UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 1985

  • Fergus Montgomery – 1985 Speech on Trafford Health Authority

    Below is the text of the speech made by Fergus Montgomery, the then Conservative MP for Altrincham and Sale, in the House of Commons on 11 November 1985.

    I am very glad to have this opportunity to raise an entirely local question that concerns my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) and the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd)—the future of the Trafford health authority.

    I had an Adjournment debate on 25 April about the long-promised south Trafford district hospital—a promise that has been made over the years but which, for some reason known only to itself, the regional health authority has squashed. That decision has caused enormous aggravation in my constituency, and has been assailed from all sides and all political parties. My hon. Friend will guess that I am not altogether what is known as a member of the fan club for the officers of the regional health authority.

    I criticised those officers for not sending a representative to put their case at a large public meeting held in Sale town hall. Many people turned up, but no one from the regional health authority bothered to show his face. Surely if the authority’s case was a good one, its representatives would have attended the meeting. Its case has gone by default because of non-attendance.

    At that time, I accused the RHA of lack of consultation, and I regret that that is the accusation that I make against it tonight. Its inept and inappropriate use of the consultation process has caused a great deal of anxiety among my constituents. On 22 October my health authority members had to fight off a cavalier and determined attempt by the chairman of the regional health authority to abolish the Trafford health authority. That arose because of a decision reached in February this year to reject the long-promised district hospital. It was determined that our future hospital needs would be met by developing services at Wythenshawe hospital—which is not in Trafford, but in Manchester—and by the rebuilding and improving of hospital facilities at two hospitals in Altrincham. That represented a change in policy.

    Trafford health authority, quite rightly, asked the regional health authority to ensure that the management arrangements for Wythenshawe hospital were reviewed. I think that my hon. Friend the Minister would agree that that makes good sense. Under the change there will be increased use of Wythenshawe hospital by residents of Trafford. My health authority felt that the management of Wythenshawe should be transferred from the South Manchester health authority to the Trafford health authority.

    A panel of five members of the RHA, including the chairman and the vice chairman, met on Friday 11 October to consider their response to the consultative document. The report was made public on 16 October and was to be put to the RHA on 22 October, less than a week later.

    The report recommended the abolition of Trafford health authority, which was to be carved up and annexed to South Manchester health authority and Salford health authority. My hon. Friend has seen the report and will know that scant justification was offered for that recommendation, but unsubstantiated assertions were ​ made about considerable savings and better health care for patients. I have to tell my hon. Friend that that did not go down well with my constituents.

    From the time that the report was published I was bombarded with telephone calls and letters from angry constituents. I held an advice bureau in Altrincham town hall on 19 October, and two separate delegations came to see me. They comprised physiotherapists, speech therapists and chiropodists. They were all reasonable people and put their views sensibly, but they were worried about their jobs and lack of security. They were rightly angry. They were furious that there was less than a week between the publication of the report and the vital meeting of the regional health authority.

    Because of the ham-handedness of those in charge of the regional health authority, unnecessary alarm and aggravation were caused. I am glad to say that when the meeting of the regional health authority took place on 22 October sanity prevailed and the majority of regional health authority members refused to accept the strong recommendation from their chairman that the proposal should be adopted. That was mainly due to the lobbying of every member of the regional health authority on the case for the Trafford health authority.

    Had it not been for the vigilance of local organisations, and of the majority of the regional health authority members in vigorously and successfully opposing the move, the proposal by Sir John Page, the regional health authority chairman, could have resulted in chaos and confusion, such was his apparent lack of appreciation of how health and social services operate at a local level.

    Without doubt, the regional health authority must constantly review the organisation of its services to ensure the most cost-effective means of providing health care. Nobody will dispute that, because it is one of the regional health authority’s jobs. I have no argument with that, because in the long term it must be in the best interests of patients. However, it is equally essential that the regional health authority should act in a caring and competent manner. The standards that one would expect to be applied in a large public service organisation have been totally missing. The consultation process initiated by the regional health authority seemed to be excellent at the time, but many of my constituents will, cynically, believe that their views were treated with contempt and dismissed as being of no account.

    The criteria selected by the regional health authority to judge the relative merits of the various options were misapplied, misconstrued or ignored. The criteria were the rules of the game and were based on formal DHSS guidelines. Not only were the rules changed half way through the game, but the goalposts were removed.

    The benefits claimed for the proposal were given no substance. First, it was claimed that substantial savings would be made, but that claim has never been assessed in detail. There was never an intention to undertake a financial evaluation between the various options. Secondly, it was claimed that patients would benefit. That claim was so hollow that not a single concrete example could be offered in answer to the question: how will the changes benefit the people of Trafford?

    The regional chairman apparently set great store by the good will on which the proposed arrangements would depend for their success. Good will follows in the wake ​ of trusted leadership. It is a mistake to expect good will in response to an imposed, unwarranted and unwanted solution.

    The strength of feeling locally against the proposal and the manner in which it was presented is vividly illustrated in a remark by a member of the district health authority who met the regional chairman shortly before the meeting of the regional health authority. The member of the district health authority was attempting to understand the thought processes that led to the recommendation. She said:

    “It is incredible that the health of the people of Trafford depends on such inept, perfunctory and arrogant decision making.”

    If my hon. Friend thinks that such language is intemperate — and I am sure that he is used to intemperate language, because he and I occasionally play bridge together and on occasions when I have trumped his ace his language has not been particularly mild—it is worth remembering that the proposal to eliminate an employing authority of 2,900 people was made public without advance warning to representatives of that authority a matter of only six days before a decision was due. It had not apparently occurred to anyone at the regional health authority that our health service staff, who give such dedicated and loyal care to those in need in the community, deserved similar consideration.

    I have mentioned the enormous anger of people in my constituency. I would like to tell my hon. Friend that one of the Conservative councillors in my constituency called for the resignation of the chairman of the regional health authority. While I do not think that this is likely to happen, I hope that by now my hon. Friend has heard the message loud and clear, that the Sir John Page fan club is devoid of members in the Trafford area. Two enormous kicks in the stomach in one year are more than enough, and they certainly have not made him the pin-up boy of the people in my constituency.

    The fact that the recommendation was overturned by the regional health authority, despite the most determined last-ditch stand of the chairman of the RHA, is the most welcome demonstration that the majority of its members have a clear grasp of the fundamental principles on which health care must be based, and of the vital importance of conterminosity between health authorities and local authorities. The regional health authority, however, has acknowledged that while Trafford health authority is regarded as sacrosanct, important organisational issues in Manchester and Trafford still need to be ironed out. I am concerned—and this is the reason for the debate tonight—that these issues are considered in a proper fashion.

    I hope, therefore, that when my hon. Friend winds up the debate tonight, he will be able to assure me that the proper administrative processes will this time be observed when the regional health authority makes its assessment of these outstanding issues.

  • Denis Healey – 1985 Speech on Foreign Affairs and Overseas Development

    Below is the text of the speech made by Denis Healey, the then Shadow Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 8 November 1985.

    Like the Foreign Secretary, I want to concentrate on the forthcoming Geneva summit where the leaders of the two most powerful countries in the world will meet. Our survival will depend in part on how that meeting goes. I strongly endorse the Foreign Secretary’s closing words in that regard.

    I shall not talk about the economic problems facing the European Community, although the outlook is as depressing as I can ever remember. The Foreign Secretary referred to Spain and Portugal joining the Community just six weeks from now, but the last meeting of Community Finance Ministers failed utterly to take account of that in arrangements for the budget next year. We shall have an opportunity to discuss the Common Market budget next week, I believe, so some of those issues can be left until then.

    I shall not talk about South Africa, which we debated a fortnight ago. I am sure that we shall return to the subject many times in the new Session. I do not applaud the choice of Lord Barber as the British representative on the Commonwealth mission—I do not think that the chairman of Standard Chartered Bank can be regarded as ​ totally without bias in these matters. I can only hope that the noble Lord distances himself as much from the Prime Minister on South African matters as he did from the Prime Minister’s views on monetary problems when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    I should like to say just a word about Argentina. Even The Times welcomed the recent meetings between my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, me and the leader of the Liberal party and President Alfonsin on the grounds that they had decisively broken the taboo on discussions of Falklands problems. I hope that, in spite of what he said today, the Foreign Secretary will exploit the opportunities that we have offered him to produce an environment in which we can at least reduce the heavy burden on our economy and defences imposed by the Prime Minister’s Fortress Falklands policy.

    The Foreign Secretary must recognise that practical co-operation with Argentina on matters such as fisheries and communications with the Falkland Islands are bound to depend on our readiness to discuss all aspects of the Falklands problem.

    Let me pass to the summit meeting. I deplore the tendency by newspapers and the Government to treat this essentially as a propaganda battle and to pay excessive attention to who is winning the propaganda war. I gather that when the Prime Minister last conversed with President Reagan she asked for a repackaging of the American proposals, as though they would be more acceptable if presented in gift-wrapping rather than brown paper.
    The Foreign Secretary was curiously evasive in telling us whether the proposals which the NATO council discussed on Wednesday last week were the same as those put to the Soviet Union on Friday. My understanding is that they were not. The NATO council has not, so far, discussed the proposals as they were presented last Friday to the Soviet Government.

    The real issues that underlie this so-called propaganda war are of vital importance to the people of Britain no less than to the people of the United States and the Soviet Union. Like the editor of the Financial Times, I could only see as a profound let down the speech at the United Nations in which President Reagan trailed his approach to the summit. Even as a propaganda effort it was clearly aimed at the right wing in his own Republican party rather than at world opinion.

    Of course it is important that the Soviet Union and the United States should discuss regional problems that might bring them to blows. I welcome the talks on these matters which have already taken place, at least at official level, although I doubt that the President was wise to talk in September about joint Soviet-American “intervention” in the Third world. But in his United Nations speech the President’s choice of issues was gravely one sided and his description, especially of what was happening in Nicaragua, was ludicrously distorted. Above all, he left out entirely the regional problems of the middle east where the risks to world peace are the greatest and where the Soviet Union and the United States are already directly and militarily involved.
    In half of the middleeast—the eastern half—Russia and the United States have reached a close understanding about the Gulf war which has already been responsible for the loss of one million lives. They should be trying to bring it to an end rather than acting simply as co-belligerents ​ with Iraq. Surely they need to reach an understanding with the other half of the middle east on how to get peace between Israel and her neighbours.

    I shall mercifully draw a veil over the lamentable diplomatic shambles that attended the recent visit of two PLO representatives to London. I shall draw a veil also over the American achievement in undermining America’s two best friends in the Arab world—King Hussein, by banning a contract to provide him with arms, and President Mubarak, by skyjacking the Egyptian aircraft and failing to apologise for doing so.

    Now that the dust has settled, it is clearer than ever that no progress on the problems separating Israel from her Arab neighbours can be made without involving the PLO —both King Hussein and President Mubarak restated that during the past few days—nor can progress be made without the acquiescence, if not the positive co-operation, of both Syria and the Soviet Union. Until, somehow, diplomacy can create a framework that takes account of those two facts, all purely Western efforts to encourage a settlement are bound to fail. I hope that the Minister for Overseas Development will tell us precisely what the Prime Minister meant at Question Time the other day when she talked about the need for a framework for a new initiative for such talks. I believe that the framework must include the PLO, Syria and the Soviet Union.
    I welcome the indications that Prime Minister Peres is now in contact with the Soviet Union and is seeking diplomatic recognition of Israel and the release of more Jews who wish to settle in his country. I hope very much that the summit at least assists in that regard.

