UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • David Ashby – 1986 Speech on Oakthorpe Underground Fire

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Ashby, the then Conservative MP for Leicestershire North West, in the House of Commons on 12 February 1986.

    I thank the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt), for his kindness in waiting up so late to respond to my Adjournment motion. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, for taking such an interest in the debate, which concerns an underground fire in a coal seam at Oakthorpe.

    Who would have thought a few years ago that the village of Oakthorpe in the depths of Leicestershire would have achieved such fame and notoriety. We would rather not have that fame and notoriety. If we were not debating people’s homes, investments and lives, the facts would be amusing. Few can have the doubtful pleasure of living above a smouldering coal seam with a temperature of 60 degrees celsius a few feet below the surface providing their own central heating. Even fewer can have gone to dig up potatoes in their back gardens to find them already baked, as Mr. Bates of School street did recently.

    Oakthorpe is a most attractive mining village, close to the Derbyshire border of Leicestershire. Mining has been carried out in the area since the thirteenth century. Currently there are a number of active deep mines in the area.
    As well as coal seams at a deep level, in the area of School street, there is a shallow seam of coal which outcrops just south of School street. It inclines away from School street at an angle of about 20 degrees in a northerly direction. This outcrop is composed of a sulphurous coal which is capable of, apparently, spontaneous combustion when exposed to sufficient air. It is that which is causing the problem.

    I hasten to add that the outcrop is limited in its width to the east and west by major geological faults and that a large part of the village has nothing to fear. Furthermore, since the outcrop inclines so rapidly it reaches a substantial depth by the time it reaches an area called New street and beyond. I say this immediately, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because there is a fear, bordering on panic, among some villagers who would not be affected. There has also been a substantial loss of confidence in the property market for homes that would not be affected. I say to prospective purchasers and vendors: consult the divisional surveyor of the Leicestershire county council, who will be able to explain the outcropping and the geological faults and the facts about the property to be purchased or sold.

    In September 1983, a property known as The Bungalow, in School street, suffered substantial damage. As is common in a mining area, the National Coal Board was notified and in September 1984 it sank boreholes. Those showed that the ambient temperatures were substantially raised. However, the board denied liability and did nothing to halt the fire, inform the county, the district or the parish councils, or adjacent property owners. It even did a smoke test which showed an influx of air—the very cause of combustion. As a result of that failure to notify anyone, the fire continued to smoulder unchecked. ​ On 4 April 1985, the county council noticed a deformation of the carriageway, and that the garden area of No. 59 had subsided. The NCB was contacted and denied and liability. By mid-July, Mr. Sparham at The Bungalow was forced to evacuate his house due to a structural change and at the end of July smoke issued from another depression in the garden of No. 59 which belonged to a Mrs. Kent.

    Leicestershire county council moved into action and engaged consultants who commenced monitoring procedures for subsidence, temperatures and gaseous emissions. By mid-October the consultants had produced an interim report and the possible extent of the problem was becoming apparent. It was at that stage that I was told of the problem and became involved.

    In early November the consultants’ first report was received and it was agreed by the county council that a borehole investigation would have to be done to find out the extent of the fire. On 18 November I met the county council’s environment committee, which is chaired by Mr. Eric Lodge. I praise Mr. Lodge for the decisive and caring way in which he has dealt with the problem. At that meeting reports were given which stressed the potential dangers and spread of the fire. The NCB had the expertise and detailed knowledge of the area, but was hardly involved, for fear that it might be considered that it was admitting liability.

    After that meeting I sought an urgent meeting with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy. He immediately recognised the emergency and promised the involvement of the NCB. I am very grateful for the way in which my hon. Friend has dealt with the problem and for the help, assistance and guidance that he has given. I have been told that there are few meetings in his Department at which the problem of Oakthorpe does not arise at some stage.
    In the meantime, two further disasters had overtaken the village. Mrs. Kent’s house had become so unfit for habitation, due to subsidence caused by the fire, that it had to be demolished. Mrs. Kent was rehoused by the North-West Leicestershire district council.

    By November, the media were getting interested in Oakthorpe and when Mr. Bates dug up his ready-baked potatoes the story reached the national headlines. It was the subject of chat shows and “Any Questions” on the BBC and was even featured on Chinese television. However, the story masked the anxieties that Mr. Bates and his aged mother were having about their home, which was literally falling to bits about them.

    There are 100 properties in the area that could be affected by the fire and 30 of them have already been affected in one way or another. Since my request to the Under-Secretary, the Coal Board has been increasingly involved. It has done a thermal survey and has four rigs in the area, drilling and injecting grouting to fill the voids left by the burning seam. I am told that in April the NCB will be moving in four more rigs to under pin and protect the local school. The board is working on the protection of The Gate public house by trenching and boring.

    The NCB has publicly committed itself to do all that is necessary. The residents of Oakthorpe and I are grateful for its response. However, the NCB is always careful in its statements. It is anxious not to admit liability for the damage. However, as the NCB owns the coal, as it did nothing to stop the fire after its borings in September 1984 ​ and as it has been mining to within 250 m of School street, many of us say that the board has a liability under the Coal-Mining (Subsidence) Act 1957.

    As we agreed in November, when I met the Minister, we are dealing with people’s homes and not with piles of bricks. We are grateful that the NCB has been acting speedily to save those homes. Although the board has taken the initiative in carrying out remedial work, the extent of the proposed works is not clear.

    We should like a statement from the Government or the NCB that they will deal comprehensively with the problem, whatever its extent. We should like to hear that the cost will be borne by the Government, or the NCB. We should like to hear that the NCB or the Government will meet the full cost of repairs to property and infrastructure caused by this underground heating and its associated subsidence, including all the necessary redecorating to property and reinstatement of gardens.

    Not only have foul sewers been damaged, but grouting has filled such things as drainage outfalls, all of which will have to be relaid. The county council has incurred large costs in dealing with the crisis, and a unique disaster of this sort should not be a burden on the ratepayer.

    I have seen a letter from the Minister of State, Department of the Environment to the chief executive of the county council, dated 5 February. This letter shows sympathy, but it is sympathy without commitment. I am asking for that commitment.

    There are other areas where environmental crises have been due to former mining operations. I am told that in Barnsley and Strathkelvin district methane gas leaking from old workings had gone into the buildings above and been a problem.

    In Blaeneu Gwent, three houses over old workings collapsed. A mountainside was destabilised and it is sliding slowly into 170 houses. This was first noted in 1980. If action had been taken then, rather than in 1986, any action would have been far cheaper than it is now. It would have been better to act sooner rather than later.

    Simply because this fire is slow burning, is it any less a disaster than if it were a sudden demolition of property? Is it any less a loss of property or hardship to those living in the area because there has fortunately been no loss of life or injury? This is a real and continuing emergency on a large scale, which demands Government action.

    There are some possibilities and some solutions. Could the Department of the Environment and the Welsh and Scottish Offices perhaps consider an emergency fund as an insurance? If such a fund could finance immediate remedial work and reclaim costs from whoever was judged responsible for this cost later on, a great deal of good would be done. This would allow the immediate work to be done before the problems worsen, and it would not require anyone to prejudice their legal rights. While some might be insured, the insurance does not always cover all the problems, nor is everyone fully covered.

    One very important aspect is that some people are quite unable to sell their properties. Mr. and Mrs. Bown, who have a property, at present unaffected, at 87 School street, in May 1985 purchased another property and put theirs on the market. Then the story of Oakthorpe broke, and although one or two people expressed an interest, they broke off negotiations for fear of the fire.

    Can something not be done about this very real hardship? At the very least, either the owners should be compensated for the loss of market value caused by that ​ fire, or the Government or the NCB should purchase, at full market price, any property in the area affected by the heat, if the owner wishes to sell.

    These disasters are not unknown in the mining villages. My hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) and for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), who are both from coal mining areas, know these problems well. I am rather surprised that not one person is on the Labour or SDP Benches to discuss the suffering of a mining village. They care very little for these mining villages.
    We should like a statement of NCB liability, but we realise the real difficulty in which the NCB may be placed by the 1957 Act. We cannot wait for the result of a court case to relieve the situation in Oakthorpe. Even if we had a court case and the NCB were found not to be liable, could the Government abandon the people of Oakthorpe?

    In the spirit of our discussions throughout, I do not ask for a finding of legal liability. Instead, I ask for action. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to visit Oakthorpe to see the work that the NCB has been doing and to obtain the facts for himself. Above all, I ask him to meet those who are affected, the local councillor, Mr. Horace Sankey, to whom I must pay tribute for his dedicated assistance, and county council officials. I ask that my hon. Friend visits the area to show that the Government care and to lift the morale and confidence of the residents in the area.

  • Ann Widdecombe – 2019 Speech in the European Parliament

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ann Widdecombe, the Brexit Party MEP for the South West, in the European Parliament on 4 July 2019.

