UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Angela Rumbold – 1986 Speech on the Rate Support Grant

    Below is the text of the speech made by Angela Rumbold, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, in the House of Commons on 31 January 1986.

    I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) for the kind words with which they began their contributions. I am also grateful to them on behalf of the civil servants who worked in Marsham street for many a long year with my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam.

    I do fully understand my hon. Friend’s arguments about the manner in which the London borough of Sutton has conducted its affairs over a number of years. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington paid tribute to the local authority’s good management and spoke of how such good management affects people who live and work in that outer London borough. I sympathise and I do not want anything that we do to be to the detriment of such boroughs.

    My hon. Friends will accept that the rate support grant system is at the best of times undeniably complex. This settlement has been more complex because of the additional task of accommodating the abolition of the Greater London council and the metropolitan authorities. I welcome the opportunity to try to reassure my hon. Friends and their constituents about the borough’s position.

    First, I shall deal with how the 1986–87 rate support grant settlement might have affected Sutton if we had not made any changes to the grant system. Like all other outer Londer authorities the borough would have lost block grant because we have reduced the proportion of overall spending which is met by the Exchequer grant, of which block grant is a part. We have followed that policy because we wanted to reduce the Exchequer support to local government in an attempt to improve local accountability. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam accepted that. The loss of grant for this reason amounted to over £1·5 million. Sutton would have lost a further £333,000 due to increased rateable values. It would have gained about £800,000 because we have moved resources between various services.

    With some other smaller losses and gains, overall Sutton would have received about £900,000 less in grant than in 1985–86 if we had simply rolled the old system forward to 1986–87.

    However, we could not leave the basic grant system alone. The most important feature of the settlement next year is that we have removed targets and holdback. At the same time, we have increased the effects of the existing mechanism so as to continue the constraints on spending. Sutton gained £1 million in grant from that move.

    We have also continued the development of grant-related expenditure as an objective measure of spending ​ need. Sutton gains a further £1·2 million in grant from those changes which mainly affect its education and concessionary fares provision. As I said, we have abolished the GLC, which means that Sutton has gained a further £1·5 million of grant towards the services that it has taken on as a consequence of abolition.

    The net result of all the changes to which I have referred is that if Sutton were to spend at a level equal to its own 1985–86 spending and include its share of the GLC’s 1985–86 spending — increased by 3·4 per cent. — its block grant would increase by £2·8 million to £27·8 million—an increase of 11·3 per cent.
    Many outer London boroughs have claimed that profligate inner London boroughs have been rewarded rather than penalised, as the outer boroughs would wish. However, many inner London boroughs are subject to lower expenditure limits next year. For example, Greenwich is being required to reduce its expenditure by 10 per cent. in real terms, Hackney by over 12 per cent. and Lewisham by 14 per cent., all as a direct consequence of rate capping.

    Such demands are difficult to achieve, as I know to my cost. It is hard for a local authority to achieve much more than a 3 per cent. direct cut in expenditure during the rollover of one financial year. However, we are required to operate the block grant system on general principles which have to be consistent. We have no power to single out authorities for favourable or unfavourable treatment. The rate support grant system is based on the principles of need and resources equalisation. The aim is for authorities to provide similar services at broadly the same rate poundage cost to their ratepayers, regardless of differences in their needs and rateable resources.

    Although we are not here today to decide the future of the local government finance system, it would be appropriate for me to mention that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has just launched a major Green Paper which addresses the fundamental issues of equalisation and the extent to which it should continue under a new financial system for local government. We shall certainly welcome all thoughts and contributions from local authorities in the coming months. I hope that my hon. Friends will take that message back to their local authority.

    The abolition of the GLC is particularly important to the London borough of Sutton. My hon. Friends will recall that we intended that the financial effects of abolition would be neutral—there would be neither gainers nor losers arising out of the abolition. We have not built into the rate support grant settlement any assumption about what savings can be made by the successor authorities.