    The central problem facing the summit—the problem which has made it the focus of interest for thinking people all over the world—is whether it will help to bring the nuclear arms race to an end. My concern, which I have expressed many times to the House, is that the nuclear arms race is moving into an area that will make arms control more difficult and war more likely, unless it can be stopped now. It is a staggering fact that the United States and the Soviet Union between them now have 20,000 strategic nuclear warheads and well over 50,000 nuclear warheads, if one adds the intermediate and tactical weapons that they possess. Those 50,000 nuclear warheads amount to more than 1·5 million Hiroshima-size atomic bombs. If those arsenals of nuclear weapons were ever used there would be an eternity of nuclear winter.

    Yet neither side has gained one jot in its security by pursuing this arms race during the past 40 years. Both have wasted colossal sums of money which would have been far better spent on improving the lot of their peoples and, indeed, the lot of the world.

    So far, the stability of the nuclear balance between Russia and the United States has proved invulnerable to wide variations in their relative capabilities. It is now universally recognised, even by Mr. Richard Perle of the Pentagon, that there is broad parity in strategic nuclear weapons between the Soviet Union and the United States. For this reason deliberate aggression by one or the other is well nigh inconceivable at the moment.

    However, the colossal size of their existing arsenals has encouraged both Governments to think more and more about the possibility not just of deterring but of fighting a nuclear war. Each suspects the other of hoping to win a nuclear conflict if it can destroy sufficient of the enemy’s retaliatory forces in a first strike, so that each side is also thinking about pre-empting an enemy first strike. Mr. ​ Richard de Lauer, the Pentagon’s chief of engineering, recently recommended the Trident D5 missile to Congress on the ground that it was a counterforce weapon which might give the United States a pre-emptive capacity. That is the weapon that the British Government are planning to buy at colossal cost from the United States for Britain’s forces.

    The Soviet Union and the United States are developing, and beginning to deploy in some cases, two or three new inter-continental ballistic missiles, new strategic nuclear bombers, new air-launched cruise missiles and new missile-carrying submarines. The United States is planning to replace its obsolete nuclear weapons in Europe with new nuclear missiles and artillery warheads, and no doubt the Soviet Union is doing the same.

    Fears on both sides of a first strike are bound to increase rapidly if these developments continue. A report of the recently published unclassified version of the latest CIA national intelligence estimate stated that Soviet air defences would not be able to

    “prevent large-scale damage to the USSR”

    by United States nuclear bombers and cruise missiles for at least the next decade— that is bombers and cruise missiles alone. More important, Trident D5 is said to offer the United States for the 1990s the capacity to destroy 95 per cent. of Soviet inter-continental ballistic missiles if it strikes first. The same CIA assessment reports that, at least until the year 2000, Russia could pose “no significant threat” to American atomic submarines.

    Those figures from American sources take no account of the enormous destructive power of America’s ICBM force, which is based on land. In addition, President Reagan is planning to equip the United States with a ballistic missile defence, through his star wars programme, and is inviting the Soviet Union to follow suit. He told a BBC correspondent that his message to the Soviet Union was:

    “We wish you well with your defence plans.”

    That is a different story from what the Foreign Secretary told us today and the President could have fooled me, because a welcome and goodwill for the Soviets’ ballistic missile plans are the last views I have heard from Secretary Weinberger or Mr. Shultz.

    President Reagan’s personal attitude to star wars has not wavered since he first made a speech recommending it in March 1983, when he said:

    “The human spirit must be capable of rising above dealing with other nations and human beings by threatening their existence.”

    The President said that he was determined

    “to find a way of defence which will make nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete.”

    Bruce Kent and Joan Ruddock could not have put the case for nuclear disarmament more forcibly. The President added that if

    “defensive systems were paired with offensive systems they could be viewed as fostering an aggressive policy—and nobody wants that.”

    The tragedy is that that is exactly what the President’s star wars programme is leading to. When the President made his speech in March 1983, nearly all the experts in the United States believed that it was nonsense, but when he made it clear in the following months that he was not to be shaken, they all switched round. In fact, there has never been such a mass conversion since a Chinese general baptised his troops with a hose.

    Today, no one who is involved in the star wars programme shares President Reagan’s view of it—not ​ General Abrahamson, who is in charge of the whole project, not Dr. Yonas, who is the chief scientific adviser to the programme, and not Dr. Keyworth, who is the President’s chief scientific adviser.

    The State Department’s official pamphlet on star wars, published a few months ago, said that the project is designed not to replace nuclear deterrence, but to enhance it. In other words, it is designed to threaten the existence of other nations and human beings more credibly. Its purpose is not to make nuclear weapons obsolete or to give the peoples of the world immunity from nuclear attack; its purpose, as has been welt described in speeches by Dr. Keyworth and in a speech by Dr. Yonas that I heard in Ottawa recently, is to protect America’s land-based missiles, rather than to protect the American people. For that reason, it is bound to accelerate the arms race in both offensive and defensive systems and will lead exactly to the consequence against which President Reagan warned in his speech two and a half years ago. It will also lead to a situation in which, to use the recent words of Mr. Nitze, the

    “growth of defences could support rather than discourage a first strike.”

    That is why the star wars programme has been publicly opposed by the last three American Presidents—by Republican Presidents Ford and Nixon no less than by the Democrat President Carter—and by at least three of the last four American Defence Secretaries—by Republican Secretary Schlesinger no less than by Democrat Secretaries Brown and McNamara. In fact, the SDI programme in the United States is supported only by those who reject arms control in principle, such as Dr. Weinberger and Mr. Perle, and, of course, by those who cynically hope to get a lot of money out of it. As the House knows, star wars is described by the military and industrial community in the United States as pennies from heaven.

    The President is sticking doggedly to his original vision, but he is alone. In spite of his words on the BBC, no one really believes that President Reagan’s successor —it will not be a decision for the present President—will give the Soviet Union the secrets of the star wars programme if it turns out to work.

    After all, only the other day the American Administration forced the British Customs and Excise to take a child’s computer off the shelves of the duty-free shop at Heathrow because it might find its way to the Soviet Union.
    Indeed, both American law and the ABM treaty forbid the United States to give information about ballistic missile defences even to its allies, including the United Kingdom. That fact casts an odd light on the idea of the Secretary of State for Defence that British firms could get great benefits from doing research for the United States into the SDI programme.

    President Reagan told Soviet journalists last week that he would not deploy star wars until both sides had destroyed their offensive weapons, but on the very next day he was forced by his advisers to withdraw that undertaking. He then went to the other extreme and said that the United States would deploy star wars unilaterally if it could not get other world leaders to agree to an international system of defence against nuclear missiles. So much for the undertakings that the President gave to our Prime Minister in December. He now tells us not that he will consult or negotiate about deployment, but that if it proves feasible he will deploy unilaterally unless everybody else in the world agrees with him.

    The European allies had grave misgivings about the star wars programme from the word go. Those misgivings were superbly listed by the Foreign Secretary in the speech to which he referred earlier and for which, I am told—I hope that I am wrong—the Prime Minister later apologised to President Reagan. If that is not true, I hope that we may be told so. The Foreign Secretary does not rise to respond to that challenge.

    The tragedy is that the European allies did not make their position crystal clear in time. On the contrary, the Washington correspondent of The Sunday Times and The Guardian told us from American sources in September that the Prime Minister had used her support for SDI to try to get President Reagan’s support for buying the Ptarmigan project and threatened to withdraw her support for SDI if she did not get the Ptarmigan contract. The House will agree that The Times showed unusual innocence recently in asking why President Reagan delayed until this week publishing the decision, which must have been taken long ago, to buy the French system instead, even though President Mitterrand has openly opposed the star wars programme from the start.

    Of course, the reason for the delay is obvious. The President wanted to be sure that he had our Prime Minister in the bag at the NATO meeting before he announced his decision. He took her for a ride. She gained nothing by sucking up to President Reagan except to explode the myth of a special relationship with the United States. Her only reward was another spillage of rancid bile from the Prince of Darkness, Mr. Richard Perle, who, according to The Sunday Times last week, accused her of following Baldwin and Chamberlain in appeasing the Soviet Union. He did so because she had dared to question Mr. Perle’s propaganda about certain alleged Soviet violations of the ABM treaty.

    I agree with the Foreign Secretary that it is still possible for America’s European allies to exert a decisive influence on American policy in this area, provided that they are united and honest on a clear policy. There is always a power battle in Washington between the White House, the State Department, the Pentagon and various parts of the Congress about almost every element of American foreign and defence policy. That power battle can be swung in Europe’s direction provided that Europe makes its views known in time. The best example of that was when united European pressure on the American Administration gave victory to Mr. Shultz over Mr. Weinberger on the interpretation of the ABM treaty on testing. I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on the part that he must have played in mobilising European support for that interpretation.

    I strongly support the Foreign Secretary’s view—I have said so many times—that a collective European approach to the defence and diplomatic problems facing the Alliance is essential if we are to proceed in the direction of peace rather than war. It is important that Europe should constitute an independent pillar within the Alliance. I shall devote my remaining remarks to what Britain and Europe should be pressing the United States for in relation to the arms talks and the forthcoming summit.

    The greatest danger of the arms race lies in the quality of the new weapons being planned rather than in the quantity of the old weapons. By far the best objective in the arms talks would be to seek a freeze on the testing, ​ development and deployment of new nuclear weapons. A nuclear freeze already has overwhelming popular support on both sides of the Atlantic as well as almost unanimous support in the United Nations.

    Of course, a freeze is not without its own difficulties. There is a problem in deciding the point at which one cuts off programmes already under way. I believe that, since the two sides enjoy rough parity, that problem should not be difficult to overcome. Certainly it would be much easier to negotiate a freeze than a reduction in existing weapons when the pattern of the two sides’ deterrence is so different. Moreover, a freeze would be much easier to verify than a reduction in forces because it is easier to tell whether a new weapon is being tested than to know whether a weapon photographed by satellite is within a permitted ceiling.

    The Prime Minister has made a great deal in the House of saying that it is not possible to verify a ban on research. She said that again the other day. That is true in relation to research in brains or in laboratories, but it is possible to verify a ban on the external testing associated with research, especially since public sources tell us that western satellite intelligence photography has a resolving power which enables its possessor positively to identify objects as small as 150 cms. across.

    The United States Defence Department has already published a list of the tests that it plans to carry out as part of its SDI research programme, because it knows that Russia can and will observe them. Surely our objective, which we should press on our European allies to press on the United States, should be to tighten the ABM treaty so as to ban all tests relating to space defence—on both sides. That would kill not only the SDI before its birth but the possibility of a Soviet breakout.

    I agree with the Foreign Secretary that the Russians have indulged in a great deal of activity in space defence in the last 15 years, but none of that activity could come to fruition in a new space defence system if tests were banned now.

    If one seeks a ban on observable tests relating to SDI, one must also ban the development of anti-satellite systems on both sides. I remember Mr. Richard Burt, when he was still working at the State Department last December, saying that the United States would be proposing such a ban. However, the United States has not put forward such a proposal and Mr. Burt is now ambassador in Bonn. One can only guess at the new American policy.

    Surely the United States has a major interest in banning anti-satellite systems now because it claims that the Soviet Union is ahead. Indeed, as the Foreign Secretary said, the Soviet Union is the only country which has a working ASAT system, although I believe it is a primitive one. Moreover, nothing would be more dangerous than for each side to acquire the ability to rob the other of its eyes and ears in a crisis. Dr. Keyworth, the President’s main scientific adviser, pointed out the other day that if America develops an anti-satellite system it will enable it to test its technologies for each of the three layers of space defence. If we do not reach agreement on a ban on anti-satellite activity now it will soon become very difficult to verify because the Americans plan to carry their anti-satellite weapons on F15 aircraft. They will be difficult to detect by what the Russians call “national means”, satellite photography.