    Mr President, it is a great honour to speak on behalf of the largest single party in this place. And may I say that if I needed any convincing at all that the best thing for Britain is to leave here as soon as possible it was the way that those elections were conducted yesterday: if that is this place’s idea of democracy, then that is a serious betrayal of every country that is represented here, because it is not democratic at all.

    And that is just one of many reasons why Britain is right to be leaving this place, hopefully at Halloween. It is right because there is a pattern consistent throughout history of oppressed people turning on the oppressors, slaves against their owners, the peasantry against the feudal barons, and colonies, Mr Verhofstadt, against their empires. And that is why Britain is leaving. And it doesn’t matter which language you use: we are going, and we are glad to be going.

    I represent the South West of the United Kingdom and I found, on my very first day, that this place has decided – or at least the powers-that-be have decided – actually to increase the size of fishermen’s meshes, thereby reducing their income by 40%. That’s what you do here, that’s why we’re going. Nous allons, wir gehen, we’re off!

  • Donald Tusk – 2019 Speech on the June European Council Meeting

    Below is the text of the speech made by Donald Tusk, the President of the European Council, in the European Parliament on 4 July 2019.

    Mr President, Members of the European Parliament, first of all I want to congratulate the Members of this House on their election and to congratulate the new President. I offer you my best wishes and I hope for good cooperation between our institutions.

    To some, it is Parliament that represents genuine European democracy because of its directly elected Members, while to others it is rather the European Council because of the strong democratic legitimacy of the leaders. In fact, such disputes make little sense, as both institutions are democratic. In the end, we must respect each other and cooperate with each other, because only then can we build trust and change Europe for the better.

    That is why, honourable Members, before the European Council proposed the new leadership of the Union, I met with your representatives many times. I did so not only out of respect for you but also, above all, to make sure that the decisions are truly common. We managed to make these decisions on time, and actually much more quickly than five years ago. I believe they are good choices. For the first time in our history, the European Council proposed two women and two men to lead the key EU institutions. I feel happy and proud that we have achieved perfect gender balance in the top positions. This is a very positive change. Europe is not only talking about women, it is choosing women. I hope that this choice will inspire many girls and women to fight for their beliefs and passions. I also hope that it will inspire the European Parliament in its decisions.

    During the process of nominations, I was in close contact with the leadership of the Greens, especially with Ska Keller and Philippe Lamberts. I am fully confident that cooperation with the Greens and their presence in the EU decision-making bodies will benefit not only the governing coalition, but also Europe as a whole. Therefore, I will appeal to all my partners to involve the Greens in the nominations, even though there is still no European Council leader from this party. I hope that the newly nominated Ursula von der Leyen will also listen to my appeal and, in fact, I will pass this message to her directly later today. As you know, in many countries green symbolises hope and freedom. I have much faith in this symbol.

    Speaking about different sensitivities in Europe, I would also like to mention unity and geographical balance on the continent. As you know, I have personally struggled to maintain European unity in recent years, whether on solidarity with Ukraine, assistance to Greece, the migration crisis or the Brexit talks. Sometimes we were more and sometimes less successful, but eventually we always managed to stay together. This is because the leaders truly understand the power of unity. It is clear that only when we are united can we counterbalance the most powerful global players.

    At our last summit, we were also able to build consensus. It took us three days because I wanted to be sure that every Member State, big or small, from every corner of Europe, was on board when it came to the future leadership of the Union. Of course, there is still room for improvement, as regards representatives from the East, in the overall architecture of European positions. In particular, some Prime Ministers from the Socialist family were making commitments as regards geographical balance in this House.

    The European Council also covered a number of other topics but, since you know our conclusions, I will not take up any more of your time. Thank you and good luck again.

  • Ann Widdecombe – 2001 Speech on Policing

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ann Widdecombe, the then Shadow Home Secretary, on 15 February 2001.

    Police officers tell me that they cannot do their job effectively. They joined the police to fight crime and catch criminals – and that is what the public want them to do. Instead, they spend hour upon hour filling in forms – and judging from letters to Police Review and surveys of individual forces, the police believe that most of the bureaucracy is unnecessary. The result is rock bottom morale, which the Chairman of the Police Federation says is the worst he has ever seen.

    The public want the police to police. So do we. The police must police.

    Forces up and down the country complain of being overwhelmed by the bureaucracy of the Best Value system introduced by this Government. To give you an idea of the order of magnitude, the Chief Constable of Lincolnshire has estimated that it costs £400,000, and in Norfolk £200,000. Today, I can announce that we will review Best Value with the aim of radically reforming, or, if necessary, abolishing the current exercise. No wonder a Chief Constable claims that forces are ‘sinking under a sea of targets and measures’. There are dozens of performance indicators from Best Value alone, before any others are taken into account. Surely we can create a more focused system.

    We agree with the police and the public that the police officers should be able to do their job. That’s why today we are putting forward proposals to let the police get on with policing.

    It is because of bureaucracy that child curfew orders and anti-social behaviour orders have been so unworkable and have failed.

    I have lost count of the number of times police have told me that they can spend up to five hours or more processing a single shoplifter through custody. That is a patent nonsense, and where that happens, the custody function must be reformed or removed.

    We will have a completely different approach to that of the present Government. We will put more police on the beat and make sure that the public have the reassurance of more visible policing. For example, our ‘Cops in Shops’ proposals mean that officers will be able to spend time doing their paperwork in the community – for example at special posts in local businesses – providing an increased police presence.

    We will also, in co-operation with the police, hold a root and branch review of police functions with a view to taking away non-essential work. The obvious example is escorting wide loads up motorways. But it isn’t just a question of what they need not do – it is also a question of making more efficient what they must do. For example, why should police officers waste hours and hours at courts without actually giving evidence?

    The police can only police if we set them free to do it, and if we really listen when they tell us that they have insufficient powers. Last year, we put forward proposals to strengthen the law against sex offenders which were first suggested by serving police officers. Some of these became law. Some did not. Conservatives will be tabling amendments to this year’s Criminal Justice Bill to give police powers that they have told us they need – on paedophiles who prey on children in internet chatrooms, and ensuring that the laws against opium dens also apply to crack houses.

    Cutting back on bureaucracy. Reversing Labour’s cuts in police numbers and getting more officers back out on the streets. Letting the police get on with policing and giving them the powers they need to do it. That’s common sense.

  • Ann Widdecombe – 2000 Speech to Conservative Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ann Widdecombe, the then Shadow Home Secretary, at the 2000 Conservative Party conference on 4 October 2000.

    My birthday only comes once a year. And what a great Party!

    But Jack Straw gives the criminals a party every day while victims wait outside in the cold.

    His greetings telegram to the criminal is: ‘don’t worry, there are nearly 3,000 fewer police to catch you, and even if you are unlucky enough to be caught, I’ll let you out of jail in record time.’

    In The Wizard of Oz, the Man of Straw had no brain. I can show you one with no heart and no courage as well.

    He and his friend Tony promised to be ‘tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime’. All they’ve been tough on is the dwindling number of people trying to fight crime. Last year, I warned that the thin blue line was getting thinner. Now it’s becoming a row of dots, which nobody wants to join.

    High on promises, low on action. Long on spin, short on truth. Drunk on power, incapable of delivery.

    It’s not that they’re short on rhetoric when it comes to victims.

    Remember what Tony Blair said in his speech last week?

    Tony Blair said that one of the big projects for the second term of a Labour government – and I quote – would be ‘standing up for victims’.

    Why is he waiting for a second term? It’s not as if he’s going to get one.

    What a sense of priorities. They’ve spent the first term getting prisoners out of jail early, cutting the police force, multiplying red tape, and dreaming of drunks at cashpoints. The victim has to wait for the second term.

    By contrast, my first pledge as Shadow Home Secretary, the very first policy I announced, was new rights for victims enshrined in law.

    That shows where this Party’s priorities lie. What about the rest of Jack Straw’s record at the Home Office?

    Police numbers down, crime up, violent crime soaring, the asylum system in chaos, spies laughing at the country they betrayed…

    When we were debating rising crime under this Government, I asked Jack Straw whether crime would fall again. He said: ‘That depends on the criminals.’

    I thought it was traditional for the British people to rely on their Government to cut crime, not on the criminals. It cannot be common sense to fight crime with fewer crimefighters. It cannot be common sense, when the police have spent time and effort arresting people, to see the criminal back on the street before the police officer. It cannot be common sense to let prisoners sit around in idleness. It cannot be common sense to allow persistent young menaces to grow up with the belief that they are untouchable at law. It cannot be common sense to arrest the householder instead of the burglar.

    We need common sense.

    This country needs a well-motivated, strong police force that can protect everyone, regardless of race, colour or creed. But when the police have done their job, the public must be protected by proper, effective sentencing.

    When those sentences include custody, protecting the public doesn’t end at the prison gate. It means work and education inside prisons to give inmates the skills to lead a law-abiding life outside.

