lose, I earnestly and unhesitatingly request every Member of the House who cares about families to vote for our motion.

  • Brandon Rhys Williams – 1985 Speech on Co-Ownership Of Flats

    Below is the text of the speech made by Brandon Rhys Williams, the then Conservative MP for Kensington, in the House of Commons on 25 June 1985.

    I beg to move,

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to permit the residents of flats in mansion blocks and substantial conversions in private ownership to form companies with powers to acquire and manage the properties under stated rules of common ownership; to empower such a company in certain circumstances to apply to the courts for the appointment of a managing trustee; to require local authorities to keep lists of persons qualified to act as managing trustees or as secretaries of such companies and for related purposes.

    The problem at which my Bill is aimed to provide some solution is well known to hon. Members on both sides of the House and was very well aired by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) in the debate on the Adjournment of the House on 24 May, to which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment gave some very helpful, but at this stage still non-committal, replies.

    It is important for the House to look forward to the publication of the Nugee report. I hope that hon. Members who, like myself, have this problem in their constituencies will have the forgiveness of the House if they come forward, even at this late stage, with some specific recommendations which they hope will be helpful.

    It has often been pointed out that we have a certain unbalance where the acquisition of residential freehold is concerned. The House long ago agreed that in the private sector those living in houses on long leases should have the right of enfranchisement and be able to enjoy the benefit of freehold ownership. In the public sector the Government have made tremendous strides, which we all appreciate and are grateful for, by allowing people in council houses, and also in council flats, to acquire their own property. But people living in flats in private ownership are, as it were, second-rate citizens, because they do not have the right at present to acquire their freehold. I believe that a formula can be found, which is fair to both sides, that will encourage this type of home ownership for people living in flats.

    On previous occasions the House has permitted me to introduce a Bill on this subject. I hope that on this occasion the Bill will make progress, in the sense that the Minister will pay serious attention to the problems, of which he is well aware, which are really widespread in inner London and in other parts of the country. I am honoured that he has chosen to be present during the debate this afternoon. Such things are very much appreciated on the Back Benches.
    I shall deal with the Bill as briefly as possible. The purpose is to provide a convenient statutory means by which the tenants and the lessees of purpose-built blocks of flats—or buildings converted so as to consist only of self-contained flats—may act jointly to purchase their landlord’s interest in the property at a fair valuation. The Bill would not apply to any property in owner-occupation or to any property consisting of fewer than four self-contained flats, and it would not, of course, extend to local authority properties.

    The Bill would specify that in order to exercise the right of purchase a company — which I suggest might be known as a condominium company, making use of an expression which is very well understood in the United States—could be formed, in accordance with a model ​ constitution, which would include provisions to ensure that a block of flats acquired by the tenants under the Bill’s provisions would be properly managed. There is a danger that enthusiastic tenants’ associations might overreach themselves by acquiring properties which were in need of serious repair and then find that they could not raise enough money among themselves to look after the block properly. That, of course, would lead to dissension and bad feeling, such as there was in the days when there were two sides and the owners were reluctant to find the necessary capital and the people living in the flats felt that the block was being neglected.

    The Bill would grant to a properly constituted condominium company the right of pre-emption, to be exercised within a maximum of six months. That, I think, is not very controversial. When a block has been put on the market, most people feel that a tenants’ or residents’ association, if it acts quickly and responsibly, should have a right of pre-emption. I hope that that will be one of the recommendations of the Nugee report. However, the Bill would only extend the right to require the owner to enter into negotiations to dispose of his interest in other circumstances where all the flats in the property are held on long lease.

    The difficulty is one of valuation. Where there are mixed regimes in ‘a block, it is extremely difficult for even the most experienced and fair-minded person to know what is a fair price for the block, because estimates have to be made of the dates on which flats under controlled rents may become available, and vacant possession will enable the owner to make a substantial gain on those particular flats.