    By far the most important single contribution to a freeze would be a comprehensive test ban treaty. No one would deploy new nuclear weapons if they had never been tested in real life. It is only three years since the Prime Minister told us that negotiations for a comprehensive test ban treaty were going, alas, far too slowly and should be speeded up and completed. I hope that the Minister can assure us that the Government are now pressing for a reconvening of the conference for a CTBT because it would command overwhelming support in the rest of the world. The non-proliferation treaty review conference in Geneva the other day called upon the nuclear powers to start negotiations for a comprehensive test ban in the next six weeks—before the end of the year.

    The only excuse offered for not proceeding to the signature of a comprehensive test ban treaty is the alleged inability of science to detect very small underground tests. However, this week’s issue of Modern Geology contains a long article by the leading British seismologist, Dr. Leggett of Imperial college, in which he demonstrates that there is no chance of the Soviet Union successfully evading detection if it breaks a comprehensive test ban. That chance has been further reduced since that article was written by the fact that in the last few days India, Sweden and four other neutral countries have agreed to make their territories available for monitoring a comprehensive test ban and to man seismological stations in the Soviet Union —which in principle the Soviet Union has already agreed to accept as part of a comprehensive test ban treaty.

    Another contribution which Britain could make, especially since the United States believes that the phased array radar at Krasnoyarsk is intended to control a ballistic missile system, is to take up the Soviet offer to stop the development at Krasnoyarsk in return for stopping work to produce a phased array radar at Fylingdales and at Thule in Danish territory.

    If the American Government are worried about Krasnoyarsk, here is an opportunity to get rid of both. There is no question that if such phased array radars, whether in the Soviet Union, Britain or Greenland, were used as battle management stations for ballistic missile defence, they would be a flagrant violation of the antiballistic missile treaty. I suggest that the Foreign Secretary should immediately approach the United States and say that we insist that the United States should negotiate on the Soviet offer to stop development in Krasnoyarsk in return for stopping development at Fylingdales and Thule, and will refuse to proceed with the development until and unless such negotiations begin.

    The correspondent for The Times in Washington reported last week that diplomats and politicians are asking two questions about President Reagan. Can he cope? Does he know what he wants? The second question is unfair. He knows exactly what he wants from the star wars system, and he described his desires eloquently in his interview with the BBC. The trouble is that nobody believes that what he wants is attainable. He has been deceived by his advisers on star wars as he was deceived by those who told him that there is no word in the Russian language for freedom. That is another remark that he made in his BBC broadcast. Those who share his yearning, as I hope all of us in the House do, to base the security of the human race on something other than mutually assured destruction know that star wars is not the answer. To pursue the star wars mirage means only an accelerating arms race in both offensive and defensive nuclear weapons.

    The truth lies elsewhere. We need a freeze on all new nuclear weapons as the basis of our negotiation on the more complex but less urgent task of reducing the number of existing weapons. I agree with what I hope the Foreign Secretary implied, that that task, at least in Europe, could be achieved quite quickly, certainly if the British and French Governments would agree to let their forces be counted in the balance.

    I regret that the Prime Minister, as the Foreign Secretary told us, has refused to talk directly to the Soviet Union about British weapons, but I welcome the fact that she has agreed to let the Foreign Secretary talk to Mr. Shevardnadze about wider aspects of disarmament on a bilateral basis. I am asking the British Government to take a lead in bringing the world back to sanity, to halt and reverse the nuclear arms race and to offer us a future to which out children can look forward with hope rather than with despair.

  • Geoffrey Howe – 1985 Speech on Foreign Affairs And Overseas Development

    Below is the text of the speech made by Geoffrey Howe, the then Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 8 November 1985.

    I intend to concentrate most of my remarks today on the important issues of East-West relations and arms control, and on the contribution that a stronger Europe can make to that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) will deal with further points raised in the debate.

    Before I turn to the main subjects, I should like to bring the House up to date on three other important areas where the Government have recently been active in international affairs. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already drawn the attention of the House to the wide range of the discussion and the extent of common ground achieved at the meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government at Nassau last month. That meeting showed again the unique scope and nature of the Commonwealth. We reached wide agreement on measures to increase the security of small states and on the need to devise more effective action to counter international terrorism and to halt drug abuse. Britain played a major part in securing those significant, practical agreements. We shall now work hard to put them into practice.

    The discussions at Nassau were dominated by developments in Africa, and in particular the growing crisis in South Africa. The House has had the opportunity to debate the Commonwealth accord on South Africa. Nobody in this country or overseas who has read the reports of that debate could fail to be impressed by the broad measure of agreement—indeed, by the profound feeling on both sides of the House—on the evils of apartheid and, in the words of the Gracious Speech, on the need for “peaceful, fundamental change.”

    The Commonwealth agreed to establish a group of eminent people, who will seek to promote a dialogue between the South African Government and representatives of the black community. As the House will be aware, the British nominee for the group is my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Barber of Wentbridge. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) will recognise that Lord Barber is a man well known to the House by ​ virtue of his distinguished career in public service, including, of course, a term of office as Chancellor of the Exchequer. He belongs to the moderately exclusive club to which the right hon. Gentleman and I belong. He is equipped beyond that, by virtue of his more recent experience in working with many African countries, to make a knowledgeable and comprehensive contribution to the work of the group.

    The 60 nations of the Commonwealth and the European Community have together given a plain political signal of the need for fundamental peaceful change in South Africa. As the Commonwealth accord acknowledged, it is not for outside countries to prescribe specific constitutional changes for South Africa. It is important to acknowledge that some significant legislative and other changes have been announced there, but the whole House wants to see from the South African Government more movement, more quickly. Above all, there is a need for effective dialogue with genuine black leaders. We urge the South African Government to take the earliest possible steps in that direction. In that connection, it is a matter of considerable concern that, since the Commonwealth meeting, they have introduced further sweeping restrictions on the press. These can do nothing to promote the essential objective of rapid peaceful change, which we all seek.

    Peaceful change in South Africa is essential for the wider stability and prosperity of southern Africa as a whole. We have strongly condemned South African incursions into Angola. We equally deplore attempts to undermine security in Mozambique, and we shall continue to work for implementation of United Nations Security Council resolution 435 on Namibia and the withdrawal of foreign troops.

    The Commonwealth Heads of Government also discussed international economic issues, especially the urgent measures needed to deal with the related problems of debt, exchange rate instability and protectionism. As we reaffirmed at Nassau, the Government remain committed to a substantive aid programme. That is true both for emergency relief—where our record on famine relief to Africa and earthquake relief in Mexico has demonstrated our firm and continuing commitment—and for long-term development. We shall also continue to support the invaluable work of the voluntary agencies. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will have more to say about this subject.

    The report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on famine in Africa, published in May, was a characteristically useful contribution to the House’s consideration of this pressing and difficult topic. I take this opportunity, on behalf of the House, to pay tribute to the invaluable work of that Committee, under the distinguished chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw.)

    Another issue of great importance on which we have received heartening support from members of the Commonwealth is our commitment to the people of the Falkland Islands. As the Gracious Speech makes plain, we shall continue to honour that commitment. We shall also continue to work for more normal relations with Argentina. Since 1982 we have taken a series of initiatives designed to open the way to practical co-operation with Argentina. So far, however—although some Members ​ of the House in their contacts with the Argentines have appeared to ignore this fact—there has been almost no response.

    Nowhere is a co-operative approach more necessary than in the conservation of the south-west Atlantic fishery. The need to conserve the fishing stocks is universally accepted. It is plain common sense that conservation can best be achieved by co-operation among all those with an interest in orderly fishing in that region. That is why we have supported the initiative by the Food and Agriculture Organisation to put in place a multilateral fisheries regime. The first need is to establish the facts. To help in that, we have commissioned a study of the south-west Atlantic fishery from Dr. Beddington of Imperial college. This has now been completed and has been placed in the Library. We shall make it available to the FAO and the other fishing nations.

    Our approach to this issue is wholly practical. We want an effective multilateral regime, entirely without prejudice to our position on sovereignty. I was encouraged to see recent press reports suggesting that the Argentine Government may be thinking on the same lines. The recent victory in the elections of Senor Alfonsin’s party is a sign that democracy is being strengthened in Argentina. We welcome that, and we regard it as all the more reason for the Argentine Government to adopt our approach of looking for ways of reducing tension and co-operating together in a practical and sensible way.

    Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

    That electoral victory having been won, is it not all the more reason for the Government at least to recognise that sovereignty must be discussed—albeit very low down the list of topics—or they will get nowhere?

    Sir Geoffrey Howe

    There is no reason to change our position on that. We are approaching this practical matter without prejudice to the different positions held on sovereignty. We made clear our view on it when we attempted to establish a basis for talks in Berne more than a year ago. I have nothing to add to what we said then.

    Obviously, I cannot discuss in great depth all aspects of the middle east, but the House will recognise that the depressing cycle of violence and retaliation has underlined the urgency of a negotiated settlement of the region’s problems, and yet has at the same time made progress in that direction more difficult.

    In the Gulf, we fully support the efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General. They remain the best hope for peace there, and we urge all those involved to work with him to find an early settlement.

    The hijacking of the Achille Lauro, and the brutal murder of an innocent American passenger, reminded us of the ever-present alternative to Arab-Israel peace talks: a new wave of extremism in the region. The Prime Minister and I had hoped that my planned meeting last month with a joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation would carry forward King Hussein’s brave initiative for peace in the region. Unfortunately, and as King Hussein made clear, that meeting did not take place because of a last-minute change of mind on the part of the Palestinians. That was an opportunity missed, but we shall continue the search for ways to support the peace process. In the meantime, we look forward to the visit to Britain of Israel’s Prime Minister, Mr. Peres, early next week.

    We shall maintain our support, too, for UNIFIL—the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon. This force is a ​ contribution that the international community can make to stability in that tragic country. Our ambassador and his staff in Beirut are also working to secure the early release of the British United Nations official held hostage in Lebanon, Mr. Alec Collett. Such personal cases are among the most difficult and distressing problems that a Foreign Secretary must consider. The safe release of Britons detained in several countries, often for long periods without any or sufficient justification, is a subject of daily concern to me and my colleagues. We know the agonising uncertainty that families must endure. I know, too, that the plight of such people can often be made more difficult by public discussion, which is why I have mentioned only one name. We try to keep those Members who are directly concerned with these cases closely informed. The House will understand why, in the interests of those people, I think it best to say no more about individual cases here.

    I referred to the efforts of our ambassador in Beirut, Sir David Miers. He returns to Britain very soon after representing Britain with distinction in an especially dangerous post. He is one among many members of the Diplomatic Service who, in today’s increasingly violent world, risk their lives in the service of our country, and to whom the House will wish to pay tribute.

    I said at the outset that one of the main themes I wished to tackle today was the task of improving East-West relations. In this, as in other areas of our foreign policy, our voice has been immeasurably strengthened by our ability to speak with the joint authority of our European partners. That is why we have proposed, as the Gracious Speech makes clear, that Community co-operation in foreign policy should be strengthened, by placing political co-operation on a more lasting foundation. I am glad to report that discussions on that proposal—based mainly on the original United Kingdom text—are making good progress.