    You are already aware that we have promised to restore police numbers. But numbers alone are not the only answer. We must make sure that every single policeman makes the most effective use of every minute of his time. Yet officers regularly tell me that they can spend an entire shift processing a single criminal through custody, and that they have to fill in the same information on form after form. Indeed, from what they tell me I can only conclude that the police have got more form than the criminals they arrest. For too long, politicians have observed this and done nothing. It is time to relieve the police of this crippling burden.

    It is plain common sense that a policeman should come into the station, deliver his prisoner with a short statement and go straight back onto the beat to arrest more criminals. And that’s what’s going to happen on my watch. And if that means taking a large part of the custody function away from the police, that’s what I’ll do.

    So we’re going to restore the numbers. And we’re going to make sure they spend their time more effectively. And we’re going to make sure that they spend their time in the rural areas as well as the urban.

    Many rural people feel isolated from the forces of law and order. They rarely see their local bobby. Where there is an emergency, they wait far too long for a response.

    For those who live in sparsely populated areas, this is a real, live problem. So I’ve been looking for real, live solutions. I believe that there are lots of ways that we can get visible policing in our countryside. Through retained police officers, part-time police officers, specials, greater use of retired officers, and through ‘cops in shops’.

    Cops in shops is a very simple initiative, which I saw in Washington. The officer doesn’t go back to the station to write up his reports, he writes them up in shops and other public places. This has a threefold advantage. First of all, he’s visible. Secondly, he can interact with the community. And thirdly, he is a deterrent.

    One of the reasons why we have such problems in recruiting is that very often, young people lose interest between the time they leave school and the time they are old enough to join the police. So I want to re-introduce a police cadet force which will not only provide a recruiting and training ground for both the regular police and the specials, but will fundamentally change young people’s attitude towards the police at a time in their lives when it is most important.

    Instead of being tough on criminals, Tony Blair and Jack Straw operate a revolving door prisons policy.

    On Jack Straw’s own tagging scheme, criminals sentenced to six months get out of jail in six weeks – even John Prescott gets through more of his sentences.

    And so 23,000 convicts have been let out early.

    Including 200 convicted killers

    Thousands of other violent criminals.

    Nearly 150 convicted of assaulting police.

    More than 900 robbers

    Over 2,100 burglars

    3,000 drug dealers

    And when, but for Jack Straw’s measure, they should have been in jail, these criminals have committed even more crimes – over 700 more.

    Dozens of burglaries and thefts

    Threats to kill

    Drug dealing

    Even two rapes

    The next Conservative Government will scrap this tagging scheme, this mammoth insult to victims.

    I’m against early release in all but one case. There is only one early release that I will be prepared to see in the public interest. That’s Jack Straw’s early release from the chains of office – and Tony Blair and the rest of the Labour Party with him.

    And instead, we will introduce honesty in sentencing. With the complete abolition of automatic early release.

    Sentences will say what they mean and mean what they say.

    Discounts will have to be earned and will not be substantial – unlike now.

    Where a custodial sentence is passed, we will ensure that there is a programme of rehabilitation in place. Too many offenders who are sent to prison go on to re-offend.

    By ensuring that they have an alternative to a continuation of their life of crime, we can better protect the public.

    Idle prisons are breeding grounds for the disease of crime. We will move towards a full working day in all prisons, based on self-financing workshops that take on real work which real employers want in the real world. Prisoners’ wages will go towards the cost of their upkeep, the support of their families, savings to give them a start when they leave prison, and reparations to the victims of crime.

    It is all about protecting the public.

    And we’ve got to start with the young criminals. We will take the young menaces off the streets, away from the environment that has failed them, and give them a real chance to change. Last year I set out proposals to do this, placing them in secure training and giving them a stable regime and a real chance to change. This year, I want to look beyond young criminals, at the single biggest cause of crime, particularly but not exclusively amongst the young.

    The single biggest cause of crime in this country today is drugs.

    Children are 20 per cent of our population but they are 100 per cent of our future. Drugs are the cancer that is eating away at our country and threatening those children and that future.

    It’s not our children who are the only victims. Crime costs this country £50 billion a year – and at least a third of all crimes are drug related. 80 per cent of burglaries are motivated by drugs.

    One third of acquisitive crime is drug-related, costing victims over £2 billion a year.

    More than 100,000 people are convicted or cautioned for drug offences every year.

    Even if they end up in court, many get a conditional discharge or a small fine.

    Not exactly tough.

    What do the other parties offer?

    The Liberal Democrats toy with legalisation. And they want to end the tough mandatory sentences for drug dealers.

    In other words, give in. What they want to do is against all common sense.

    Labour promised a war against drugs.

    What have they done with the drug dealers? Given them the get out of jail free card.

    23,000 criminals let out on special early release scheme, and more than 3,000 have been drug dealers or traffickers.

    Drug dealers who on average got 22 months’ jail.

    Under Labour they served 9 months.

    So what will we do?

    We have already pledged tougher sentences for drug dealers who sell to our children and a crackdown on drugs in and around our schools. And, needless to say, we will scrap the get out of jail free card for 3,000 drug dealers.

    Today I am able to announce a new policy. Earlier this year, I visited New York, where under Mayor Giuliani crime has plummeted. Although we can’t replicate exactly what I saw there, we can learn the lessons of tackling crime head on and not conceding a centimetre to the criminals. So today, I can announce a new policy. A policy that means no quarter for those whose trade is dealing in human misery, despair and even death.

    And so, from the possession of the most minimal amount of soft drugs right up the chain to the large importer, there will be no hiding place. There will be zero tolerance.

    Parents want it. Schools need it. Our future demands it. The next Conservative government will do it.

    What does it mean? It means zero tolerance of possession. No more getting away with just a caution, no more hoping that a blind eye will be turned. If someone possesses drugs, the minimum for a first offence will be a fixed penalty of £100. But not for a second offence. Then it’s into court.

    And no more claiming that no matter what amount you’ve got on you, it’s for personal use. Over and above the smallest amount, the charge will be substantial possession, and the penalties applicable will be of a range comparable to those for dealing.

    And as for the suppliers, we will put them out of business.

    We will dedicate police resources and police officers to identifying and cleaning up forever those houses and other places where regular supply takes place. And the replacement suppliers, and their replacements, and their replacements, until there are no more replacements.

    Yes, this will require extra money, yes this will require extra police officers, and yes they will be forthcoming. That will be money well spent.

    And there are other aspects of our drugs laws which we need to change. Why do you lose your licence for drink-driving, but not for drugs driving? In future, anybody caught driving with illegal substances in their bloodstream will be subject to a mandatory ban. Why should it be that you have illegal drugs in your pocket, you’re guilty of possession, but when they’re in your bloodstream, you’re guilty of nothing?

    Why do we have laws against opium dens which don’t apply to crack houses?

    Zero tolerance of the biggest scourge in our society today. That’s what’s going to happen on my watch.

    Other things will change also. Our asylum system will be completely overhauled and we will automatically house all new applicants in secure reception centres. It’s extraordinary, but Labour call that racist. Yet the biggest loser in their system is the genuine refugee who comes to this country with not only a legal but a moral case for a safe haven, and finds himself clogged up in queue which has hit more than 100,000 cases – double what Labour inherited. If the message goes out to those who simply seek to play our system that in future they will be detained, dealt with speedily and removed, they will cease to come and we will be able to process the genuine applicant more quickly. However, for the real refugee, reception centres will provide a one-stop point of expertise in education for the children, language support, and social services support.

    At the moment such people, with all their vulnerability and needs are turned out to take their chance in areas where the local authorities have no experience in coping and where the provision of such services is a hit and miss affair.

    Let me make clear to Tony Blair what I believe – what is my ‘irreducible core’.

    If you’re asking me to stand by and see the genuine refugee stuck in a queue with tens of thousands of other applications;

    If you’re asking me to tolerate a situation where that man waits months or years for a decision on his case while Ministers dither and officials shuffle paper;

    If you’re asking me to put up with a shambolic system of support which is letting down both the refugees and the local councils and the local people who have to pick up the pieces, then vote for the other man, because I won’t do it.

    Letting down genuine refugees. I don’t think I could do that. Could you?

    Releasing 23,000 prisoners extra-early. I don’t think I could do that. Could you?

    Cut police numbers when crime is rising. I don’t think I could that. Could you?

    Surrender to the drugs menace. We couldn’t do that. We shouldn’t do that.

    We won’t do that.

  • Michael Portillo – 2001 Speech on Taking 1 Million Pensioners Out of Taxation

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Portillo, the the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 12 February 2001.

    Last week, we announced that the next Conservative Government would implement the most radical reform of the taxation on savings in a generation. Our proposals have since been widely welcomed. Those proposals help pensioners and we welcome that. But there are approximately 17 million savers, and about 4 million pensioners who pay tax, so actually the largest number of gainers from our savings tax change are younger people.