    The payments to be made by the company to acquire the building would be based on a valuation prepared in accordance with principles laid down in the Bill and provide a reasonable assessment of the current value of the vendor’s interest. There should be no question whatever of the right being extended to the residents of purchasing the property on confiscatory terms. The valuation should take into account the different forms of tenure in the property and the market value of any ancillary properties, such as shops, offices or other non-residential premises integral to the block. The valuation should be subject to arbitration.

    To encourage continuity of ownership, the Bill provides that if any tenant of a flat belonging to a co-ownership scheme of the type envisaged by the Bill should sell his flat within a short period after the acquisition of the building by the tenants’ company, any profit he makes would be shared with the company on a sliding scale designed to give the company the main benefit of any windfall capital gains, particularly in the early years.

    Where difficulties arise in the relationships between the residents and the owners or their managing agents, the right will be conferred on the residents to apply to the court ​ in certain circumstances for the appointment of a managing trustee. This new suggestion which I am making in this Bill is, I believe, an extremely practical solution to the type of deadlock situations which occur all too often, unfortunately, in mansion blocks where tenants have a deep suspicion of the intentions of the managing agents and nothing can be done about maintenance or even routine upkeep of the block because the tenants’ association is not prepared to agree to the normal operation of the service charges.

    It would be permissible for a condominium company to issue debentures and also participating preference shares; and it could qualify for grant on the same terms as a housing association. I am very anxious that a residents’ association, properly constituted, should have assistance in the early years from building societies and other financial institutions. All too often they are reluctant to lend money on fixed-interest terms, but willing to enter into some sort of participatory arrangement so that they can take their money out after a relatively short time with an element of profit involved. That would encourage outside finance to come to the aid of residents’ associations and give them a practical opportunity of meeting the price which they have to meet if they are going to take the chance to buy the block when it is offered to them.

    I am hoping to repeat in my Bill the schedule, which is a model memorandum and articles for a condominium company.

    Even if my Bill were to make no progress, the fact that it was available in print would, we think, be of use to many people thinking of setting up residents’ associations. I hope, therefore, that the House will give me leave to reintroduce my Bill.

  • Patrick Nicholls – 1985 Speech on Amusement Arcades

    Below is the text of the speech made by Patrick Nicholls, the then Conservative MP for Teignbridge, in the House of Commons on 21 June 1985.

    I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the question of the role of planning law in controlling and regulating the proliferation of amusement arcades.

    Two appeals against planning refusals have been granted for amusement centres in my constituency in the past year. They were granted not only against the wishes of the planning authority, after they had been advised by their own professional officers, but in the teeth of strong objections by local residents. The objectors considered that the use was inappropriate in a mixed residential and commercial area, and they felt that it was likely to produce environmental problems.

    Teignbridge district council refused an application to change the use of a shop at 17 Piermont Place, Dawlish, into a “family leisure centre”—that, apparently, being the latest euphemism for what the rest of us would call an amusement arcade. The inspector’s appeal decision report states:

    “The council refused their consent on the grounds that the proposal is a major attraction leading to increased congestion in an area which is busy in the holiday season, thus, in turn, creating an increase in pedestrian movements across a main road; it would conflict with the intention to enhance and protect the environment of the Conservation Area in which the site is located; there is no need for more amusement facilities in the area, and the loss of retail floorspace is detrimental to the main shopping area of the town.”

    Despite such clear and cogent considerations, the inspector allowed the appeal in June 1984, albeit having imposed certain conditions, including limiting the hours of opening and requiring sound-proofing work.
    Nevertheless, my constituents are still subject to aggravation from noise and congestion, and have had imposed on their town a development that was overwhelmingly opposed by the local community.

    In August last year, an inspector allowed an appeal, again with conditions, at 7 Queen street, Newton Abbot, against Teignbridge district council’s refusal of an application for change of use from a cafe to a family leisure centre. The district council had opposed the development on several grounds, which included its being in an area shown on the town map as being primarily for shopping use; being in a part of the town where the traffic is already grotesquely congested; that it would create an undesirable increase in the demand for car parking in a street that was already part of a one-way system, and the fact that the footpath was narrow, and the pavement, at that point, already congested.