    Europe is central to Britain’s foreign policy. Unlike the Labour party, we have a clear and unequivocal position. The Community provides much of the framework for Britain’s relations, not just with most of the European democracies. but with our other allies and trading partners. If the United States stands as one pillar of the Western alliance for peace, the other pillar of the Atlantic arch stands right here in Europe.

    Today, more than ever, Britain’s influence in the world is linked to our place in Europe. That is why we have been committed, since we acceded to the Rome treaty in 1973, to its goal of

    “ever closer union among the peoples of Europe”.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister joined other European Heads of Government at Stuttgart two years ago in defining that aim as being to deepen and broaden the scope of the Community’s activities so as to cover a growing proportion of member states’ mutual relations and their external relations.

    European unity is not a question of constitutional theory; it is about practical realities. It is about improving the prospects of economic success and of success in the fight against unemployment; breaking down the barriers to trade; easing the burdens on business and exploiting our common technological strength; and working together, in internal and external policy alike, for objectives which no single member state can achieve on its own.

    The outcome of the inter-governmental conference, set up at the last Milan European Council, must be measured ​ against those yardsticks. One of the questions being discussed at the conference is whether or not to change the Treaty of Rome. The treaty is not immutable, but if we are to consider change, it must be change for a purpose.

    We shall judge any proposals which come for consideration by Heads of Government in Luxembourg in December by the extent to which they correspond to the objectives that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out in Milan. How far will they make a real difference to completion of a genuine common market? How far will they strengthen political co-operation? How far, in other words, will they make a real contribution to European unity?

    We in Britain can take particular satisfaction in the forthcoming accession to the Community of Portugal and Spain. As the Gracious Speech makes plain, the Bill providing for enlargement will be brought forward shortly. Enlargement is being accompanied by important and positive developments for Gibraltar, based on our firm commitment to respect the wishes of the Gibraltar people.

    This is the basis on which I shall pursue these and other questions when I hold a round of discussions with my Spanish colleague in Madrid next month.
    I told the House in March that the search for mutual security between East and West would be a long haul. Nothing in the past six months has altered my view, nor my belief that progress can be, and is being, made.

    The House has given welcome and broad-based support to the efforts which the Government have been making over the past two years to improve our relations with the East. Most recently, we have continued that process with the important visit to this country of the general secretary of the Hungarian Socialist Workers party, Mr. Kadar. I have had further extensive discussions with the Foreign Ministers of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Dialogue is not an end in itself, nor will it change people’s minds overnight, but it is an essential part of the steady process of building trust and understanding.
    In pursuing that approach, we shall certainly not turn a blind eye to those aspects of Soviet and East European conduct that cause widespread anxiety in the House, and, indeed, throughout the country regarding Afghanistan and human rights.

    On the many occasions when I have met Mr. Gromyko, and now Mr. Shevardnadze, I have urged them to take practical action on particular cases. The recent news that the Soviet Union intends to release for medical treatment in the West Mrs. Yelena Bonner, the wife of Dr. Andrei Sakharov, is at last a step, but only a step, in the right direction.

    There have been reports that the Soviet Union may be thinking of some liberalisation of its policy on Jewish emigration. Let us wait and see. I am sure that the whole House will join me in urging them to take that action, for which we have long pressed and which is long overdue.

    As I made clear to Mr. Shevardnadze in New York in September, we seek a constructive long-term relationship with the Soviet Union, but not at the expense of national security, nor of speaking our minds on the points where we disagree, nor of being ready to stand up for democratic values. There should be no doubt in Soviet minds of the seriousness of our purpose. Arms control is an integral part in that relationship, and the Gracious Speech reaffirms in clear terms the commitment of the Government to arms control.

    Along with all our allies, we are determined to achieve balanced and verifiable measures of arms control, covering a wide range of weapons and activities. We are pressing particularly hard, in the negotiations in Geneva, where we shall be in the Chair next year, for a total verifiable ban on chemical weapons. We also look for real progress in the CDE and MBFR negotiations at Stockholm and Vienna.

    The House will, I am sure, wish to appreciate the importance of the part the Government have been playing in helping to shape the arms control strategy of the West as a whole. We have been able to do that because of the essentially democratic nature of the North Atlantic Alliance. Between the NATO democracies, and within them, there is a give and take of views. As the arms control debate has unfolded, this Government have played a leading part in securing an agreed position within the alliance.

    The ministerial meetings of NATO, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and I attend, have been particularly important in underlining the commitment of the alliance as a whole to stable, balanced arms control, based on enhanced deterrence and scrupulous observance of treaty obligations. My right hon. Friend and I have been able to play an extremely active part in those debates.

    Mr. Denis Healey (Leeds, East)

    Will the Foreign Secretary tell us whether at last week’s NATO council meeting Mr. Weinberger revealed the proposals which President Reagan announced two days later? Were they the proposals to which the council gave its support?

    Sir Geoffrey Howe

    There was a discussion of the proposals. In that context, the NATO council gave its united support to the approach.

    Mr. Healey

    Were they the new proposals?

    Sir Geoffrey Howe

    I think I am right in saying that the proposals were discussed then. There has been a great deal of discussion since then, and two days later there followed a broadcast by President Reagan.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has also made an important contribution in her personal meetings with President Reagan and other Western Heads of Government.

    Even the right hon. Member for Leeds, East will by now have come to appreciate the importance of the four points agreed between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Reagan at Camp David last December. That meeting, with its emphasis on the need to adhere to existing treaty obligations, can now be seen to have laid the basis for what has since become the strategy of the whole North Atlantic Alliance. It was on that foundation of respect for existing obligations that the June meeting of the North Atlantic council was able to confirm to President Reagan the alliance’s view of the importance of observing the constraints of the Salt II treaty regime.

    That process of consultation within the alliance, in which my right hon. friend the Prime Minister has played such an important role, will not stop with the summit that is to take place in a couple of weeks time. She and I will meet President Reagan immediately after the summit to discuss the way ahead.

    There is another fact that needs to be recorded about the part played by Her Majesty’s Government within the Western alliance. The one certain way of diminishing our influence and of destroying the role of the British Government overnight would be the adoption of the defence and foreign policies of the Labour party.

    Britain’s voice is heard in this debate, not because we have opted out of Western defence, but because we have been pulling our weight. The alliance has remained united, from the deployment of cruise missiles in Great Britain just two years ago to this week’s welcome decision on INF deployment by the Netherlands Government, precisely because of our determination to stay together. President Reagan goes into the final stages of preparation for his meeting with Mr. Gorbachev confident that he has the free, full and united support of his NATO allies. It must be said plainly that the Government have played a full part in shaping and sustaining that support.

    A large part of the discussions to which I have been referring has been focused on President Reagan’s strategic defence initiative. Far too little attention has been paid to longstanding and comprehensive Soviet activities in the same area. As I pointed out in my speech to the Royal United Services Institute in March, that lack of balance has distorted the debate.

    Mr. Healey

    “But when they seldom come they wish’d-for come, And nothing pleaseth but rare accidents.”

    Sir Geoffrey Howe

    I am always glad to welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s support for the wisdom that I occasionally manage to utter, and he has endorsed that particular speech many times.

    I remind the right hon. Gentleman and the House of the key facts. The Soviet Union is alone in having deployed a sophisticated localised defence against ballistic missile attack, which it is now upgrading. The Soviet Union is also alone in having deployed an anti-satellite system capable of threatening important Western targets. Those activities, technically legitimate as they may be, demonstrate the hollowness of the Soviet claim that the threatened “militarisation of space” arises purely from American research.

    That is not all. For a number of years now the Soviet Union has been carrying out an extensive programme covering high energy lasers, particle beam weapons, kinetic energy weapons, and all the associated paraphernalia for rapid progress towards a major expansion of its capability against ballistic missiles. It has begun to develop a new and significant ability to transport into space the massive equipment which would be necessary for a defence system beyond the atmosphere. It is also working to improve its ability to detect and track ballistic missile targets.

    What have we heard from the Russians about such activities? Until now, we have heard virtually nothing. It is only the persistent disclosure by the West of the scale of Soviet research that has forced them belatedly to admit their own involvement in these areas. Even now, they have refused to acknowledge its true extent.

    That discussion, too, is taking place upon the basis of the Camp David four points agreed between President Reagan and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. One of those four points, of the highest importance in this context, is that the strategic defence initiative should be pursued in full conformity with existing treaty obligations.

    The importance of that has been expressly reaffirmed by the US Government. Secretary of State Shultz has confirmed, too, that their position is based upon a restrictive interpretation of the ABM treaty. President Reagan has made it clear that if success in research suggests further steps are desirable the US will be ready to consult its allies and discuss and negotiate on them with the Russians.

    Each one of those points is a vital component of the Western position to which we and other European Governments attach high importance. Discussions of the kind suggested should be devoted to reaching agreement on how existing treaties apply to new technologies developed since they were signed.

    As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in New York, it is desirable for both sides to engage in an attempt to clarify ambiguities. We hope that they can seek a firm basis of understanding, while research programmes continue over the years, on what is and what is not permissible in the way of research.
    The latest Soviet ideas relate to strategic and intermediate nuclear forces.

    They are a response to earlier US proposals. For many months we have urged the Russians to abandon their megaphone diplomacy—to stop relying on minority opinions in the West as a substitute for serious negotiations with the Americans— and to put forward their own ideas in detail. This they have now done, and it represents a tribute to the steadfastness of the alliance in pressing our case.

    I shall not go into detail on the Soviet offer. I certainly endorse the judgment of NATO Defence Ministers that it is one-sided and self-serving. The West will never accept a Soviet definition of strategic nuclear forces which attacks the very core of alliance defence policy and preserves Soviet advantages in areas vital for our security.

    I acknowledge, however, some positive elements in the proposals on which we can build, such as the proposals for significant cuts in the number of weapons systems and warheads, the prospect of independent agreement on INF, separated from the artificial linkage which the Russians have created with other aspects of the negotiations, and some recognition that UK and French forces are not an appropriate subject for bilateral negotiation between Moscow and Washington.

    Mr. Gorbachev has also made a formal offer to the British Government of direct talks on nuclear forces and arms control matters. In the Prime Minister’s reply delivered yesterday, she welcomed the prospect of a deeper dialogue. We agree that it is important for European Governments to talk to each other about the issues affecting the future of our continent. My right hon. Friend has made it clear that our position in respect of our own forces remains the same. There are essential conditions to be fulfilled if we are to review our position. We must first see radical reductions in the super-power arsenals without any significant change in Soviet defensive capability. We have made it clear that in those circumstances we should be ready to look afresh at the whole question.
    We are ready and willing in future contacts to explore with the Russians the wider aspects of arms control, including the need for increased confidence and greater stability in the East-West relationship.

    In her reply to Mr. Gorbachev’s message, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister proposed that this dialogue on the wider aspects of arms control should be pursued by the ​ Soviet Foreign Minister, Mr. Shevardnadze, and me. I hope that he will be able to take up my invitation to visit this country before too long. Meanwhile, the US-Soviet negotiations in Geneva will continue to be the right place for arms control talks on nuclear weapons.

    The United States Government have very recently put forward fresh proposals involving deep cuts in offensive weapons. These build upon their earlier approach. They respond to concepts in the Russian counter-proposals on which progress might be made, while rejecting other obviously one-sided features to which I have referred. The latest American proposals reaffirm NATO’s willingness to halt, reverse or modify its deployment, provided that reductions can be agreed on the basis of principles to which all allies subscribe. The Government have given their full support to this new United States move.