    Our aim has been that, taken as a whole, London will receive the same level of grant to which it would have been entitled if the GLC had continued to exist and to spend at the level assumed in the settlement. We have done that by allocating the GLC’s grant-related expenditure and its 1985–86 budget to the successor authorities on the most objective assumptions that we could find, after a full process of consultation with the local authority associations.
    We have also extended the London rate equalisation scheme to replace the equalising effect of the GLC precept. That was necessary to avoid windfall gains to the central boroughs at the expense of ratepayers outside London.

    It is important to understand that not only do authorities inherit expenditure obligations from the GLC, and the grant-related expenditure to go with them, but they inherit an obligation to raise some of the resources to meet those needs from their own ratepayers, just as the GLC did by precepting. That means that there is no uniform relationship between GRE increases and grant increases due to abolition.

    However, in Sutton’s case the grant entitlement on our spending assumption of an increase of 3·4 per cent. would suggest a rate rise of only 2·5 per cent. If Sutton could repeat last year’s use of balances, the rise could be even lower—perhaps even zero.

    My hon. Friends asked me to touch on Sutton’s grant related expenditure. I know that Sutton is unhappy about several aspects of that. It lost about £500,000 from figures provisionally announced in October 1985, mainly due to new data on traffic flows affecting the highway maintenance grant-related expenditure. We made it clear that such changes were possible. The concessionary fare GRE does not match what Sutton believes it will be required to spend according to the statutory scheme, although the new GRE methodology is better for Sutton than the old one. I assume my hon. Friends that we are, looking at whether we can help on this aspect for future years. We are acutely aware of the problems that arise from continually looking at the grant-related expenditure assessment. That throws up problems not only for Sutton, but for other authorities, and one has to be careful about how one changes the assessments.

    I know that Sutton has been worried about the costs associated with the abolition of the GLC. The likely reduction of the proposed London Residuary Body levy from £180 million to around £60 million, to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred in the RSG debate on 20 January, represents a saving to Sutton of over £3 million.

    My hon. Friends may also know that no less than £200 million of the provisional charges, London-wide, circulated by the LRB in November, related to housing debt that the boroughs already pay for. To add this as a new expense due to abolition would be mistaken. It would result in double counting, and this may help to explain some of the figures for rate increases put about by boroughs generally, although I know that Sutton has not made that mistake.

    Furthermore, my right hon. Friend announced that the GLC’s balances will now be distributed on a population basis. Sutton will get £250,000 instead of £150,000 for every £10 million of balances distributed. I hope that takes care of that point.

    I should like to refer to a mistake that has occurred in the split of the GLC’s highway maintenance expenditure to the boroughs when the RSG settlement was being prepared. I recognise how difficult it is for anyone not immersed in this system, which is known for its Byzantine complexity, not to become confused, but this error is different from the changes of highway maintenance and other GREs between provisional announcement and settlement which I talked about earlier. It has to do with the calculation of the expenditure to be taken on by each borough from the GLC, which is necessary so that limits are set on the gains and losses of grant as a result. These limits—safety nets—were needed to achieve the neutral effect that I mentioned before. The grant loss to Sutton is almost £800,000. ​ I am urgently considering how this can be corrected within the grant year. There are various ways in which we might do this. I am committed to consulting the local authority associations with a view to producing a solution which will correct this error before boroughs have to make a rate.

    I know that the council’s latest forecast for next year’s expenditure, taking account of some of these changes, is now about £1·5 million less than when I met my hon. Friends with a deputation from the borough of Sutton. But at £71 million, it is still almost £2 million above our settlement assumption. It would be about 9 per cent. up on last year — a far bigger increase than can be accounted for by inflation. On these figures Sutton could lose about £3 million of grant overall. I hope Sutton can find ways of reducing that forecast.

    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State used the phrase “grant recycling.” Last year, penalties incurred by overspending authorities went back to the Treasury. This year, grant lost by those spending above the settlement assumptions will be recycled to all by the traditional process of close ending. My right hon. Friend showed to the House in the RSG debate the effects of distributing a ​ pool of £400 million. Sutton would have received nearly £1·25 million as a result. How much of this is a grant gain will depend upon how much Sutton contributed to the pool by spending above the assumptions we have made. If it can keep its own spending down, it will maximise the benefits for ratepayers.