    Today I will explain an important measure to be implemented by the next Conservative Government directed particularly at pensioners that will ensure that they pay less tax than under Labour.

    Many of the reasons for reducing tax on pensioners spring from the same ideas which inspire our proposals on savings. We want to simplify the system. We want to give pensioners back their dignity. And we want to encourage people to do the right thing during their working lives, and to feel when they retire that they were rewarded for doing the right thing.

    We think it is better if pensioners are left with more of their own money to spend as they wish, rather than rely on Gordon Brown’s complicated means-tested benefits and credits which are paid for by the stealth taxes he’s imposed on the poorest in society.

    We want to make it worth people’s while to save and build up a pension fund during their working lives, because they can be confident that they won’t be penalised for doing so when they retire.

    We have already proposed to reform the rules governing the purchase of pension annuities, following the recommendations in the Oonagh McDonald Report. Once someone reaches 75, they currently have to use all of the money in their pension fund to purchase an annuity. For many pensioners, that represents a bad deal. So we think, instead, that they should just have to ensure that they have sufficient income to keep themselves independent of the state. They would be free to use the balance in their pension fund as they choose.

    But we also want to make the tax system simpler and fairer for older people by taking hundreds of thousands of the poorest taxpaying pensioners out of tax altogether.

    So today I can confirm that the next Conservative Government, at a cost of £350 million, will by 2003-04 take approximately 400,000 pensioners over the age of 75 out of tax, by increasing the Age-Related Personal Allowance by £2000. Pensioners who are over 75 and who have incomes between £9,570 and £17,000 will gain £440 a year from the plans.

    No-one will lose out from these proposals, but because the Additional Age Allowance is gradually tapered away as you move up the income scale, over-75s with an income in excess of £24,330 will not gain.

    Helping the over-75s is a good start. But we want to go further than that. So today I can announce that the next Conservative Government will increase personal allowances for the over 65s by £2,000 as well. This measure will take a further 600,000 pensioners out of tax completely at an additional cost of £600 million.

    In summary, therefore, we are proposing to take 1 million pensioners out of tax altogether at a cost of up to £ 950 million. Many more pensioners earning up to £24,000 will gain as much as £440 a year under our plans and pay about £8.50 a week less tax.

    Last week we announced that the vast majority of the 17 million households with savings income will be taken out of tax on their savings. This week, we announce the release of a million people from income tax altogether. These measures will generate enormous savings in the cost of government.

    As with our proposals for the changes to savings tax, these measures will be implemented by the financial year 2003-04 and paid for out of the £8 billion of public expenditure savings compared to Labour’s plans which we have already identified. We have now spelt out tax cuts amounting to £4 billion of the £8 billion total.

    As I pointed out last week, in the short term Gordon Brown may have money to give away as tax cuts in the forthcoming budget. If he does have money to cut taxes, he should do so. But even so he would be giving back only a tiny part of what he has already taken in extra taxes. Our £8bn of tax cuts by 2003-04 is in addition to anything Labour can offer in the next few weeks. That is because we have created extra room by making £8bn of savings to Labour’s plans. That is scope for tax cutting above and beyond whatever can be afforded in the short term in the coming budget.

    At present a million pensioners have to pay tax on small amounts of earnings. Their earnings do not justify Income Tax, considering that they are approaching the end of their opportunities to work and earn. Collecting these amounts involves pensioners and civil servants in pointless administration. It discourages savings and draws people into means testing quite unnecessarily.

    There is a better way. Let people keep more of what is theirs. With the Conservatives people will keep more of their own money.

  • Michael Portillo – 2001 Speech to the Institute of Directors in Wales

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Portillo, the then Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, at the Institute of Directors conference in Wales on 20 April 2001.

    With economic uncertainty growing, with major companies issuing profit warnings and stock markets fluctuating across the world, Gordon Brown’s economic plans look imprudent. Events in the United States, the continuing chronic situation in Japan, and revised growth forecasts for ‘euroland’ emphasise that the economic future is uncertain.

    We Conservatives have been right to argue that Gordon Brown’s economic policies of higher tax, higher regulation and higher government spending are making Britain less competitive.

    Many of us have come to think of Britain as being a good place from which to do business. We increasingly trade on a reputation, especially relative to our continental neighbours, for low taxes, a flexible labour market, and a healthy climate for enterprise. But every day under Labour it becomes less true. Step by step Britain is becoming a less enterprising economy. The need for reform is constant.

    The world has not stood still during the last four years. One of the very marks of success of the British economy over the last two decades – the fact that our reforms have been taken up all over the world – has, ironically, eroded our advantage.

    Take tax. The 2001 Budget locked-in the higher tax burden – equivalent to 10p on the basic rate of income tax – that Gordon Brown has imposed in his first four years. Tax as a proportion of national income has risen three percentage points from 35.2 to 38.2 per cent or £30bn –under Labour. At this rate, if we have another four years of Labour the 40 per cent barrier will be broken.

    Governments across the world, and increasingly across the political spectrum, share the view that high and rising levels of taxation are fatal to enterprise. Most people accept that high taxes crowd out the private sector and reduce incentives for success. Our competitors – in America certainly, but also in France, Germany and Spain – are all giving tax cuts a priority as a key to prosperity. I`m not sure that we in Britain have fully woken up to the significance of the ground that we are losing. When will ‘Red Tape Tony’, as the US refers to our Prime Minister, begin genuinely to understand that the UK cannot afford to swim against the global tide of lower taxes and lighter regulations?

    PriceWaterhouseCoopers, in a recent study, showed that two-thirds of the tax advantage we enjoyed over our European competitors in the mid-1990s has now been eroded. And the gap between Britain and low-taxed United States is growing – by 2001/02 our tax burden will be around 8.5% above that of the US.

    Business has borne much of the brunt of the Chancellor’s stealth taxes. Despite the emerging global consensus for tax cuts, Mr Blair and Mr Brown have chosen to increase the tax burden by £5 billion a year on business. This has involved increasing the tax on dividends, changing Corporation Tax so that more money is paid out to the Treasury now, increasing fuel tax and the tax on property purchases, and introducing new taxes like IR35 which threaten to decimate the IT contracting sector, and the Climate Change Levy which will do nothing to improve the environment but will hit manufacturing extremely hard. This year’s Budget contains another new tax on business – a construction tax which could cost thousands of jobs and which we will be opposing when it is debated in Parliament next week.

    The Government has also massively increased red tape. There is always pressure on governments to address political concerns by imposing new regulations on firms. But this Government seems to have let out all the stops, introducing 3,865 new regulations last year. The overall bill for red tape, according to an IoD survey has gone up by £5bn a year under Labour.

    Equally, with the labour market the Government has, without great fanfare, started giving trades unions significant new powers – reversing the trend of the last 20 years.

    The Chancellor is not just dragging the tax and regulatory systems in the wrong direction. Mr Brown’s welfare reforms, far from reducing cost and complexity and making work pay, actually increase bureaucracy and make working harder pay less. New figures reveal that 40 per cent – almost one in two – people in this country will soon be recipients of Gordon Brown’s means-tested benefits. What a damning indictment of a government which promised radically to reform and reduce the welfare state. Mr Brown has no long-term strategy for reducing dependency and the size and the scope of the welfare state.

    This Government plans to increase government spending by 3.7% a year over the next three years, when the trend rate of growth of the economy assumed for the public finances is only 2.25%. The Chancellor’s path for public spending has been criticised by not just the IMF, but even by the EU. A high spend economy is not a high performance economy. His plans to grow the size of the government will crowd out private capital. Other countries are promoting real fiscal discipline to allow space for the private sector to flourish.

    Taken together, these misguided policies are already having a negative impact. Even in the relatively benign economic conditions of recent years, the UK is losing ground under Labour.

    Since 1997, our economy has grown at a slower rate than that of the US or euroland. Productivity growth has slowed to just 1.4 per cent a year over the last four years. It grew, on average, 50 per cent more quickly during the previous five. Our share of world exports has fallen from 5.1 per cent in 1997 to 4.5 per cent in 2000 and manufacturing employment has fallen by over 350,000. Indeed, our overall level of unemployment, a source of great self-satisfaction for the government is in fact worse than 14 other members of the OECD. And our position in the World Competitiveness League has fallen from 4th to 9th under Labour.

    However, the benign economic conditions of the global economy of recent years are changing. We all hope the economic uncertainty which has infected certain parts of the world does not spread to Britain. But if the global slowdown does have an impact on growth in Britain, and if we still had a Labour Government, the inherent weaknesses of Gordon Brown’s economic approach would be exacerbated.