    All those objections were overruled by the inspector. Admittedly, since then an appeal involving an amusement centre has been turned down. But the trend nevertheless appears to be showing an increase.

    There are, of course, many who believe that amusement arcades are inevitably an undesirable feature and that they should be opposed on all occasions. There is certainly evidence to the effect that local authorities all over the country are worried not simply about the environmental effects—particularly where such centres adjoin residential areas—but about the adverse effects ​ on young users of the premises. In some city centres they are considered a major menace, and in London some local boroughs have formed a special group to deal with the problem. Their sense of frustration can be imagined when it is considered that in Nottingham eight refusals by the city council have been promptly turned over on appeal.

    All this is, of course, well known to my hon. Friend the Minister, but let me hasten to assure him that these are not the considerations that I bring before him today. It occurred to me that when this debate was first announced his initial response, or that of his officials, might have been that, although I did not really know it, I was really concerned about the operation of the gaming laws. Let me hasten to assure him that I do know what I am about, and it does not involve the operation of the gaming laws. The issue is not primarily one of law and order. Obviously different situations can pose different policing problems. Two old ladies feeding pigeons in a public park do not have the same potential for utilising police resources as an amusement arcade. But both activities are perfectly legal, and I am not suggesting for a moment that either of them should be made illegal. If one adopts a modest and unhysterical approach, the system will be considered with planning controls in mind.

    The present Secretary of State for Defence, when he was Secretary of State for the Environment, said in a major speech to the Royal Town Planning Institute summer school in September 1979 that he
    “accepted, too, a planning process in which the individual citizen, whether alone, or acting in a pressure group, has a fundamental right to influence the direction taken in the area in which he lives.”

    Those are splendid words, as would be expected from my right hon. Friend, but over 90 per cent. of appeals are now decided not by the Minister but by inspectors acting under delegated powers in the Town and Country Planning (Determination of Appeals by Appointed Persons) (Prescribed Classes) Regulations 1981.

    As a result, the Secretary of State is no longer amenable to political pressure. The particular danger is that more and more appeals will be successful as a result of the Government’s otherwise laudable determination to speed up their procedures and to use the planning mechanism to create jobs. The danger is that the principle of public participation in such decisions, which was so strong some years ago, will be further eroded.

    People appear to be increasingly doubtful about the Government’s commitment to local participation. The principles of the Skeffington report are being increasingly ignored. The Town and Country Planning Act’s provisions for public consultation begin to have the air of a charade, Disquiet is therefore expressed by a number of organisations that, while lip service may be paid to the consideration of their views, there is no real intent that their views will be fully and properly reflected in the decisions that emerge.

    The pity is that, if that is right, the trend runs contrary to Conservative philosophy which embraces care for and pride in one’s community. All too often that does not appear to be reflected in decisions handed down from on high and for which we will be held responsible.

    What should we do to ensure that local people’s real and well-informed views are given due weight? Calls are constantly made for a community right of appeal to give objectors the right to demand an appeal against a planning authority’s grant of permission and even against an ​ inspector’s decision on appeal. At first sight that might seem admirable or even beguiling, but on closer examination one can see that the problems are formidable. Such a procedure would not only delay the planning process but would involve a great deal of extra time and money for both parties. Those added expenses would probably have to be paid for by the ratepayer.

    Another approach might be to ask the Secretary of State nominally to take more decisions himself rather than their being taken by a delegated authority.