    I think it is fair to say that Sutton has not had a bad settlement. I would be fairer to say that Sutton had rather a good settlement. If its overall spending goes up in line with inflation—4·5 per cent.—we estimate that its rates need only go up by 5·2 per cent. That will be as little as 2·7 per cent. if Sutton can repeat last year’s use of balances. If it can get its spending below that figure, rates rises could be even lower.

    I hope that I have provided additional information which I am sure my hon. Friends can take back to help mitigate some of the differences between the borough’s estimate of expenditure next year and our own. Therefore, the message I should leave with my hon. Friends is to urge the council to keep up its record of exemplary housekeeping. The rewards for its ratepayers will be great.

  • Neil Macfarlane – 1986 Speech on the Rate Support Grant

    Below is the text of the speech made by Neil Macfarlane, the former Conservative MP for Sutton and Cheam, in the House of Commons on 31 January 1986.

    I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a subject which is of great importance to my constituents—the rate support grant settlement and the London borough of Sutton. It is interesting—I hope it will be an illuminating experience—to be on this end of an Adjournment debate, having sat for many hours on the Front Bench over the past six years.

    I am encouraged and honoured by the excessive presence of the worthies from the Department of the Environment who have just joined us in the Box. I have great admiration and a lot of affection for them after my years with them, so I am glad that they are here today and I am sure that they will be able to assist us in many ways.

    The rate support grant settlement was debated fully on 20 January, but, with hindsight, it seemed to many of us, not only in the House but outside in the wider world through the media, that there was a tendency for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and indeed others, to concentrate on the problems facing the shire counties. I do not make that for one moment as an accusation against my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of the Environment. That is the way that it was largely presented. It absorbed much of the media’s attention throughout those few days, as it tended to in December when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made his announcement on 18 December about the settlement for 1986–87.

    That is why many of us who represent outer London boroughs feel that the problem is just as acute there as it is in the shire counties and it is to that to which I wish to turn my attention. I have every confidence that my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold), the Under-Secretary of State who is to reply, is well in tune with outer London politics and equally well in tune with outer London Government finance. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman), who is anxious to have a few moments in which to speak in this debate and hopes to catch your eye Mr. Deputy Speaker, when I have sat down — with the full recognition of my hon. Friend the Minister — has just the same problems. We both represent the London borough of Sutton. I want to express my warm thanks to my hon. Friend the Minister for the way in which she received a large delegation from both of us a fortnight ago, including various officials of the London borough of Sutton. That provided an opportunity for a detailed survey on Sutton’s finances.

    Sutton’s financial control has been well in accordance with prudence and has reflected the Government’s demands since 1979. Sutton has for many years complied with Government guidelines and target requirements. It has also given the fullest support to Government policies in connection with the abolition of the GLC and has cooperated more than fully in setting up the consortium arrangements to handle waste disposal in south London in spite of receiving a transfer station far larger than required. That is an important dimension for us in the overall assessment.

    No charges of profligacy can be laid at Sutton’s door, as opposed to the other inner London authorities which ​ have for many years been locked in battle. I need not enumerate those except to say that we all know where they are and we all know what they have done to the ratepayers of Greater London. Indeed, many of the inner London boroughs and the outer London boroughs that make up the metropolis are in an identical position.

    I did not support the Government’s proposal on Monday 20 January, because the whole settlement is inequitable. I ask my hon. Friend to give urgent consideration to our problem with my right hon. Friend so that we may achieve a more equitable distribution. I am heartened by the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who received a delegation of outer London Members of Parliament in the same week, and for that we are grateful. But I hope that there will be more to come from some of the comments and observations that he made.

    A feature of the 1986–87 settlement is that it is supposed technically to benefit metropolitan areas, but the increased benefit for London is concentrated almost exclusively on the inner London boroughs. Having worked for some years in the Department of the Environment I am well aware of the problems in the inner cities, but we must ensure that our programme is not to the detriment and exclusion of the outer London boroughs which, in many respects, are facing problems similar to any other capital city.
    It must be said that most of the metropolitan areas receive, justifiably, all forms of other additional Government support through the inner city partnership, urban development grants and derelict land grants. There is a whole series of additional sources of funding which we tend not to see in the outer London borough of Sutton.