    High taxes and regulations that are proving an impediment to growth now would have an even greater impact in those circumstances, when competition and the search for markets would be that much more intense. Government spending would be rising quicker than growth, (and indeed even quicker than currently planned because of the need for higher benefit spending when the economy slows). The economy – particularly the private sector – would need a boost. But Gordon Brown would be prevented from offering the tax cuts that could help to ease the problem because he’s committed to a path for government spending that outstrips trend growth.

    Labour would be under pressure to raise taxes faster than they had planned. The only alternative to that would be for Labour’s spending plans themselves to be ripped up and cut back. That would be an another ignominious defeat for the Chancellor and would lead to turmoil in the public services.

    Rather than plotting a course for stability, Gordon Brown is plotting an imprudent path in an uncertain world. This Labour Chancellor has no meaningful fiscal disciplines. The Treasury’s rules are so weak they offer no effective checks and balances on Gordon Brown’s old-style, socialist tax and spend instincts.

    In the event of a UK slowdown and second Labour term the fiscal rules that the Chancellor talks about so much would be shown to be a sham, as they offer absolutely no constraint on the amount that a Labour Government can tax and spend. The Chancellor could meet his bogus rules even if current public spending rose to 50 or 60 per cent of GDP, so long as taxes rose equally rapidly to cover the gap.

    We need a new approach if we are to keep Britain competitive. We need a better policy mix that will serve us in good times as well as bad. That approach needs to be based on discipline at the macroeconomic level, and freeing businesses from state interference.

    It means, keeping our own currency so that Britain can retain the flexibility of having its own an autonomous monetary policy suited to domestic conditions, like the United States.

    It means making room for tax cuts by restricting the growth of government spending to within the trend rate of growth of the economy and reforming the role of the state.

    It means cutting the burden of regulation on business year-on-year by setting regulatory budgets which departments have to cut.

    And it means increasing the incentives to work harder and get on, by floating people free of Labour’s means-tested benefits.

    In short, it means having an optimistic, outward-looking vision for a low taxed and lightly regulated Britain that can compete against the best economies in the world in the 21st Century.

  • Robert Hughes – 1986 Speech on the Channel Tunnel

    Below is the text of the speech made by Robert Hughes, the then Shadow Secretary of State for Transport, in the House of Commons on 10 February 1986.

    I beg to move, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:

    ‘whilst accepting that the Channel Tunnel Group-France Manche scheme may have the potential to encourage the development of modern British Rail network and bring benefit to some parts of the country, declines to approve the White Paper “The Channel Fixed Link”, Cmnd. 9735, without full knowledge of the terms of the Treaty and its Protocols, without any Government commitment to necessary financial assistance to British Rail, without any Government plans to maximise the opportunities for industry and communities away from the immediate location of the Fixed Link, and without the Government accepting responsibility for and safeguarding against the damaging employment implications of the scheme, or providing adequately for the rights of those affected by the decision to have their views ​ taken into account; and recognises that the proposals present a threat to consumer choice in crossing the Channel with the creation of a private monopoly with its implications for prices and charges, without the guaranteed continuation of port and ferry facilities’.

    Three hours to debate what has been described as a historic decision is far too short a time. I apologise to the House in advance if I do not give way to interventions as frequently as I might have done. There are a lot of issues to be covered, many of which were not covered by the Secretary of State.
    In the speeches and statements and in the White Paper, the Secretary of State repeats that the Channel tunnel is an imaginative and exciting project. He has waxed eloquent about the job creation factors of the scheme and the benefits that he hopes will accrue. When he has been asked pertinent and penetrating questions, he has replied, “All will be revealed in the White Paper.” We have the White Paper now and there is little in it, if anything, which could not have been put before us a fortnight ago. There is nothing in it which could have delayed its publication for a few days, as the right hon. Gentleman said, but which became a fortnight.

    We accept that the CTG-FM scheme is the best of the schemes that the Government examined. In our view, it suits our transport needs and provides opportunities for British Rail. We believe that it could allow the benefits for some parts of the country to be distributed more evenly. If we were starting afresh to consider job creation schemes, we might well not start from where we are now. However, we are starting with the Government’s decision, and we have a responsibility to ensure that the best outcome is achieved. We have tabled a positive amendment, and we are not defensive about it.

    The problem is that the Secretary of State, having made a decision—or having had it made for him—wishes to cut and run. He wishes to avoid responsibility for developments that are damaging to the economies of various parts of the country and for the necessary planning to maximise potential benefits. He has prepared his alibi well in advance. In page 2 of the White Paper there is an all-embracing disclaimer which appears as a footnote:

    “The Government expressly asserts that it makes no representation, either express or implied, as to the viability of the project with any intention or desire that such representation be relied upon by any investor. It should be noted that, in this White Paper, estimates of CTG-FM’s financing needs are their own, and the impacts of the CTG-FM scheme — on employment, the environment, the merchant fleet etc.—are all based upon the promoters’ estimates of traffic.”

    I cannot recall seeing such a massive cop-out in any other White Paper. We shall press the Secretary of State to accept the figures and to take the action appropriate to them.

    The treaty is due to be signed on Wednesday. It is unfortunate that the White Paper gives us only the broadest outline of what the treaty contains. We are merely told in paragraph 50 that the treaty

    “will also enshrine the private sector nature of the link and the concessionaire’s right to compensation in the event of political interference or cancellation by either Government.”

    Can we not be told, less than two days before the treaty is signed, what the financial penalties are that the Government have negotiated? Why are we being asked, in effect, to buy a pig in a poke? Surely the Prime Minister will not sign a blank piece of paper in Canterbury in less than 48 hours from now? ​ Paragraphs 53 to 60 tell us that negotiations will continue on the concession agreement and that the final package will contain the freedom to set tariffs, subject only to the European Community’s and the Government’s rules on competition. These and many other issues need to be clarified.

    I was disappointed when the Secretary of State told us that he would leave the consultation arrangements to be dealt with by his hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Transport when he replies to the debate. The White Paper suggests what will happen. The Secretary of State from the beginning ruled out a formal public inquiry. In earlier debates he has asserted that the hybrid Bill procedure gave better opportunities for those affected to canvas their concerns, and it is clear in the White Paper that he has conceded his failure to convince a wide section of opinion in the House. Equally, he has failed to satisfy the doubts of many interests in Kent, for example. In paragraphs 46 to 48 he attempts to present a more convincing case and to answer the many representations that have been made on consultation.

    I shall deal with paragraph 48 in some detail. It seems that an extra statutory authority of planning machinery is to be established between the Government, the Kent county council and the other local authorities concerned. We understand that the committee will be chaired by the Minister of State and that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold), will be involved in discussions. I note that the hon. Lady is in her place.

    We are told in paragraph 48 that there will be widespread consultations. It adds:

    “Among the subjects to be considered by the committee will be the adequacy of the road system in Kent to cope with the traffic flows expected to follow the building of the link, and specific local economic and environmental problems that may be caused by the development of the link. As one of its first tasks the committee is expected to commission a more detailed study of the potential impact on Kent of the CTG-FM scheme both during and after construction. This is to be carried out with the widest possible consultation of relevant interest groups in the county.”

    So far so good, but what will be the result of the consultation? Everyone knows that there will be economic dislocation of the local economy. That appears not to be in doubt.

    Paragraph 41 makes it clear that 7,000 jobs will go in the ports and ferries if the promoters’ forecasts are accurate. Several questions follow from paragraph 48. To whom will the consultative committee report? When will it report? Who will carry out the detailed study of the potential impact on Kent? A responsible Government would have carried out those studies before, not after, taking a decision in principle.

    Further questions will have to be posed. Will the consultation group make recommendations? There would seem to be no point in having such a formal machinery, nor in commissioning these studies, unless the schemes are drawn up and acted upon. Will the findings of the consultative group be finalised and incorporated into the drafting of the hybrid Bill? What will be the effect of the consultations on those who may wish to petition the Select Committees which are due to be set up under the hybrid Bill procedure? If any of those affected by the scheme take part in the consultations, will they be prevented from gaining access to the Select Committees?

    Paragraph 62 of the White Paper sets out the hybrid Bill procedure and attempts to define the term locus standi. In paragraph 62, the Minister, trying to assuage the feelings of his Back Benchers, says:

    “However, the Government, as sponsor of the Bill, will not seek to oppose the right of anyone to appear before the Committees on a petition to secure protection, either for their personal interests, or for the proper interests of any organisation or group which they may have been appointed to represent.”

    The use of the word “proper” seems to be a heavy qualification on who will go before the Select Committees. Will the Secretary of State give a categorical guarantee that appearance before the consultation group or submission of objections to it will neither prejudice the right of petitioners to appear before the Select Committees nor extinguish those rights? Unless these questions are answered fully, the consultative machinery will be seen as nothing more than a gigantic public relations exercise and a hoax on the public.