    That would mean that my right hon. Friend would be amenable to representations by hon. Members who have a far better grasp of their community’s needs and desires than an inspector who makes only a brief visit.
    I believe that the answer to the problem is relatively straightforward, provided that all districts and regions tackle the problems at source, even before a specific planning application is made. In connection with amusement arcades, the reversal of refusals at district council level is greater than for other types of applications. By contrast, if a local authority has already adopted a leisure policy based on regulations rather than prohibition, the inspector must take that into account. Some recognition of that, at least in substance, was given in the Department’s control policy note 11. However, more needs to be done.
    I am asking my hon. Friend today whether he agrees that the way to constructive development lies in the direction that I have described. He should issue further, more specific guidance to local authorities on how they should approach the problem in a local leisure plan. He should also advise them so that the considerations to which I have referred and which are set out in the development control policy note are properly reflected in the findings on appeal.

    I could have entered the Chamber ready to regale my hon. Friend the Minister with a great populist tirade on amusement arcades being Satan’s playgrounds where vice and depravity proceed unabated. If my hon. Friend feels the need for some light relief after the debate is over, I could do so even then. However, when he replies, I hope that he will appreciate that I did not succumb to the temptation to advance that argument. Had I done so, it is possible that the Chamber would have been even more crowded that it is now. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that I have highlighted something which is a cause of real grievance and concern to many in their local communities. I hope to have done so constructively and to have given some signs of where we might go from here.

  • Frank Dobson – 1985 Speech on the Bangladesh Cyclone Disaster

    Below is the text of the speech made by Frank Dobson, the then Labour MP for Holborn and St. Pancras, in the House of Commons on 20 June 1985.

    Last week we debated overseas aid when, naturally, the speeches concentrated on the desperate plight of those living in sub-saharan Africa. No part of the debate was, therefore, devoted in any substantial way to the recent cyclone disaster in Bangladesh.

    That disaster has been important not only for the people of Bangladesh but for our Bangladeshi community in Britain, particularly in London and in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) and for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). The recent cyclone was a reminder of the vulnerability of the people who live on the Ganges delta or the edge of the bay of Bengal, whichever way one likes to describe the area.

    The people there live on one of the ultimate frontiers of the world. It is a frontier between land and water, between humanity and nature and between life and death. They live a tenuous existence. They are dependent upon the abundant water there for their transport and for much of their food, and they spend much effort trying to reclaim land from the sea.

    But because they have not received sufficient support from the wealthy nations of the world for their efforts to regain land from the sea, whenever a cyclone occurs the sea reclaims the land again and death and destruction ensue.

    In the long-term we must give more aid, financial and practical, to Bangladesh to try to make sure that the cyclones, which we cannot stop, do not cause the death and destruction which work on the delta would stop.

    The cuts in aid to Bangladesh made by the Conservatives since 1979 are a standing disgrace. In 1979, we gave £33 million, and that was not enough. In 1984, we gave, in real terms, only £33 million. To put it another way, at today’s prices, the cuts which the Conservatives have imposed on aid to Bangladesh since 1979 have deprived that country of £88 million. We are one of the richest societies the world has ever known. Bangladesh is one of the most impoverished. Yet our Government’s ludicrous priorities have deprived that poor society of £88 million.

    Much of the aid that has been given has been misdirected and not well spent by the British Government. Large amounts of it have been spent on tea gardens, for the benefit of the owners of those tea gardens and, possibly, for tea drinkers in the developed world. That money has certainly not benefited the people working on the tea plantations. They and their families have got nothing out of the aid.

    Another substantial amount of the aid was poured into an electricity scheme in Dacca, the principal product of which was an improvement in the reliability of air conditioning in the luxurious housing in the Gulshon part of Dacca, scarcely a sensible priority for British aid, particularly when that aid was being cut.

    What is necessary for the people who live in the islands of the delta is to make them more safe, to undertake massive works of civil engineering such as those being ​ carried out now by the Dutch Government with the intention of making those islands as safe as is humanly possible and to make sure that the benefits flow, not to the rich and powerful or to people in the Bangladesh army, but to the landless people of the gulf.