    The talks are still at the beginning of what may turn out to be an extended process of negotiation. It would be unrealistic to expect detailed agreements to emerge from the meeting between the President and Mr. Gorbachev, but if the will to seek agreement is there, that meeting could set the negotiations on a new path. It is the Government’s profound hope that they will be the first purposeful, determined steps towards balanced arms reductions. We shall continue to ensure that our objectives, and our concerns, are fully reflected in the Western position.

    When they meet in Geneva, President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev will be taking part in the first US-Soviet summit for seven years. That is the culmination of a steady process of dialogue between East and West. Britain has played an active and, at some stages, a vital role. We have been able to make this contribution because we are a loyal member of NATO, firmly committed to the defence of Britain, and playing a central political role in Europe. We are proud that we have helped to create an historic opportunity to begin again the long and testing journey towards better understanding and greater trust between the two giants of East and West.

    I am sure that the whole House will join me in wishing President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev a productive and successful first meeting.

  • Allen McKay – 1985 Speech on the Loyal Address

    Below is the text of the speech made by Allen McKay, the then Labour for Barnsley West and Penistone, in the House of Commons on 6 November 1985.

    I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), and especially his comments on Sunday opening. Although there is need to get rid of the anomalies of the present Sunday trading law, a free-for-all would hurt and insult many people and organisations. When the Prime Minister spoke today about choice, she did not take into consideration all the people who would have to work in the shops, sweep the streets run the transport facilities to take people to the shops, or the police. What choice will they have? If we were to make Sunday a normal trading day, all the facilities would have to be available on a Sunday.

    There is a limit to how much people can spend. There is only so much money to go round, whether it is spent during the week or on a Sunday. More money will be needed to service the facilities, so unit costs and the cost of living are bound to increase. We must study people’s choices before we introduce insulting legislation. I hope that when the Government introduce the legislation they will give Conservative Members the opportunity to vote according to their consciences and their constituents’ wishes.

    There is a great deal in the Queen’s Speech that I can support. The Queen’s Speech states:

    “My Government will continue to work for progress in arms control and disarmament negotiations”.

    It would have been better had the word “negotiations” been left out. It would then have referred to “arms control and disarmament”. That would have shown a more positive attitude, because negotiations can go on for ever.
    I support the proposition:
    ​
    “My Government will give full support to the Commonwealth, and play a constructive role at the United Nations.”

    In relation to famine and other disasters, it would be better if the Government put their money where their mouth is. We should increase our overseas aid to the amount of GNP that we promised years ago to the United Nations. There are many ways of providing overseas aid. I have spoken to people from overseas who said that we should not send them grain or food but should buy goods from them to create a flow of money in their area. In return, they would buy from us and pay back their debts. There is a case for rescheduling their debts so that they can provide facilities. We should buy their commodities.
    We must seriously consider wiping out some of the debts owed to the world banking system. That does not mean rescheduling the debts and lending more money, because that merely increases the interest payments that they have to make. The United Nations must seriously consider wiping out some of the debts so that those countries can start again. I was always told when I made bad mistakes that I should rub them out and start again to see what I could come up with the next time.

    I also support the protection of environmental sensitivity. We made mistakes with the Wildlife and Countryside Bill by passing it too quickly. Some of the environmental provisions need strengthening. I live in a rural area and appreciate what could be done for rural areas.

    The protection of animals used for scientific purposes is an admirable proposal. I hope that when the Bill is introduced the issue will not be fudged and that there will be no covering up of the subject of animal experiments to get it out of the way and off the Government’s back for a while. It is a matter to which Governments will have to return time and again, because there is a massive lobby outside the House. People have a conscience about what is happening now that it has been brought to their attention. The Government should take the issue on board and not fudge it.

    There is no mention of an energy policy in the Bill. Why not? It is time that we had an energy policy. It is suggested that, at the present rate of usage, oil and North sea gas will run out by about 2010. I have recently spoken to the chairman of British Gas. He recognised that by about 2010 the Gas Corporation would have to produce an alternative system for making gas from coal. It perfected the lurgi system. It is a modified form of the old German system and I believe is working and sells to some American states and Scandinavian countries. To supply the amount of gas that is consumed at present through the use of coal, 100 million tonnes will be needed, yet the NCB is suggesting that the industry will be geared to produce only 90 million tonnes. Indeed, Ian MacGregor is on record as suggesting that 71 million tonnes may be the figure to aim at.

    In a talk with us, the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board gave notice that within the next eight years he will be wanting decisions or advice from the Government as to what he should do about the replacement of the present coal-burning power stations. Those stations will need to be replaced in 12 to 15 years.

    Is the decision to be in favour of nuclear fuel? As I have already said, it will take 100 million tonnes of coal to produce the gas that is at present consumed, and the coal industry is now geared to produce only 90 million tonnes. ​ In those circumstances, where will the coal come from? Who is to supply the CEGB? If the coal is not available, it will have to be nuclear fuel. Have the Government an energy policy that they have not yet told us about? Is it their intention to go flat out for a nuclear energy policy? The Government should come clean on that issue.

    If there is to be a solid fuel programme, are we to have the fluidised bed system? If so, decisions will have to be made in the next few years. I suggest that, because of the environmental issues, we shall have to adopt the fluidised bed system. Are the Government prepared to tell the House what type of energy policy they intend to adopt after the next eight years? It is ridiculous that the NCB, the CEGB and the gas industry should not be able to come together to produce a formalised and proper energy policy.

    With regard to unemployment in my constituency, the area used to depend upon the main manufacturing industries which made Britain rich for many years—fishing and textiles and, in my area in particular, steel and coal. Those industries formed the basis of the wealth of the Yorkshire and Humberside region, which is now suffering.

    The closure programme in the mining industry has already cost Yorkshire and Humberside 18,500 jobs. In my constituency, 1,800 jobs are scheduled to go. That is in addition to the problems that we shall have as a result of the control of public expenditure, which the Prime Minister mentioned.

    We already have the abolition of the South Yorkshire county council. Barnsley, as the county town, will suffer the greatest, after the four south Yorkshire authorities. Not only has Barnsley lost 1,800 men from the mining industry; it will lose hundreds more because of the abolition of the county. The spending power that has existed in the township of Barnsley will also be lost, because the people working for the county will no longer be there. Either they will have lost their jobs or they will have been dispersed among the four other authorities. The township will be left with all the county buildings, for which it used to get rates, but those rates will no longer be available because the buildings will be empty.

    There is another problem on the horizon resulting from the miners’ strike. The NCB pays its rates not on buildings but on production. There will be no money next year from that source because there was no production. It is all very well for the Government or the Minister to say that there will be compensation; but the compensation comes a year after the event. Therefore, there will be a great dip in the amount of rates that Barnsley will receive until the next year arrives.

    The Government need to show a flexible approach to the problem so that the financial problems can be equalised over two years. It can be done, because farmers have that facility, but no one in industry has the facility of equalising tax returns over two years. What is to stop the local authorities having their financial problems equalised over two years? Controls on public expenditure will mean cuts in education, hospitals and health facilities.

    There are also problems with the restricted drug list. I was very disappointed to receive a letter from the Secretary of State for Social Services stating that the drug Mukodyne will not be put back on the restricted list. The Secretary of State says that he has a number of advisers, but they are surgeons and people from universities. Have ​ they ever worked in a mining or heavy industrial area? Have they ever encountered the problems that are caused by chest diseases arising from the mining industry? Only the drug Mukodyne can give relief. My father died of pneumoconiosis, and for many years the only drug that would ease it was Mukodyne. In some cases there is no other choice than to buy the drug, and it now costs about £10 every time. It has to be paid by people who cannot afford it.

    Housing problems in my area have been caused by Government legislation. No new houses have been built. Repairs and modernisation have been carried out to a limited extent, but it is ridiculous that there are unemployed building workers in the private sector of the building industry and that the council has £21 million in the bank, in capital receipts, which cannot be touched. We have many houses in need of modernisation and repair, we have builders who are fully capable of doing the work, and we have the money with which to do it. Unfortunately, we have not the will of the Government to allow the work to be done.

    I am not against council house sales. I like people to buy houses that they can afford to buy, but there are times when people should not be able to do it. When people come to me and ask what they should do about buying a council house, I may say, “I will tell you why you should not,” or I may say, “You will be a fool if you do not buy.”

    The problem has arisen because of the sale of the middle band of the best of the housing stock—the prewar council houses that were solidly built and modernised later. It is those that have gone from the housing stock. They were the seedcorn of the housing investment programme. They would have been paid for in the next five or six years, and all that revenue would have gone into the housing revenue account to provide the means of building and maintaining the next generation of houses. Selling them at a discount has cost the authority £21 million. Taking the £21 million lost on council house sales and adding to that the £21 million in the bank that cannot be touched, a total of £42 million would have been available to continue the local housing programme.

    The authority has a special problem resulting from Government legislation. The National Coal Board owns vast housing estates which it would like to sell. They are in various states of repair, and the council or local authority is obliged to buy them. However, it has not sufficient funds to buy them, and even if it could buy them it could not repair them. That should be investigated.
    Abolition will also affect the cheap bus fare system around which the area has been structured. If hon. Members consider what is happening in the area, they will understand why I am asking for special assistance through the rate support grant. The sports centres were built where they are because one could reach them by bus and because the bus fare was relatively cheap.

    Because of cheap bus fares people went to town to shop, and local shops closed. Suddenly that will be reversed. People will have to pay higher bus fares, and although it will not be impossible to get into town, they will have less to spend because they will spend more on bus fares. Moreover, the sports centres which belong to the local authority will not pay their way because people will not be able to afford the bus fare to them and the entrance fee. That problem must be considered carefully and speedily.

    My local authority was led to believe that it would receive about £91 million in GREA, but it received only ​ £88 million. Nobody can tell the authority how much of that relates to the abolition of the county council, because the Secretary of State for the Environment has decided to use a new target system. While authorities could aim at a target and be penalised for spending above it, they are now penalised from the start. Therefore, as soon as the authority spends above the £88 million, although it is under target, it will be penalised. That could cause rate increases. Therefore, there will be increases in rates, rents, and bus fares, and no income from the NCB and other industries.

    Another omission from the Queen’s Speech relates to problems regarding the DHSS. We will fight a bonny battle for many weeks when the Fowler report appears as a Bill, and is debated in the House and in Committee. If anything in the Queen’s Speech is distasteful, it is the decision to interfere with—not reform—welfare benefits. Housing benefits, which are paid to thousands of people, will no longer be paid, and thousands will have it reduced. Family income supplement will be altered, and family benefit, which is now paid to the wife, will be paid to the husband. We shall examine that Bill closely and fight it tooth and nail because it is so distasteful.

    There is yet another omission from the Queen’s Speech which I shall again try to introduce in my own way—concessionary television licences for old-age pensioners. It is time that provision for that appeared in a Queen’s Speech. It is unfair that some old-age pensioners get a coloured television licence for 5p while the majority must pay the full licence fee. Old-age people’s organisations are willing to have the subsidy equalised, and that should be considered. I hope that that will he included in the next Queen’s Speech, if the Government have not gone to the country by then. I give my colleagues notice that when they come to power that should be part of the legislative programme in their first Queen’s Speech.

  • Tom Cox – 1985 Speech on the Loyal Address

    Below is the text of the speech made by Tom Cox, the then Labour MP for Tooting, in the House of Commons on 6 November 1985.

    It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Clywd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer). Many hon. Members have a great respect for him. It is sad that his relevant comments are not heard more often from Ministers. I hope that his comments will be noted by Ministers.