    At the heart of our concern is what will happen not just to the south-east, but to the rest of the country. If the economic benefit is to be distributed about the country, British Rail must be given the opportunity to develop its services and to have its infrastructure, its motive power and rolling stock ready for the opening of the tunnel. Therefore, I welcome the British Rail press statement, issued on 4 February, in which it explains how it intends to run through-trains from different parts of the country and hopes that there will be discussions with immigration and customs officials to have these facilities carried out on the train, although there seems to be some doubt as to whether those bodies will co-operate.

    British Rail, in its press statement, appears to be thinking ahead, even if the Secretary of State is not. If the required investment is made available, it will give a boost to British Rail’s estimates of both freight and passenger services; and if the money is spent in the United Kingdom, jobs will be created. However, I dispute the Secretary of State’s assessment of when the investment needs to be made available and whether his policy towards British Rail is adequate to match its requirements.

    At Question Time on Monday 3 February, in column 6, I asked the Minister to give an assurance that British Rail’s external financing limit would be expanded to accommodate Channel tunnel-related expenditure and that other BR expenditure would not suffer. It astonished me when I was given such an unequivocal “Yes” to that question. However, in a subsequent answer in the same column, he back-pedalled very fast and said that BR’s EFL would be smaller during the period 1990–93 in any event. If that means that the investment and infrastructure will be in place before that time, we might accept it. However, I suspect that the opposite is the case. I believe that investment in BR must be expanded, even if the Channel tunnel is not to go ahead. If passengers and freight traffic are to be encouraged back to the railways, then BR’s customer image needs to be enhanced throughout the entire network, and not just that part that is related to the Channel tunnel service.

    The Government must put money into BR. The White Paper concedes that there will be public spending associated with the tunnel. That much is evident from paragraphs 29, 30 and 31. There is a little hedging in paragraph 31, which says: ​

    “The Government will give sympathetic consideration to supporting with Transport Supplementary Grant proposals from the County Council arising directly as a result of the fixed link project.”

    We know with certainty that public money will be going into roads development. Why, then, will the Government not do the same for British Rail? Paragraph 27 makes it clear beyond any doubt:

    “It will be for BR to raise the money for this”—

    that is all the investment about which we have spoken—

    “as for all its investment programmes, out of its own resources or borrowing, and not by way of Government grant.”

    Nothing can be more clear that the Government will not put any money in.
    In paragraph 66, the Minister expresses his hopes in this way:

    “The Government has high hopes of seeing the link built and of it becoming a valuable national asset serving the interests of the nation for many years to come.”

    I should like to see those high hopes come to fruition, but they will remain just pious hopes unless there is positive Government intervention.

    I commend to the House the latest issue of Town and Country Planning. In an article called “Where have all the planners gone?”, Andrew Thorburn says:

    “So far, no one has sketched out the consequences for Britain of the funnelling of traffic through this small corner, and the extra traffic likely to be stimulated … Never has the need for proper regional planning been more apparent.

    Some have felt that we can get by without this in times of recession when little is changing, but the construction of the largest infrastructure provision in Britain’s history will require the rethinking of many development and investment policies, and rural conserveration policies, as well as a review of the transportation services throughout the south east. Where is our machinery for this?”

    I concede that that was written about the south-east of England, but it is of equal relevance to the country as a whole. The Secretary of State will have nothing to do with this. His view is that if everything goes well, the scheme will be a success; and, if it does not, he is simply abrogating his responsibility in advance. He is like an old lag in a Scottish court pleading the special defence of “incrimination” or “impeachment”. He is saying, “It wasn’t me who did it; it was someone else. It was market forces that did it.”

    Without proper planning, investment and regional development, the nation will come to regret the decision and wonder what went wrong. The Opposition have a duty and a responsibility to the nation to seek to remedy the failings of the Minister and of the Government. We shall press the Government for as long as we are in opposition, and we shall discharge our responsibilities and duties to the nation when we become the Government. I commend our amendment to the House and invite right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House to join us in the Lobby tonight.

  • Nicholas Ridley – 1986 Statement on the Channel Tunnel

    Below is the text of the statement made by Nicholas Ridley, the then Secretary of State for Transport, in the House of Commons on 10 February 1986.

    I beg to move,

    That this House approves the Government’s White Paper on the Channel Fixed Link (Cmnd. 9735).

    I am delighted, but surprised, that the Opposition want this debate on the Channel tunnel. I am delighted because many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have important points to raise, and surprised because I do not understand what the Opposition seek to gain. Perhaps they want to embarrass the Liberals, as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) is in favour of our decision, but the Liberal candidates in east Kent are all against it. That is strange. The Liberal manifesto for the 1984 Euro-elections advocated
    “Community Investment in major transport links, including a Channel Tunnel”.
    I wonder whether the Kent Liberal candidates dissociated themselves from the manifesto at the time of the campaign.

    Mr. Stephen Ross (Isle of Wight)

    I continue to support our manifesto, and the Secretary of State congratulated me on that recently during Question Time. I suspect that some Conservative Back-Bench Members are not keen on the scheme.

    Mr. Ridley

    I am not criticising the hon. Gentleman. I was merely wondering whether he could have a word with some of his candidates.

    The Labour party also has its problems. Some Labour Members are in favour of our decision, and some are against it. So why choose to debate it? It puts the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) in a terribly embarrassing position. He must steer between the Scylla of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) who represents the National Union of Railwaymen, and the Charybdis of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who represents the National Union of Seamen. It is beastly of the Labour party to make him run the gauntlet again between those two political rocks. Surely he found it unpleasant enough the first time.

    But the Labour party has a worse failure to answer for. Labour Members keep demanding more infrastructure spending. They have debate after debate about the need for spending, and more jobs. Indeed, there is another one this week. Yet here is a massive infrastructure project, which will create a great number of jobs—we estimate about 40,000 man-years of employment. The jobs will by no means all be in the south-east. There could be orders of £700 million to £800 million for railway equipment alone which can be fulfilled only by midlands and northern firms. There are also great opportunities for more employment on railway operations. The tunnel will bring benefits to all regions of the kingdom by providing quicker, cheaper, more reliable means of transport to the Continent, thus helping employment. But what does the ​ Labour party do? It voted against the tunnel before Christmas, and it has a three-line whip to vote for its amendment tonight. Does it want jobs, and infrastructure, and investment, or not?

    When I announced the invitation to promoters last year the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who was then Labour’s transport spokesman, said:

    “We welcome any suggestion of considerable investment in the infrastructure. Indeed, we have been asking the Government for many years for precisely this sort of infrastructure development, with its impact on jobs and industry.”—[Official Report, 2 April 1985; Vol. 76 c. 1078-79.].

    How can the Opposition say that with one transport spokesman, and with another ask the House to vote against the project that they welcomed? The Labour party’s inconsistency is extraordinary, although some individual hon. Members hold different views.

    Mr. Robert Sheldon (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    The main point is that the infrastructure development will assist the south-east. Many of us are worried that the White Paper pays no regard to transport links with the north. The bottlenecks around London will become more constricted, not less, as a result of the link. Expenditure is needed on the road network to the north, but that will be even harder as a result of the Channel link. The right hon. Gentleman should be providing better links to the north, not to London.

    Mr. Ridley

    I know that the right hon. Gentleman is in favour of the link and sees the importance of connecting it to all areas, and I entirely agree. For that reason we are building the M40 as a relief to the Ml. It is as quick to go from London to Birmingham up the M6 via Oxford as it is via the Ml. There is massive infrastructure development taking traffic from the south-east to all quarters. There is a huge road programme to the south-west. Wherever we can, we are investing in roads to improve the position. Moreover, there are great opportunities for the railways to run through services from the north to the Continent. The right hon. Gentleman must welcome our decision and encourage all concerned to grasp the opportunities.

    Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East)

    What evidence prompted my right hon. Friend to make the statement that the Channel tunnel could offer a “cheaper” means of transport across the Channel? Does he accept that the more British people hear about the tunnel, the less they like it? That is clear from a recent opinion poll which shows that more than half the population do not want the tunnel, and that only one third are in favour of it.

    Mr. Ridley

    First, the magic has worked even quicker than I believed because the ferries are now saying that they will cut the cost of the journey by 30 per cent. That is even before the tunnel is built. Therefore, my hon. Friend must concede that the tunnel route is cheaper. That shows what a little competition can do. Secondly, if my hon. Friend intends to steer a course according to every favourable opinion poll, I do not know what he will do when they are unfavourable. That is not a sound basis for forming opinions.

    There is another dilemma. The Labour party complains that all the benefits of the tunnel will go to east Kent, and not to the north of England. But my right hon. and hon. ​ Friends from Kent have expressed the opposite concern, that the tunnel will have unfortunate employment effects on the county. Let me tell the House my view of the truth, which is also contained in the White Paper.