    The Dutch Government have displayed all the knowledge and skill that one would expect of a nation which itself has reclaimed vast tracts of land from the sea and made the country safe from its incursions. But the Dutch Government have also displayed a vast commitment to do something positive for the poorest and most vulnerable people in Bangladesh. We must try to ensure that our Government and other Governments of rich countries show a similar commitment, or in a few years we shall be debating another cyclone disaster affecting perhaps another 50,000 or 100,000 people of Bangladesh.
    Bangladesh needs immediate help. It needs, above all, flat-bottomed boats, helicopters, vessels for keeping clean water and radios. They are not particularly sophisticated needs. The Bangladesh Government have recently repeated their request to the whole world for flat-bottomed sea-going motor craft, as they describe them. We as a military power have an abundance of such vessels. Indeed, in 1970, as has been pointed out in recent recruitment advertisements, the Royal Marines were in action in Bangladesh after the cyclone using flat-bottomed vessels to help to rescue people and to move food and medical supplies from one island to another.

    Why are we not doing it now? It would provide practical training for the marines in landing, which is something that they need to practise because of what they are there for. It would be good training for them and it would be useful work for the people of Bangladesh. We want to know tonight whether the British Government have even considered this and, if they have not, why they have not. It is not as though we do not pour military aid into Bangladesh; we do—to support the regime and to finance an army whose only possible purpose can be to police Bangladesh, because it would not last five hours against the military might of India and there is no one else to threaten Bangladesh. So, if we can give military aid consistently to sustain the undemocratic Government of Bangladesh in power, surely we ought to be able to give some immediate aid by using military means that would help to sustain the people of the Bay of Bengal in their greatest need.

    Recently we have heard of new flooding, not in the ultimate reaches of the delta, but in the northern part of Bangladesh, in Sylhet, whence most Bangladeshi people in Britain originally hailed. We have also heard that the supply links in the cyclone-affected area are showing great strain and that further help is needed. So what the Bangladesh Government and people need now is more practical help and more financial help.

    I am not criticising the contribution that the British Government have made to the Brussels football disaster fund; I think it was appropriate for Britain to give £250,000. But that disaster involved the death of just 38 Europeans. That works out at a British contribution of roughly £6,500 per life lost in the Brussels football disaster.

    To date, the Government have given only £750,000 towards the fund for the Bangladesh cyclone disaster in which it is estimated 50,000 Bangladeshis died. That ​ works out at just £15 per life lost in the natural disaster. The Bangladeshi community represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney and by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West, who are both present, have noted the discrepancy, more in sorrow than in anger. We must do something to right that contrast. It is a wicked contrast, and it appears to be a racist response.

    We owe it not just to the people in the cyclone disaster affected area but to the Bangladeshi community in Britain to share its anxiety. It is part of our community. A caring community cares about the anxieties of everyone. Their worries about their relatives and former compatriots in Bangladesh must be ours. We must give practical help because that is how proper interest manifests itself.

    Practical help must be given by the British Government because all over Britain, wherever there is a Bangladeshi community—it being a practical purposeful community—its members are clubbing together to establish funds. In my constituency and in Tower Hamlets, part of the Bangladeshi community has arranged an appeal with War on Want. Separately, the Bengali Workers Action Group has set up an appeal. It is an example of self-help that one would expect to commend itself to Conservative Members.

    Those spontaneous efforts and the support that I am glad to say they are receiving from other people living in those areas is not being matched by a commitment from the Government to provide the immediate practical help or substantial financial help which is needed at the moment. We need that commitment. Beyond that, we need a much longer term commitment to ensure that we make a proper contribution in the future towards making life safe, decent and sustainable on those extremely vulnerable islands in the delta.

    We should urge the two great nuclear, potentially warring, powers to take their duties seriously. In their separate ways, the United States and the Soviet Union devote thousands of millions of pounds every year to developing further their capacity to destroy each other and all of us.