    I welcome one reference in the Gracious Speech. I refer to the Government’s pledge to support United Nations’ efforts to secure a settlement in Cyprus. Britain is one of the guarantor powers for Cyprus. Since the brutal invasion 11 years ago, many hon. Members have genuinely tried to bring the two sides together. Many of us deeply regret the lack of any meaningful progress over the years.

    Talks went on for many years and we hoped that they would result in a meaningful and acceptable settlement, but they came to nothing. As much as I and many others want a settlement, no progress will be made until we see evidence that Mr. Denktash, the leader of the Turkish Cypriot community, is prepared to discuss with Greek Cypriot leaders proposals for an acceptable agreement and an acceptance that more difficult issues will be fully discussed.

    There must be two major areas of understanding. I am sure that Mr. Denktash is in no doubt about them, but I ​ wonder whether the Government fully understand them. They should try to do so. First, until there is a complete removal of Turkish troops from northern Cyprus, there will be little willingness by the Greek Cypriot leaders and their communities to hold discussions with Mr. Denktash. It is hard to establish how many Turkish troops are in northern Cyprus, but we know that they run into many thousands. Many people are amazed that they are still there. Until they are removed—even if it is a phased removal—there will be problems in achieving any agreement.

    The second area, which is closely allied with the first, relates to those in Cyprus who were forced out of their homes and their lands 11 years ago, and who have never been allowed to return. Until the displaced can return in complete safety, there cannot be agreement. I know that Mr. Denktash is not unaware of that, as it has been put to him many times.

    Until those two basic issues are resolved, there will be a long struggle to try to reach a settlement. I know that some Conservative Members are as committed as I am to seeking a settlement in Cyprus, under which both Greek and Turkish Cypriots can live and work together. Anything that the Government can do to speed up such a settlement will be welcomed.

    On a different topic, as I represent an inner London borough I feel that the omission from the Gracious Speech of any reference to the problems of the inner cities is a disgrace. Many hon. Members, to their credit, have referred to these problems, and having known those hon. Members for many years, I readily accept their genuine commitment to solving them. However, I regret that we do not have a similar understanding from the Government.

    In recent weeks there have disorders in our inner cities. Had the Prime Minister and the Government been concerned about the problems and committed to helping to alleviate them, they would have included a reference in the Gracious Speech. Various hon. Members could speak for Liverpool, Birmingham and Manchester; I speak for a London borough. We could all refer to the main problems—mass unemployment, housing in urgent need of repair, the rundown of our hospital services and the lack of facilities for people of all ages. My constituents repeatedly say, “We do not want handouts. We want genuine help so that we can begin to rebuild our communities.”

    I listened to the many debates on the abolition of the Greater London council during our last Session. The GLC was subjected to great criticism of how it spent its money. Yet it was only GLC involvement in many projects in London that led to hope for the many people who are out of work, yet want work—the elderly, the disabled and the one-parent families. Those are the people living in inner city areas who have problems and must be helped to exist week by week with them. Often it is left solely to the GLC to finance the urgently needed projects.

    We often hear of the divide between the north and the south, yet there is also a divide within the south. There are areas in Wandsworth whose residents have no idea of the problems in Balham and Tooting, the area that I represent. Those people may live in Putney, and never go to Balham. They have no idea of the needs of the area.

    The Gracious Speech says:

    “Measures will be introduced to strengthen the powers of the police in combating disorder”.

    We must assume that that refers to the unrest in our inner cities in recent weeks. I and other hon. Members representing such areas try to play a constructive part in helping to alleviate problems. When we meet youngsters, whether black or white, do we now say, “You start watching it, because the Government will give the police extra powers to combat problems that you might create?” Their instant response will be, “You go back and tell the Prime Minister that if she is going to spend money, not to spend it on the police force or on trying to frighten us, but on something that will give us hope in our communities.” That is what we really need.

    In all our multiracial communities, whether white, black or Asian, the theme is always the same: “This is our home. This is where our youngsters were born. We are as British as anyone living in the community.” Sometimes hon. Members say that certain people want to create disorder. I tell them that they do not want to create disorder in my community; they want to live together and to work with the police. What they really want is respect and help with their problems. Until that happens, the Prime Minister may threaten the communities, but it will have no effect.

    If only the Government showed such a commitment, we could begin to alleviate the problems. I wish that Ministers would not pay fleeting five or 10-minute visits and say, “How terrible. We must try to help you.” They should go into the areas and try to understand the people’s feelings and aspirations. If they did that, not only would the change of attitude that we all want occur quickly, but there would be a rebuilding of the confidence that is needed in the inner cities.

    We must in the coming months have a response from the Government on issues such as these. They can spend as much as they like on the police, but as sure as night follows day—I take no pleasure in saying this, but it is a fact of life—if they continue to neglect the problems of the people of the inner city areas, as those people believe they have been neglected, we shall see further problems, and no hon. Member in any part of the House wants to see further problems.

    The initiative now rests with the Government. I beg them to listen to what decent and honourable people who live in the inner cities are saying. They are pleading, “Help us and we will respond and show the pride that deep down we have in our homes and the communities in which we live.” That is the real test for the Government.

  • Anthony Meyer – 1985 Speech on the Loyal Address

    Below is the text of the speech made by Anthony Meyer, the then Conservative MP for Clwyd North West, in the House of Commons on 6 November 1985.

    I welcome many parts of the Gracious Speech, and I join the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) in welcoming particularly the proposals to limit severely the use of animals for medical experiments and the Government’s determination to find a way of depriving drug traffickers of their ill-gotten gains, although I have a nasty feeling that that will prove to be a lot more difficult than seems likely at first sight.

    I also welcome the Government’s intention to seek to normalise our relations with democratic Argentina and what they say about the European Community. However, I warn them that if, as they say and as I hope, we are seeking to achieve a true unified internal market, we shall have to be prepared to dismantle the non-tariff obstacles to trade that we expect the rest of the Community to abolish urgently.

    The Gracious Speech mentions the reform of the social security system and the planning system and the ending of restrictions on Sunday trading. In those matters, the Government are broadly right in their aim, but sadly astray in their timing. Such reforms should be brought in at the beginning of a Parliament and not towards the end of one.

    The purpose of my speech is to express concern about some of the Government’s deeper purposes. That concern goes far deeper than mere electoral anxiety, because I am fairly certain that the Conservatives will win the next election. My concern is about what sort of country we shall be trying to govern after that. That concern is shared by a number of my hon. Friends and was eloquently expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon).

    The three great achievements of the Government since 1979—the curbing of inflation, the restoration of respect, if not affection, for Britain overseas, and the humbling of the intolerable pretensions of trade union godfathers such as Mr. Scargill—are beyond price and would not have been won by a Government of any other party, self-evidently not by a Labour Government and not by an alliance Government, who would have been obliged to compromise on issues where it was essential to have a clear-cut result.

    Furthermore, I am certain that the Government desperately want to bring down unemployment—and not merely for electoral purposes.

    I am certain that the Government intend to preserve and improve social services and to safeguard the environment. What is more, when Ministers say that the best way to cut unemployment and to finance better social services is to ​ create more national wealth, and that the best way to create more national wealth is to cut all forms of taxation, especially personal taxation, they are totally sincere. They might also be right, although the evidence to support them is slow to appear.

    The Government mix of higher incentives for the successful and less featherbedding for the unsuccessful might be the shortest route to a better future for all, but it is also the bumpiest. Unless we arrive at some recognisable destination much sooner than seems likely, the strains imposed upon the car of state may cause it to fly apart.

    In other words, like a number of my hon. Friends, I am becoming worried about national unity. The Prime Minister does not like the word “consensus”. She is right to dislike the consensus of acquiescence in inexorable national decline. But in chucking out the soapy bath water of that consensus she might be chucking out a very delicate baby.

    British society has been admired for its highly developed sense of solidarity or, at the least, for a respect and tolerance between different classes, regions and races. We do not, outside Northern Ireland, hate one another for our beliefs, as do the French, or despise one another because we are northerners or southerners, as do the Italians. We do not, thank God, despite the malign efforts of the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), seek scapegoats among the minorities in our midst for our own failings, as the Germans once so dreadfully did.

    Southern Britain, with its labour shortages, is properly worried that people in northern Britain, in Wales and in Scotland who want to work cannot find jobs. Those of us who live in safe, white, middle class areas are worried about what is happening in our big cities. We want to do something about it, even if it will cost us money. Most of those who have done very well, thank you, under this Government still want to maintain public health, public education and public pension provision even if it costs them more in rates and taxes than they get out of those services.

    Many of us would like Britain to make a much more generous response not just to short-term crises of starvation in Africa, but to long-term projects for putting the developing countries on the path to sustainable growth.

    I must say frankly that some of the Government’s policies as they seem to emerge from the sparse language of the Queen’s Speech, could only too easily damage the sense of national solidarity. Of course we all want tax cuts if that means that people with barely enough to live on will no longer have to pay tax or that people on low wages or training allowances will no longer be worse off than they would be on social security. Across-the-board tax cuts could widen still further the gap between those who have much more money than they can want and those who are in real need—unless of course tax concessions at the bottom of the scale are paid for by higher taxes at the top. However, that does not seem to be how the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s mind is working.

    I am not entirely happy about the Government’s approach to the all-important unemployment issue. I welcome Lord Young’s appointment, and still more do I welcome the wide powers that he has been given. However, I am none too happy about all the talk about the number of new jobs being created. I do not mind that many ​ of them are part-time jobs because I am sure that that is the work pattern for the future. How are the part-time jobs being shared? Many seem to be going to married women whose husbands are already at work, and some of them seem to be going to people who already have a job. The impact of such new jobs on the total unemployed is worryingly small.

    It is not helpful to say that many people, especially the young unemployed, do not want a job. That is untrue, at least in Wales and in the north. Young people finishing the admirable youth training scheme and middle-aged workers thrown on the scrap heap of redundancy are desperately, pathetically anxious to find work. Even if in such places as London it were partly true, that does not diminish the danger to our social fabric represented by so many thousands of unemployed, particularly young unemployed, and more particularly young black unemployed in our big cities.

    That brings me to the last and deepest of my anxieties. Voices are beginning to be raised from Right-wing press commentators urging the Government to exploit the law and order issue to its utmost. I am sure that the new Home Secretary, who is widely admired on both sides of the House, will have no truck with any attempt to extract party political advantage from the natural worry that people experience at the spectacle of the police facing armed riot in our big cities or mobs of stone-throwing pickets. This is material far too explosive and volatile to be safely used for party political purposes.

    Of course this Government—any Government—must give unwavering support to the police. Of course no Government can condone crime or permit no-go areas. The reaction of some local community leaders who appear to condone violence, even murder, is intolerable. But I warn the Government that, if we are seen to be trying to make party political capital out of the issue and to make it the “Falklands factor” of the next election, it will blow up in our faces. Even if that helped us to win—I do not believe that it would—we would be left with a country which was ungovernable.

  • Donald Coleman – 1985 Speech on the Loyal Address

    Below is the text of the speech made by Donald Coleman, the then Labour MP for Neath, in the House of Commons on 6 November 1985.

    I cannot claim to be able to comment on what was said by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) about Scottish education. However, I agree with him that this damaging dispute must be settled soon in the interests of children’s education. The way to settle it is by proper and meaningful negotiations. The Secretary of State should understand this and allow the negotiations to proceed unfettered.

    The Gracious Speech says:

    “A Bill will be introduced to remove statutory restrictions on shop opening hours.”

    A number of hon. Members have alluded to this subject. From a sedentary position, my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said that it would be ​ a charter for heathens. I cannot entirely agree with him. Why blame the heathens? They do not know any better. This is a charter for the greedy.