    For the next eight years, during the construction period, there will be growing employment in Kent, both because of the increasing ferry business, and the construction work on the tunnel, roads, railways and so on. There could even be a shortage of labour during that period. In the long term, after the tunnel is open, a great deal depends upon the extent to which it attracts traffic which would otherwise be carried by the ferries, and also upon the extent to which local authorities in Kent can use, imaginatively, the opportunities created by the link to generate new employment in the county. When the link opens, employment on the ferries will certainly fall. On the basis of the promoters’ estimates of traffic, the Government judge that the total direct employment on cross-Channel transport operations will be some 1,500 less than it is now. But thereafter, employment will rise again, both on the link and the ferries. Moreover, there will be jobs from associated developments, so I suggest that the truth is that the long-term employment effects are fairly neutral.

    Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent)

    My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is anxiety in the Medway towns that the very considerable infrastructure improvements to cope with the direct effects of the fixed link may militate against the essential project which the Medway towns are proposing to improve what is almost the blackest unemployment spot in Kent. Will my right hon. Friend reassure the Medway towns that he will look with considerable sympathy upon their proposals for a third Medway crossing?

    Mr. Ridley

    The M20 is the main road to the Channel ports and will be the main road to the Channel tunnel. That road will be developed to three lane motorway standard irrespective of whether there is a Channel link. Traffic going to the Channel ports will be so great that it will demand that upgrading in any case. Building the link does not add to the road programme in respect of that road as that road is already allowed for in the programme. In no sense is money being taken from other parts of the road programme because of the decision on the fixed link.

    I have already said that we shall look extremely sympathetically at any other roads needs which arise in Kent because of the link, and the discussions are already planned to start such an investigation.

    Mr. Jonathan Aitken (Thanet, South)

    Before my right hon. Friend leaves the employment consequences which he said would amount to a loss of only 1,500 jobs at the ferry ports, I draw his attention to the fact that that figure is based on what, by the White Paper’s own admission, is a most misleading basis. The White Paper bases that calculation on two ferry ports only, Dover and Folkestone. My right hon. Friend must know that there are well founded fears in at least 15 ports up and down the country, including the second largest Channel port, Ramsgate, which is not mentioned in the White Paper. One would not base a calculation on test cricket on the basis of what happened at Lords or the Oval and make no mention of Old Trafford, Headingley, Trent Bridge, and so on.​

    Mr. Ridley

    I was a little confused about the last part of my hon. Friend’s intervention and I confess I do not see the relevance of that, but the figure I gave was based on the estimates of tunnel traffic made by the Channel Tunnel Group. That includes the whole of the ferry industry, not just the two ports that my hon. Friend mentioned. We believe that some ferry ports will increase employment as the link opens rather than reduce their employment. I cannot give my hon. Friend detailed figures for every port. I would have to have the wisdom of Solomon to say what will happen, but my hon. Friend knows my views about the future of Ramsgate.

    Mrs. Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley)

    I recently wrote to the right hon. Gentleman to ask if his Department had estimated the effect which the Channel tunnel would have on the container ports. He replied that that information was confidential. How is it possible for container ports to plan for the future if they do not know what the tunnel’s effect will be on their trade?

    Mr. Ridley

    That is true of all industrial enterprises at all times. When the west coast ports lost business to the east coast, nobody was able to warn them or provide any precise estimates. That is normal business risk. It is quite impossible to make a detailed forecast of the effect on every port.

    The White Paper sets out the reasons for our choice of the Channel Tunnel Group’s scheme. This was the joint choice of the British and French Governments. Both Governments would have liked to see a drive-through scheme, but the uncertainties and risks of all three drive-through alternatives led us to believe that there was a risk that they might prove too expensive to finance. I repeat that no Government funds or guarantees will be available. The CTG scheme appeared to the Governments to offer the best prospect of proceeding to completion. It has other advantages as well and these are set out in detail in annexe B of the White Paper.

    The main purpose of the White Paper is to look forward. It is not the job of the Government to set out the virtues of the CTG scheme and its potential attractiveness to customers and therefore to investors. That is for the promoters to do over the next few months as they set about raising the capital. We believe the Channel tunnel will greatly enhance the choice for travellers between Britain and France by adding to the existing air and ferry options a shuttle service for road vehicles and an efficient city-centre to city-centre rail link. For road travellers, the shuttle link will reduce the crossing time, with all stops included, by well over half compared with the ferries.

    The rail link from London to Paris and Brussels will be very competitive with air transport. These are great benefits. Already, there is talk of reducing fares in order to compete. That, too, is excellent news. The Government’s task is solely to consider the impacts of the scheme upon the transport network, and the environment.

    Mr. Roland Boyes (Houghton and Washington)

    Surely the Government’s task is to consider the impact on employment. Paragraph 39 of the White Paper states:

    “Firms in the East and West Midlands will be well placed to compete for contracts to build the shuttle trains, and there are firms in Scotland and the North-East able to supply construction materials.”

    As the Minister knows full well, I believe that the Channel tunnel will have a negative effect on jobs in the north-east. We shall lose jobs as a consequence. It might ​help the situation if the Minister can give me a guarantee that the construction materials that firms in the north-east are able to supply will be the ones which the tunnel builders will order or will the Minister say that it is a free for all where the construction firms can shop around the Continent and the world and get their goods at the cheapest price?

    Mr. Ridley

    I have already dealt with the employment aspects. If the hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said, he can read it in Hansard. I made it clear what the employment consequences are likely to be. I said that in my opinion the jobs which will go to the midlands, the north and Scotland were considerable as there were £700 million to £800 million worth of railway orders alone to go, as well as the building material orders to which the hon. Gentleman referred. He knows full well that I cannot promise that those orders would go to any particular firm. His constituents have the opportunity to gain employment if they can win these contracts. I am certain that they have a very good chance of doing so.

    I was about to describe the effects on the transport network. British Rail is to invest between £290 million and £390 million in rolling stock, the Waterloo terminal and certain other limited improvements between Folkestone and London. The impact upon the roads programme in the foreseeable future is not large. The Government’s proposals for the M20 from London to Folkestone are already in the programme and would be necessary whether a fixed link were built or not. We shall also press ahead as fast as possible with the replacement of the A20 between Folkestone and Dover. We shall also consider with Kent county council what improvements to local roads may be necessary.

    The environmental impacts of the Channel Tunnel Group’s scheme are set out in some detail in the appraisal by Land Use Consultants and their associates of the promoters’ environmental impact assessments. That is a valuable independent report. It does not necessarily represent the Government’s views on all points, but it forms the basis of the Government’s assessment of the environmental aspects of the further work that needs to be done. It quite deliberately looks far into the future.

    It is not surprising that if one looks 30, 40 or 50 years ahead, the M20 may need to be widened to four lanes in each direction. It will not, by any means, be the only motorway requiring such treatment by then. It would be for our successors to deal with these problems. In the short term, however, our concern is to make the scheme environmentally as acceptable as possible, in matters such as the arrangements for the disposal of spoil, the workings at the foot of the Shakespeare cliff, the landscaping of the Cheriton site, and the arrangements for the construction of the tunnels under Holywell Coombe.

    Mr. David Howell (Guildford)

    Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the important impacts could be the attraction of freight away from the roads and back to rail when the Continental freight network is linked with the British network and substantial savings are achieved? Has he received any more recent estimates of the impact of that change, and does he recall that an earlier estimate was that only about 250,000 tonnes of road freight would go to rail? Will he comment on whether that is rather an underestimate? Does he agree that it might be considerably ​ more than that, with great benefit for the environment generally and a reduction in the number of heavy lorries rolling through villages?

    Mr. Ridley

    My right hon. Friend is entirely right. I speak without having a figure before me, but I think that the latest estimate is that there may be a fivefold increase in the amount of freight that the railways carry across the Channel as a result of the project. If I have misremembered the figure, I shall correct myself in writing to my right hon. Friend. There will be a considerable increase.

    We have retained the right to require the promoters to investigate and then implement the most acceptable arrangements, and the promoters accept this. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I intend to work closely together on this and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Transport will be consulting locally in Kent about it. If he is fortunate enough to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will describe the plans for consultation.

    With the tunnel becoming nearer to a reality, the natural conservatism of the British people is coming to the fore. Will rabies come? Will the Russians invade along the tunnel? Should Britain not remain an island? I sympathise with these emotional arguments, but I do not believe that they are rational. I shall conclude by answering the most frequently asked question, which is “Do we really need a tunnel?” Those who do not want to use it need not do so. Nor will they be asked to pay for it. But if millions want to use it and pay for using it, whether they be tourists, businessmen, importers or exporters, what right have we to stop them? It is for the Channel Tunnel Group to persuade the investors that we need a tunnel. If it considers that it should be built and is ready to pay for it, I do not think that the House would want to stop it.

    Mr. Jim Craigen (Glasgow, Maryhill) rose—

    Mr. Ridley

    I shall not give way. I must bring my remarks to an end.