    The people at the Geneva talks should bear in mind, each time they talk about the possibility of doing something to reduce the threat of nuclear war, that there is a positive side to that. If they were to divert to peaceful, sensible purposes, I should not object to them competing. I am sure that the people of Bangladesh would not object to the Soviet Union and the United States competing to carry out the enormous works necessary to make those islands in the Ganges delta safe, prosperous, fertile and somewhere for people to earn a decent living. That would be a sensible objective for the world; it would be a sensible objective for those two major powers.

    We need a lead from Britain because of our colonial links with Bengal, in which you, Mr. Speaker, played a prominent and honourable part. I hope, therefore, that the Government will show some initiative, some commitment, and will try to set the remainder of the developed and wealthy world doing something to make Bangladesh a better and more prosperous place.

  • Richard Ottaway – 1985 Speech on the Mental Health Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Roy Hattersley – 1985 Speech on Prices

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

    I beg to move,

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge) rose—

    ​Mr. Hattersley

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

    Mr. Nicholls

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

    Mr. Hattersley

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson)

    Rubbish.

    Mr. Hattersley

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mr. Tim Eggar (Enfield, North) rose—

    Mr. Hattersley

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

    Mr. Eggar

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

    Mr. Hattersley

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

    Mr. Eggar

    No.

    Mr. Hattersley

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

    Mr. Nicholas Soames (Crawley)

    Get on with it.

    Mr. Hattersley

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

    Mr. Soames

    Just wait.

    Mr. Hattersley

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

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

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

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

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

    Mr. Eggar rose—

    Mr. Hattersley

    No, I must get on.

    Mr. Robert Atkins (South Ribble)

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

    Mr. Hattersley

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mr. Andrew MacKay (Berkshire, East) rose—

    Mr. Hattersley

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

    The Select Committee added:

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

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

    Mr. Andrew MacKay

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

    Mr. Hattersley

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

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

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

    Several Hon. Members rose—

    Mr. Speaker

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

    Mr. Hattersley

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

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

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

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

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

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

    “will stay low and will get lower.”

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

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

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

    Mr. Lawson

    That is not what I said in the Budget speech.

    Mr. Hattersley

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

    ​

  • Nicholas Ridley – 1985 Speech on Airports Policy

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

    I beg to move,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mr. Bowen Wells (Hertford and Stortford)

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

    Mr. Ridley

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

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

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

    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish)

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

    Mr. Ridley

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

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

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

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

    Mr. Cecil Franks (Barrow and Furness)

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

    Mr. Ridley

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

    Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe)

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

    Mr. Ridley

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

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

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

    Mr. Ridley

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

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

    Mr. Gerald Howarth (Cannock and Burntwood)

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

    Mr. Ridley

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

    Mr. Tony Favell

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

    Mr. Ridley

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

    Mr. Anthony Steen (South Hams)

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

    Mr. Ridley

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

    Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones (Eccles)

    Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

    Mr. Ridley

    I must make a little more progress.

    Mr. Carter-Jones

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

    ​Mr. Ridley

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

    Mr. Carter-Jones

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

    Mr. Ridley

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North)

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

    Mr. Ridley

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

    Mr. Robert McCrindle (Brentwood and Ongar)

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

    Mr. Ridley

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

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

    Dr. Alan Glyn (Windsor and Maidenhead)

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

    Mr. Ridley

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mr. Allan Roberts (Bootle) rose—

    Mr. Ridley

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mr. Allan Roberts

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

    Mr. Ridley

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

    Mr. Churchill (Davyhulme)

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

    Mr. Ridley

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Austin Mitchell – 1985 Speech on Legal Profession Reform

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

    I beg to move,

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

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

    “let’s kill all the lawyers”,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mr. Lloyd says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Leon Brittan – 1985 Statement on Sri Lankan Tamils

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mr. Alfred Dubs (Battersea)

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

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

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

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

    Mr. Brittan

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Michael Meacher – 1985 Speech on the Social Security Review

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

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

    Mr. Speaker

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

    Mr. Meacher

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

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

    Mr. Speaker

    Order. We have a full day ahead of us.

    Mr. Meacher

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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