    I want first to look at grant-related expenditure assessments. That has assumed a far greater importance in 1986–87 because previously rate support grant penalties commenced for expenditure in excess of target. Now, withdrawal commences in relation to GRE level. Thus the more GRE received, the higher is the grant. Indeed, an analysis of the total percentage GRE change in London, excluding GRE related to services transferred from the Greater London Council shows that inner London receives an increase of about 15·4 per cent. Outer London, on average, receives an increase of 8·2 per cent., but in Sutton the increase is only 6·4 per cent. The figures including transferred services are: for inner London an increase of 51·7 per cent., outer London 21·8 per cent., on average, and for Sutton merely 20·5 per cent.

    Officials in Sutton are concerned that details of individual GREA components for existing services were not made available to Sutton until after the debate on the settlement in the House of Commons. I know the reasons for that policy over the years, but the timing is difficult. Without access to data, any conclusions drawn from the information available so far can be based only on assumption. That places us in all sorts of difficulties at this critical time with just a few months to go before the end of the financial year.

    Pre and post-abolition GREs have been provided for former GLC services and one area where Sutton seems to have suffered is in the post-abolition highways maintenance GRE. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary will say something about that when she winds up because that is just one of several features that concern my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington and myself.

    I must make it clear to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary that we understand that we cannot expect detailed and specific answers to all the points we might hope to make during the debate, but I hope that in the immediate future it may be possible to have some follow-up guidance so that we can relate it to our colleagues in the London borough of Sutton.

    I also want to make it clear that the electorate wholeheartedly approves the Government programme to reduce expenditure. We also applaud the containment of inflation, which is a key factor in all of this. It is also worth pointing out to hon. Friend that, on all services, Sutton had the lowest net cost per capita in 1984–85. Sutton is an efficient local authority. It had the third lowest rate rises in outer London and between 1981 and 1985 rate rises were contained at just over 10 per cent. when the RPI increase was 28 per cent. for the corresponding period. That speaks volumes for Sutton’s financial management. Indeed, I venture to suggest that many other local authorities should follow that. So far, we have had some recognition from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State towards our problem, but I should like some answer. Can my hon. Friend say whether the reduced budget for the London Residuary Body helps Sutton and by how much can it help?

    From the correspondence I have received in recent months it seems surprising to ratepayers that the benefits derived from abolition do not seem to be followed by a good grant distribution. Accordingly, we need specific details. I expected, as a firm supporter and believer of the abolition of the top tiers of Government in this country —the seven metropolitan authorities—that there would be such a distribution.

    During his speech on 20 January my right hon. Friend used the phrase “grant recycling”. I do not think that I would have chosen that phrase myself, but I know what he means and it is a graphic description. He spoke about grant recycling for low-spending authorities, meaning that those that have been in penalty will be required to help low-spending authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington and I are curious to know, as will other outer London borough Members who are in similar positions, how that will help the boroughs and, more specifically, how it will help Sutton. Can my hon. Friend be specific on that?

    Third, is the all-important question of GLC balances — which my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington and I discussed before, when we went to see my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary and her officials at the Department — and their future distribution, based on the population of each borough? It is important for us to know precisely what that means. It is an important concession that the distribution of GLC balances might be on a fairly equal basis throughout the population of each borough. Have any studies been pursued by my hon. Friend’s officials? If not, can they get in touch with officials in the London borough of Sutton? We need to know what the help will be. Again, the timing is crucial, bearing in mind the fact that it is only a couple of months until the year end.

    Those are critical points for my constituents in Sutton and Cheam, Belmont and Worcester Park. Sutton’s problems are not unique, but we are talking about specifics in this debate. I fully understand that my hon. Friend might not be able to reply to all the points that I have raised, but ​ I should be grateful if, in the fullness of time—within a couple of weeks, I hope—she will provide answers to the more detailed points that I have raised.

  • Simon Clarke – 2019 Speech on the Economics of Biodiversity

    Below is the text of the speech made by Simon Clarke, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, on 14 August 2019.