    A recent HTV television programme dealt with the future of trading and referred to the establishment of hypermarkets on the periphery of our towns. The forthcoming legislation will facilitate that kind of trading. It will not cover the shop on the street corner. If this measure becomes law, the multiple store, not the small shop, will benefit, so that this will be a charter for the greedy.

    I am glad that a Minister from the Welsh Office is sitting on the Government Front Bench. He knows as well as I do that countless people in Wales, England and Scotland want Sunday to be preserved as a time for refreshment. They want to have time to be with their families and to enjoy family life—the kind of thing which, apparently, appeals to the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister. I suggest to Conservative Members, many of whom have alluded to this subject in their speeches, that they should make it clear to the Government that they have no intention of allowing the Government to destroy something which is part and parcel of the heritage of this country.

    The leader of the Liberal party reminded us of what was said at the Tory party conference about the presentation of policy. If the Gracious Speech is an example of that presentation, I am not impressed by the presentation or by what is presented. The Government’s programme will do little to deal with the problem of unemployment which afflicts so many of our people so sorely.

    How can the Government say that privatisation of the assets of the British Gas Corporation will advance employment prospects? How can they say that introducing commercial management into the naval dockyards will produce better employment results? The Prime Minister says that we should buy British, but she does not seem to be worried about flogging off what is Britain’s. We have seen that when other national assets have been sold, and we cannot say that the service from those industries has been improved.

    Not everything in the Gracious Speech is objectionable. I welcome wholeheartedly the fact that we are to have legislation to protect animals being used for experimental or other scientific purposes. That will meet a wish in many quarters. I am also glad that we shall have legislation to deal with the vile creatures who traffic in drugs. Their behaviour has been the means of the destruction of much of the flower of our nation. We can gladly give our assent to those measures.

    The Government will obviously make great play of law and order. We have been told that that is the battleground on which the Prime Minister will pitch her next election campaign. No Opposition Member denies that there must be a determined effort to preserve law and order. If there is no law and order, there will be no future for any of us.

    However, the Government must not think that the police are an instrument for resolving problems that have been created by the neglect of our social conditions. An increase in the number of police is no substitute for better housing, for finding employment, for ensuring that our people get the best possible education or for a proper social security system.

    The Gracious Speech says that a Bill will be introduced to reform the social security system. It would be far better if the Government told us that they were setting up an ​ independent inquiry into our social provision, as happened when William Beveridge carried out his momentous inquiry which resulted in our present social security system. In the 40 years since then, changes have occurred in our society and in the nature of that society. A full independent investigation of what is required would be much more profitable than legislation which may be ill founded because it is based on a prejudiced view.

    One of my hon. Friends concluded his speech by saying that, unless the Government take notice of what people outside are telling us, we shall become irrelevant. If that happens, it will be a sad and sorry day. This nation will disappear. The Government must take notice of what is being said in the House and of what people outside are asking us to tell the Government.

  • Bill Benyon – 1985 Speech on the Loyal Address

    Below is the text of the speech made by Bill Benyon, the then Conservative MP for Milton Keynes, on 6 November 1985.

    I am sorry that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) found so little to enjoy in the opening ceremony, with its pageantry and historical significance. He conjures up a terrible picture of stomping up the Corridor, glaring at Her Majesty, and coming back again. However, most people will find quite a lot in the Queen’s Speech.

    I do not think that anybody can take exception to what is said in the Queen’s Speech about Northern Ireland, that the Government ​

    “will seek widely acceptable arrangements for the devolution of power. They will seek to improve further their co-operation with the Government of the Irish Republic.”

    I do not know whether an arrangement with the Irish Republic will be possible and, even if it is, I do not know what will be in it, but we are right to try. When I listened to the speeches by two Northern Ireland Members, which were moderate and sensible, I wished sometimes that people who represent Northern Ireland would accept that the poor old British Government are not trying to trample anybody underfoot, except the terrorists. We are trying to find a solution to a very difficult problem, and the Government should be given every support for trying to reach an agreement with a sovereign power, without which we do not stand a chance of solving the problem.

    I warmly welcome the measures to strengthen the powers of the police, which are greatly needed. I shall refer to that later.

    I should like to refer to the removal of statutory restrictions on shop opening hours. My position on shop opening hours is well known. I have taken an unequivocal stance about the proposed measures. My only plea to the Government is that we should get together on this and that if there is whipping on the main question, there should at least be some means to amend the Bill in Committee, which I hope will be on the Floor of the House.

    I wish to concentrate on the statement in the Gracious Speech that the Government will take measures to facilitate

    “further reductions in the burden of income tax.”

    Consideration of the Gracious Speech allows us to look ahead to the parliamentary year and to consider what should be done in the programme for that period. By far the most crucial event will be the Budget next spring. The Queen’s Speech obviously makes no reference to what we may expect from the Budget other than the words that I have quoted, but now is the time for hon. Members to make their views known—at the start of the new Session. It is no good waiting until all the deliberations have taken place and this major event stares us in the face next spring.

    My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made it clear that his purpose is to make cuts in the rates of direct taxation, which he sees as a further stimulus to the economy, with consequent effects on unemployment. The Government have had considerable success with the economy. We have heard about some of these already today—the reduction in inflation, the new realism between employer and employee, the improvement in the performance of nationalised industries and more recently, as was revealed so rightly and cogently by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the upturn in economic activity generally.

    For me, the key is to build on those successes in a constructive way. If any surplus available next spring is used to reduce direct taxation across the board and the pound remains high, a great deal of the extra spending will go on imports. In view of our strong balance of payments at present this might be acceptable if the incentive effect was strong, but I do not believe that it is. I do not believe that people work harder or start businesses just because two or three pence are taken off income tax. The exception to this is the lower paid. If the reliefs were concentrated there, well and good. To be truly an incentive the reliefs must be dramatic, but to be dramatic they must necessarily ​ be expensive. That is the problem. We cannot do that without a much higher surplus than we are likely to have next spring.

    We are a mixed economy, like every other Western country, all of which have varying degrees of Government intervention. The greatest measure of Government intervention occurs in the United States of America, and people tend to forget that. Government intervention in this country varies from sector to session, but overall it is very strong, although Socialists would like it to be much stronger. I see it as essentially a pump-priming operation, initiating improvements and fading out when the private sector can take over.

    I do not conceal the fact that I am enormously influenced by the success of Milton Keynes, my own constituency, where the state has provided a framework for a burgeoning development of commerce and industry—an example which has been followed in the urban development corporations.

    That example should also be followed in the depressed parts of the inner cities. No one has been a stronger supporter of local government independence than I have, but I accept that people such as Mr. Grant have driven business and commerce away from those areas. If we really want to revitalise those areas and encourage employment, it must be done by an agency which knows what it is about and has the commercial expertise to do it.

    I want the Government to achieve the triple goal of social progress, reduction of unemployment and revitalisation of British industry. Hon. Members have already mentioned the very cogent report that was produced by the Lords. That report should not be swept under the carpet. It bears a great deal of reading because it was written by people with experience on the ground in British industry, and that is extremely important.

    People today are very aware that so much in our country is second rate. They want to see better housing, because they know how much of our housing is bad. They want better education and better health care, although we have already done a great deal in that area. They want clean streets, clean air and clean water. They want an efficient transport system of which we can be proud. Many more people, too, want a stronger effort to be made to help the Third world. That pressing need has already been stressed in the debate and we must take note of it.

    When the Government took office in 1979. it was accepted on all sides that the rates of taxation were far too high and that it was quite right to bring them down. The position is different now. Faced with the choice of even lower taxes or improved services and infrastructure, I believe that most people would choose the latter. It is generally accepted that a great deal needs to be done and must be done. It must be done efficiently, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) said, it will be far more difficult and expensive to do if we wait. If the additional expenditure is administered wisely, the money will be spent in this country, not on imports. There will be a direct effect on employment, and the additional advantage that carefully controlled inflation of this kind can be met by the existing resources of British industry.

    Nothing can excuse the recent violence in Birmingham and London, and the first absolute priority is that the law must be upheld. Nevertheless, something must be done about the environment in those very bad areas, and that means spending money. If we do not tackle those and ​ similar tasks, the situation will become far worse. The inequalities between those who have jobs and those who do not, and between one part of the country and another, will become worse and the ideal of one nation, which has inspired moderate politicians for more than a century, although many have expressed it in different words, will recede further into the future.

    We have so much to do. If people want these things to happen, they must will the means. That is the message for this Session, and now is the time to make it clear, as Ministers decide what will be in the Budget next spring. My message is simple—do not cut taxes, build a better Britain.

  • Dennis Canavan – 1985 Speech on the Loyal Address

    Below is the text of the speech made by Dennis Canavan, the then Labour MP for Falkirk West, in the House of Commons on 6 November 1985.

    I do not usually go to the House of Lords to listen to the Queen’s Speech because I do not like being summoned by a messenger from an undemocratic institution such as the House of Lords, and because recently the contents of the Queen’s ​ Speech have been predictable. However, this morning I made an exception and went to the other place to keep a check on what was going on. It never ceases to amaze me, and I wonder whether we are living in the same world. The complacent attitude of the majority of Members of both Houses seems to show a lack of communication between the people in Parliament and the real people with real problems in the real world outside the Palace of Westminster.

    That attitude of complacency and being out of touch is reflected in the Queen’s Speech. This is the seventh Queen’s Speech since the Government took office, and each one has outstripped its predecessor as a recipe for unprecedented conflict, record unemployment and deepening divisions in society.

    Despite the cooked statistics and downright lies, at least 4 million people in this country are unemployed. More than 40 per cent. of them have been out of work for more than a year. Every hon. Member who is anxious to speak the truth on behalf of his or her constituents can describe the devastating effect that that is having in almost every constituency. The Falkirk travel-to-work area, for example, has an unemployment rate of 18 per cent. and contains places such as Denny, where unemployment is more than 30 per cent. That was even before the crisis over the proposed closure of the Cruickshanks iron foundry.

    In such circumstances it would make sense for the Government to consider upgrading the development area status of the Falkirk district, and to use public investment to stimulate the construction industry, for example, and to attract new industries, such as a coal liquefaction plant. Instead, the Government downgrade the development area status, introduce a Transport Bill which presents a serious threat to the local coachbuilding industry, and impose on the local authorities massive cuts in necessary expenditure, such as that on housing construction and modernisation programmes. The Government seem hell-bent on a doctrinaire worship of free market forces, and on a privatisation programme to sell some of the nation’s most valuable assets. Since the Government took office they have privatised oil, gas, aerospace, shipbuilding, forestry, transport and telecommunications. In the Queen’s Speech, even the management of the royal dockyards is up for privatisation.

    I almost felt sorry for the Queen who had to read:

    “My Government will bring forward legislation to introduce commercial management to my naval dockyards.”

    Where will it all end? If this goes on, the Government will soon be selling off the British Army to Securicor, and will force the Queen to read out a speech which states. “My Government will be introducing legislation to sell my Crown jewels.” The Government have already sold many of the Crown jewels of British industry, and now they are threatening the very existence of others.
    Other Scottish hon. Members have mentioned the steel industry, particularly Gartcosh. If it is closed, the effects of the closure will not only be felt in Lanarkshire and the immediate area, but there will be a crashing domino effect throughout the Scottish economy. It will affect job prospects for my constituents who may be employed, for example, at the port in Grangemouth, which handles more than 80,000 tonnes of finished steel a year. It is little wonder, therefore, that even some Scottish Tory Members are beginning to criticise the Government and British Steel’s proposals, despite a circular from one of the “high heid yins” in the Scottish Tory party who told them to shut ​ up. I hope that they will not shut up but will speak up and, more important, that when we vote on the future of Gartcosh, they will put their country before their party.