    It is remarkable that the two Governments were in the invidious position of having to choose between four schemes. All were well prepared and those behind them were prepared to raise the money and to take the risks. What a transformation this is from the drab, centrally planned, Socialist concept of soak the taxpayers and ram it down their throats because the gentleman in Whitehall knows best. It is a sign of the virility of our entrepreneurs, our economy and our engineers that we can give the Channel tunnel the green light.

  • Barney Heyhoe – 1986 Speech on Normans Riding Hospital in Gateshead

    Below is the text of the speech made by Barney Heyhoe, the then Minister for Health, in the House of Commons on 7 February 1986.

    As I would expect, the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) has deployed his case with both case and concern on behalf of his constituents in raising again the decision to close Normans Riding hospital. I have listened with great interest to all that he has said and I will certainly write to him if there are points which, on reflection, I think deserve a further response from me other than that which I can give in this brief debate. I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments about my ministerial colleague the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) with regard to the way in which the deputation led by the Member for Blaydon was received and the manner in which the matter was dealt with.

    To set the closure of Normans Riding in its proper context, I should perhaps begin by referring to the important developments taking place at the Queen Elizabeth hospital in Gateshead. As the hon. Gentleman knows, schemes 1 and 2 of that hospital were commissioned in 1967 and 1972 respectively. Those two schemes provide a full range of radiological diagnostic support services, out-patients’ department, and so on, to support the 263 acute and maternity beds. As the hon. Gentleman also knows, scheme 3, built at a cost of some £9 million, will add a further 200 acute beds, six operating ​ theatre suites, six intensive therapy unit beds and further supporting services. Scheme 3 is due to come into use in the next few months and various groups of patients will be transferred to the new facilities. One result will be that facilities at Dunston Hill hospital will become vacant. Patients currently at Normans Riding hospital will be transferred to the vacant facilities at Dunston Hill.

    In addition to scheme 3 of the Queen Elizabeth hospital, there are other exciting developments taking place in Gateshead. For example, there is the recently opened community unit for those with mental handicap. There are priority service developments for the elderly who are severely mentally ill.

    The hon. Gentleman referred to beds for the elderly and the general provision in his area, and I understand that with the completion of the schemes to which I have referred a number of beds for the elderly will become available. If further beds for the elderly are required, these could be provided at Bensham or at Dunston in a rather more economic fashion than would be achieved by retaining the facilities at Normans Riding.

    Mr. McWilliam

    Does the right hon. Gentleman have any idea of the distance or the transport difficulties that are involved in getting from Ryton, Blaydon or Winlaton to Bensham or Dunston?

    Mr. Hayhoe

    I would not claim any knowledge that meets even remotely that which the hon. Gentleman has of the area which he represents. I intended to say something about transport facilities but, as he will understand, I must rely upon advice that I am given.

    Within the general area there is increased provision for patients flowing from the increased resources that have been provided for the NHS. That does not mean — I accept what the hon. Gentleman says on this score — that there is not real pressure on the available resources. As he has said, the district is achieving only 92 per cent. of its target under the RAWP arrangements, though it is moving up steadily as a result of the overall policies that are being implemented. I hope that 100 per cent. of the RAWP target will be achieved over the course of the next decade. This means that health authorities must examine carefully the way in which services are organised to ensure that they are provided in a sensible and efficient manner. If money is tied up in a hospital which is not required, other developments cannot take place.

    It was against that background, and with the desire to concentrate services for the elderly at the Dunston Hill hospital site, that the Gateshead health authority considered carefully the need to retain the Normans Riding hospital.
    The hon. Gentleman will know much better than I do that the Normans Riding hospital is sited in a relatively remote part of the district away from any real back-up medical facilities. I have read past correspondence and I have found that much has been made of the pleasant site of the hospital. I accept fully that that is so. At the same time, I cannot ignore the high cost of upgrading — estimated at £500,000 — that would be required if the hospital were to be retained. The relative isolation of the hospital causes difficulties for patients and staff alike. I am advised that the only public transport to the site is the twice-weekly special bus service that is laid on to coincide ​ with visiting times. On other days, relatives without their own transport must use taxis or make other special arrangements.

    Mr. McWilliam

    The hospital is within three quarters of a mile of one bus terminus, from which there is at least one bus an hour. It is within 500 yd of a bus stop at which buses stop less frequently but fairly regularly.

    Mr. Hayhoe

    I do not think that that detracts from what I have said. The hon. Gentleman has put the matter in a local context, which local people will know.

    Patients who require investigative treatment must usually be taken by ambulance to the Queen Elizabeth hospital in Gateshead. Day-to-day medical cover at the Normans Riding hospital is provided by local GPs. Any condition requiring a specialist opinion currently requires a special trip by the consultant.

    That overall situation will be greatly eased when the patients are transferred to Dunston Hill hospital where patients and staff will have easier access to important diagnostic and other services. The medical aspects of these matters must loom large in all the attention which is given to them.

    I understand that Dunston Hill hospital is served by about 10 bus services, making visiting by most relatives and friends much easier. It is important not to expect old folk to have to walk, perhaps in inclement weather such as that that we have experienced recently, and there is a great advantage in having the public transport going close to the hospital.

    Inevitably, much has also been made of what is seen as the loss of a good hospital. I fully appreciate the local anxieties and loyalties that are always amplified when an issue of this kind comes before the public’s attention, but perhaps those aspects have been somewhat exaggerated. In practice, only a quarter of the patients currently at the Normans Riding hospital come from the immediate area and the move to Dunston Hill hospital will bring the majority of patients nearer to their homes and families. That is my advice, and I presume that people have looked carefully at where the families and friends of the current patients of Normans Riding live.

    Mr. McWilliam

    I do not want to take up much more of the Minister’s time because he has been more than fair to me in giving way, but patients from the immediate area of Normans Riding hospital are being transferred miles across the borough deliberately and patients from miles across the borough are being transferred into Normans Riding hospital to prove the point. It is being done deliberately.

    Mr. Hayhoe

    I am not in a position to confirm or deny that. I have not examined the records myself. As I say, I am advised that the position is as I have given it to the House today.

    Two of the four wards at Dunston Hill hospital which will be used for existing patients from Normans Riding have already been upgraded. There has been talk of the standard of accommodation. Plans are in hand to upgrade the other two wards. I should stress that that upgrading is for real; I have seen some suggestions that it is merely a cosmetic operation.

    I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have seen for himself on his visit to Dunston Hill hospital earlier this week, to which he referred, the efforts that the authority ​ is making to provide attractive, homely surroundings for the patients. The two wards yet to be upgraded will be upgraded to a high standard and over the next few years attention will be given to landscaping the hospital site and to a number of other significant improvements to parts of the site.

    It has been suggested that the developing expertise in the care of terminally ill patients at Normans Riding hospital will be lost as a result of the move. The hon. Gentleman referred to that aspect. The Gateshead health authority is aware of that concern and will be seeking to ensure that that expertise will continue when patients transfer to Dunston Hill hospital. As the hon. Gentleman may know, all the permanent staff at Normans Riding hospital are being offered similar appointments at Dunston Hill hospital. It is hoped that a majority will be able to transfer with their patients, thus providing a high measure of continuity of care.

    The hon. Member referred to the health advisory service report which was broadly welcomed by the Gateshead health authority because it contained many helpful recommendations. The authority established a small group of members to look at its specific points. One can quote from a report a sentence or paragraph or two to sustain one position or another. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will therefore appreciate it if I quote one paragraph to buttress my case, just as I would expect him equally fairly to quote another paragraph that was more in tune with his point. Paragraph 100 states:

    “The policy of integrating geriatric medicine with general medicine on the Queen Elizabeth site following scheme 3 and concentrating facilities for the elderly on fewer sites is commendable and should secure the medical care of the elderly in the mainstream of clinical medicine. This will give all ​ patients, irrespective of age, immediate access to the diagnostic and therapeutic resources of the district general hospital which will improve morale and recruitment of staff to the speciality of geriatrics and last, but by no means least, create the means of introducing the multidisciplinary patient-oriented approach to illness at all ages into the acute sector wards.”

    There is a real bonus in medical terms to be gained from the proposition which I have agreed. Revenue savings will be achieved by closing Normans Riding hospital and transferring the services to Dunston Hill hospital. The savings are estimated at £178,000 in a full year, all from non-direct patient care services — administration, domestic, catering, portering and estate managing services. Those savings are to be deployed elsewhere to improve services to patients.

    I have accepted the assurance from Gateshead health authority that the transfer of the facilities from Normans Riding hospital to Dunston Hill hospital will enable the authority to provide the same level of service more efficiently and will release much needed money to improve existing services across the district to the overall benefit of the community who look to the authority for health care.

    For these reasons, and after careful consideration, I concluded that I should support the decision of the Northern regional health authority and the Gateshead district health authority by approving the closure of the hospital. Although I have listened with great care and interest to the hon. Member for Blaydon, I am not persuaded by what he said that the closure decision I made was wrong.