    In May, the UN released a report on the state of biodiversity on Earth showing that species of all kinds – mammals, birds, insects, plants, fish – are disappearing at an alarming rate.

    One million species are at risk of extinction, including 40 percent of all amphibian species, 33 percent of reef-forming corals, and around 10 percent of insects.

    Unfortunately, it’s our species that is to blame:

    we’ve cleared 100 million hectares of tropical forest between 1980 and 2000

    we’ve brought a third of fish stocks to biologically unsustainable levels

    and every year, we dump 3—400 million tons of heavy metals, solvents, toxic sludge and other wastes from industrial facilities into the world’s waters

    The death of any one species is a special tragedy, and a haunting loss.

    But the loss of a million would be a threat to our entire existence.

    Because, as you all know, biodiversity is not mere window dressing. Nature truly provides:

    it gives us the basics of food, fibres and clean water

    forests and wetlands capture carbon and retain rain water

    what’s more, approximately half of synthetic drugs have a natural origin, including many of our cancer drugs, and ten of the 25 highest selling drugs in the USA

    The need for an economic framework

    So we can see the scale of the problem in front of us.

    We have scraped and scoured our environment to the bone.

    But, like the state of climate science before the Stern review, we don’t yet have the economic tools to shape the polices required to heal it.

    We might know that the UK’s 1,500 species of pollinators deliver an estimated £680 million annual value to the UK economy.

    But that’s just one part of the picture. We need to be able to quantify what is at stake, and we need to be able to do so on the broadest possible canvas.

    There’s an urgent need to better understand the intricate relationship between human wealth and welfare, and the environment’s biodiversity and ecosystems.

    At the moment, not all that is very useful commands high value.

    And not everything that has high value is very useful – as Adam Smith once observed, water is a fair bit cheaper than diamonds.

    The situation demands we think more deeply.

    We need to get to grips with the nature of value, and the value of nature.

    Above all, we need to understand that you cannot manage what you do not measure.

    And that to forge a sustainable economy in harmony with nature – to keep it clean, use it wisely and share it fairly…

    …we have to better understand the links between ecosystems, biodiversity and human well-being…

    …And to come up with creative and transformative solutions to help secure it all.

    This is an ambitious goal which can only be achieved through the concerted efforts and combined strength of all sections of society.

    We need national and international alliances between policy makers, science, the public and the business community.

    And that’s why I’m proud that Britain is playing a leading role.

    Earlier this year, the previous Chancellor announced an independent global review on the Economics of Biodiversity – the first on the topic to be led by an Economics and Finance Ministry.

    We were all thrilled when Professor Dasgupta agreed to lead the review. With his global intellectual standing, I can think of no one better.

    I am also delighted that leading lights from academia, public policy and the private sector have agreed to take part in an Advisory Panel to provide expert advice to Professor Dasgupta and his team with their work.

    As a humble politician, seeking sensible options for change, I would warmly welcome your thoughts not just on how we establish the economic framework… but also on the policy choices that may flow from this.

    It’s great to see so many of you here today, with an opportunity to contribute your ideas and engage on this critical issue.

    I look forward to hearing all about your day and will retain a keen interest throughout the year ahead.

    Thank you.

  • Jeremy Corbyn – 2019 Speech in Corby

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Corbyn, the Leader of the Opposition, in Corby on 19 August 2019.

    Thank you, Beth, for that introduction. You’re a powerful voice for the people of Corby and we need that voice in parliament.

    It’s great to be back in Corby and I’d like to thank all the staff and everyone involved at the Pen Green Centre for Children and Families for hosting us today.

    I’m sure I don’t need to convince anyone here that as we look towards the return of parliament in September the country is heading into a political and constitutional storm.

    It’s the Conservative Party’s failure on Brexit and its lurch to the hard right that has provoked the crisis our country faces this autumn.

    After failing to negotiate a Brexit deal that would protect jobs and living standards. Boris Johnson’s Tories are driving the country towards a No Deal cliff edge.

    We will do everything necessary to stop a disastrous No Deal for which this government has no mandate.