    The internal tensions and divisions within the Scottish Tory party are the result of the Government breaking the consensus approach to politics of previous Tory leaders such as Harold Macmillan. It was based on a consensus for regional development, relatively full employment, improving the National Health Service, and a welfare state. That consensus has now been broken. We have for example, the Fowler proposals which will increase the gap between rich and poor, and which, combined with the continuing mass unemployment resulting from the Government’s economic policies, will increase the possibility of social conflict.

    It is sad that some Government Members and their supporters seem to relish the possibility of conflict. They certainly used the conflict in the south Atlantic to help them win the 1983 general election, and I suspect that some of them, including some Ministers, would like to use conflict on our streets to win the next general election.

    Instead of offering constructive proposals to deal with deprivation in our inner cities and elsewhere, and instead of offering constructive proposals to improve job, education and housing opportunities, the Government are responding with more police powers, more truncheons, more riot shields and possibly more tear gas and plastic bullets.

    I understand that the deputy chairman of the Tory party is a master of fiction, and by heavens the Tories will need one, and he seems to be the Goebbels of the Tory party. Mr. Archer is on record as telling young unemployed people to get off their backsides and look for work. That is the Tory party contribution to International Youth Year. I understand that Jeffrey Archer has since been told to apologise—no wonder, when one looks at the lack of job opportunities for young people.

    In my area, Central region, the number of job vacancies for unemployed youngsters under the age of 18 is as follows: in Falkirk, seven; Stirling, four; Denny, no vacancies; Grangemouth, no vacancies; Bo’ness, no vacancies; and Alloa, no vacancies. That makes a total of 11 job vacancies in the whole of Central region, where more than 2,000 young people under the age of 18 are unemployed and more than 2,000 on youth training schemes face the possibility of not having a job at the end of their training. It is Jeffrey Archer who should get off his backside and go to places such as Denny, Falkirk and Bonnybridge and talk to some of the young unemployed people who have been deprived of work because of his party’s doctrinaire policies.

    It is not just the lack of employment opportunities but the lack of educational opportunities that is affecting young people. The Government must face up to their responsibilities in this matter, too. During the summer recess I went to several schools in my constituency and saw at first hand what can only be described as a grave crisis in Scottish education. The crisis has been precipitated by the Government’s intransigence in refusing to meet the teachers’ reasonable demands for an independent pay review. The dispute has been dragging on in Scotland for well over a year. Tomorrow there will be a lobby of Parliament by the Scottish teachers and their ​ colleagues south of the border. I hope that the result of that lobby will be that the Government will offer a more constructive response.

    So far, the Government have used their usual tactics. They have tried to divide and rule. They have tried to divide the head teachers from the teachers, and the parents from the teachers. So far, their tactics have failed. In my experience, the vast majority of parents, although seriously worried about the effect of the strike on their children’s education, are very supportive of the teachers in their demand for an independent pay review. Most parents were incensed, just as most teachers were incensed, when just a few months ago the Government handed out increases of 17 per cent. or more to the top brass such as admirals, judges and generals, none of whom does a day’s work as valuable as that of a teacher.

    Most of the people of Scotland support the Scottish teachers. I remind the Government that the vast majority of Scottish people rejected the Government at the general election. Therefore, the Government cannot argue that they received a mandate from the people of Scotland to destroy the Scottish education system. Similarly, the Government received no mandate to destroy the Scottish steel industry; they received no mandate to destroy the welfare state; and they received no mandate to destroy what vestige of local democracy is still left in Scotland.

    The sad fact is that Scotland is being ruled by a Secretary of State for Scotland who is increasingly out of touch with the people’s real needs and aspirations. He is being increasingly rejected and discredited. He has his head in the sand. Not long ago he said that there was no demand by the people for a Scottish assembly, yet opinion poll after opinion poll shows not just that the Scottish Tory party is being reduced to an almost irrelevant rump, but a growing demand for meaningful devolution of power to the people by the setting up of a Scottish assembly. The Secretary of State may say that there is no demand for a Scottish assembly, but I tell him that there is no demand for him, the Prime Minister or the policies that they are trying to foist on the people of Scotland.

    If the Government and Parliament continue to respond stubbornly to the legitimate demands of the people outside this place, this Parliament will fall increasingly into disrepute. Many of those who pretend to uphold parliamentary democracy and traditions, and all the related institutions, will be responsible for decreasing respect for Parliament among a growing number of people, who will see through the facade, despite all the pomp and ceremony of the State opening, the horses and carriages, Black Rod, the tiaras, coronets and the ermine robes, and a Queen’s Speech that will do virtually nothing to help the vast majority of real people in the real world outside the Palace of Westminster.

  • Geoff Lofthouse – 1985 Speech on the Loyal Address

    Below is the text of the speech made by Geoff Lofthouse, the then Labour MP for Pontefract and Castleton, in the House of Commons on 6 November 1985.

    It is a pleasure to speak following the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), particularly as I share some of the views that he expressed. Certainly I share the view of the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn), who is not at present in his place, that two major problems facing the nation are unemployment and crime.

    The Gracious Speech says that the

    “Government will do all in their power to encourage the growth of new jobs.”

    I hope that those are not just words, and that the Government proposal is not designed to relate only to the southern half of the country. As hon. Members are aware, I am familiar with west Yorkshire, which has always been coal mining dominated. Indeed, that industry has in the past created a significant proportion of the economy of west Yorkshire. Two decades ago there were 40,000 miners in west Yorkshire. By 1984, there were fewer than 20,000.
    As the rundown of the coal industry took place over those years most of the people were able to be transferred into jobs in other sectors, but the position has changed greatly of late. Now, in west Yorkshire alone, 5,000 jobs have been lost since the end of the miners’ strike and it is expected that, with the introduction of new technolgy, the present number of mining jobs in west Yorkshire will be reduced by 74 per cent.

    The problem is not confined to west Yorkshire generally, but is spread among black spots in the mining communities. For example, the Castleford travel-to-work area is at present showing an unemployment rate of 14·2 per cent., but, as I shall show, that figure is a fiddle. There are 8,247 people unemployed in the Castleford travel-to-work area, with only 291 vacancies being shown. The unemployment total, however, is incorrect, because miners who have been redundant for more than 12 months are not shown on the unemployment register.

    Those men are nevertheless unemployed. I concede that they are protected by redundancy payments, but it is not satisfactory to tell a man aged, say, 50, “We do not expect you to be employed again, so you will not be able to sign for the dole between the ages of 50 and 65.” Although it is perhaps incorrect to say that they cannot register, they feel that there is no point—as they are receiving redundancy payments—after 12 months in continuing to register, because there will be no possibility of a job for them.

    The situation in Castleford is fogged by the Government’s policy of creating boundaries of travel-to-work areas in such a way as to provide either grant entitlement or no entitlement under the intermediate area status. Although I do not have the figures broken down for Castleford—because they are not available—it is clear that in that area alone there are black spots with unemployment reaching 20 to 22 per cent. However, 42 per cent. of those people are under 24 years old. Despite that, not one youth under 18 is on any of the collieries’ books and, apart from the odd apprentice here or there, no youths under 18 have been employed by collieries in my constituency since 1983.

    As a result of pits closing, partially closing or being threatened with closure, the local economy has lost £43·5 million a year in wages. Such a loss to a small community such as Castleford has had enormous repercussions. Collieries such as Ackton Hall—that was not on the hit list before the strike—Savile, Ledston, Glasshoughton and Fryston are, I understand, due to be hit shortly.
    In addition, there have been other job losses in the last three years, including in the glass and container industries and confectionery. They have mounted up to represent a loss in wages to the local economy of £87 million. Reduce that by £24 million paid in unemployment benefit, and Castleford has suffered a total loss of £63 million in wages.

    The local chamber of trade said during the miners’ strike that if the strike continued the area would have lost 25 per cent. of its businesses. We are now reaching a point in Castleford’s economy that is similar to that which existed when the strike was at its height, for the pits that were then on strike are now to be wiped out. This state of affairs cannot go on.

    To my amazement, only last week the Pontefract health authority, carrying out Government policy, decided to privatise its domestic services. That will create 307 job losses among women domestics. To be fair, I blame not only the Government for that, because while that authority has been carrying out the Government’s policy, it had no need to take the action in such great haste. Indeed, I do not excuse some colleague of my political persuasion on that authority for the action that has been taken. It is scandalous that in such an area we should decide to cut 307 jobs, mainly among ladies who are earning a pittance of £1·81 an hour for a 20-hour week. I deplore the action of the Pontefract area health authority.

    I urge the Government to support a comprehensive package of measures for areas such as mine. They should include a long-term strategy for coal, and a decision to maintain the coal industry’s share of electricity generation rather than to increase the costly bias towards nuclear power. The Government should support the CEGB to ensure that jobs are available in the coalfields. The Government, Mr. MacGregor and the coal board may feel at present:

    “To the victor belong the spoils.”

    I believe that the pits are being run down too rapidly, causing great misery and upset in mining areas.

    That is not causing misery at present for the men who have taken redundancy, because they are cushioned. It is causing misery to the young people who would normally have gone into the pit, but who now have no hope of doing so. The programme should be slowed down until alternative employment can be found for those youngsters.

    Law and order has been mentioned. I have a report from the chairman-elect of the West Yorkshire police authority ​ joint board. It states that there will be a reduction of £6·3 million in the amount of money allowed under the Home Office formula for standard requirements. That will mean a reduction in the West Yorkshire police force, which controls the big cities of Bradford and Leeds, of 430 police officers, 100 civilian staff and 15 per cent. of the vehicle fleet. If the authority has to follow the guidelines set down by the Department of the Environment, that reduction will be 1,300 police officers, 30 civilian staff and 50 per cent. in the number of police vehicles.

    It appears that there are different standards. The authority is given a figure by the Home Office, but it is also told by the Department of the Environment that that figure must be much lower. If the authority exceeds the figure laid down by the Department of the Environment, it will be penalised in accordance with the Department’s standards. The authority must reduce the services, or the Yorkshire ratepayers can expect a 70 per cent rate increase in its precept for the police authority.

    What are the authorities to do? Are we going to maintain law and order?

    Young people in the mining communities are not militant, whatever anyone may think. There is no hope for those mining communities. If the young people can see no hope, there will be social unrest. A few weeks ago the Pontefract and Castleford Express had headlines about a battle between youngsters in their early teens armed with knives and petrol bombs, on a local estate. If that type of behaviour develops, we shall need the police force to maintain law and order. The present formula for the financing of the police authority does not allow it to build up the force to the extent required by the Home Office, as the authority wants to do and is expected to do.

    Finally, on the subject of housing, the Gracious Speech states:

    “Legislation will be introduced to encourage the sale of public sector flats to their tenants, and wider private sector involvement in the ownership and management of council housing”.

    I do not know what that means, and I do not know whether anyone in the House does. I have always thought that council house tenants should have the right to buy their homes if they wish. Does that proposal mean that those council house tenants who have not bought their tenancies, for whatever reason—they could not afford to or did not want to—may have their tenancies sold to private landlords? Do the Government intend to solve the problem of the shocking conditions of some of the houses by throwing them to the private sector? The House will want to know the answers to those questions. The statement in the Gracious Speech leads us to believe that council houses that have not been sold to tenants will be sold to private landlords.