    Boris Johnson’s government wants to use No Deal to create a tax haven for the super-rich on the shores of Europe, and sign a sweetheart trade deal with Donald Trump.

    Not so much a No Deal Brexit more a Trump Deal Brexit.

    Have no doubt, No Deal would destroy people’s jobs push up food prices in the shops and open our NHS to takeover by US private corporations.

    That’s a price Boris Johnson is willing to pay because it won’t be him and his wealthy friends paying it – it will be you.

    Labour will do everything we can to protect people’s livelihoods.

    We will work together with the MPs from across parliament to pull our country back from the brink.

    I will bring a vote of no confidence in the government, and if we’re successful, I would seek to form a time-limited caretaker administration to avert No Deal, and call an immediate general election so the people can decide our country’s future.

    If MPs are serious about stopping a No Deal crash out, then they will vote down this reckless government and it falls to the Leader of the Opposition, to make sure No Deal does not happen and the people decide their own future.

    Labour believes the decision on how to resolve the Brexit crisis must go back to the people.

    And if there is a general election this autumn, Labour will commit to holding a public vote, to give voters the final say with credible options for both sides including the option to remain.

    Three years of Tory failure on Brexit have caused opinions to harden to such a degree that I believe no outcome will now have legitimacy without the people’s endorsement.

    But while Brexit is the framework of the crisis, we face the problems facing our country run much deeper.

    A general election triggered by the Tory Brexit crisis will be a crossroads for our country. It will be a once-in-a-generation chance for a real change of direction potentially on the scale of 1945 or 1979.

    Things cannot go on as they were before. The Conservatives and the wealthy establishment they represent have failed our country.

    They have failed to protect living standards, savaged our public services, deepened inequality and failed to keep us safe.

    Boris Johnson and his Tory cabinet have direct responsibility for the Tory decade of devastating damage to our communities and the fabric of our society.

    However, the Brexit crisis is resolved, the country faces a fundamental choice.

    Labour offers the real change of direction the country needs a radical programme to rebuild and transform communities and public services to invest in the green jobs and high-tech industries of the future and take action to tackle inequality and climate crisis.

    The Tories have lurched to the hard right under Boris Johnson.

    Johnson is Britain’s Trump, as the US president himself declared the fake populist and phoney outsider funded by the hedge funds and bankers committed to protecting the vested interests of the richest and the elites while posing as anti-establishment.

    The Tories cannot be trusted to deliver on their quick-fix promises because their first priority is tax cuts for the big corporations and the richest.

    The Tories can’t be trusted to deliver for the majority because they will always look after their own. Instead of fixing a failed system, they will turbocharge its inequalities, insecurities and climate destruction.

    Labour can be trusted to deliver to end austerity, to take on the elites and the vested interests holding people back and to transform our country for the many, not the few.

    Labour can be trusted to take the radical steps necessary to protect the environment provide hope, decent jobs, secure homes, opportunity to every nation and region and build a fairer country that works for all.

    Our country has been held back for too long by the establishment that the Tories represent.

    But together, we can take our future into our own hands and tackle the great challenges facing our country alongside Brexit; inequality and an economy run for the richest; public services that have been stripped back and sold off; and the climate emergency threatening our children’s future.

    Inequality holds all of us back. It means the talent of millions of people is squandered.

    We don’t have to be a country of food banks and rough sleepers at one end while the super-rich dodge taxes at the other.

    People have a choice.

    Labour will raise tax for the richest and make sure they pay their share towards the common good.

    The Tories will cut tax for the richest.

    Labour will require the big multinational corporations to actually pay the tax they owe in this country.

    The Tories will cut tax for big corporations.

    It’s Labour that will get more money into your pocket rather than line the pockets of multi-millionaires.

    We’ll introduce a real living wage of £10 an hour, including for young people who deserve equal pay for equal work.

    But we need to go further. The problem with an unfair economy isn’t just the imbalance of wealth; it’s the imbalance of power.

    Labour will give working people more power to win better wages and have security at work.

    We’ll put workers on company boards and give the workforce a 10% stake in large companies; paying a dividend of as much as £500 a year to each employee.

    And Labour won’t tell people they have to work until they are 75 before getting their pension, as Iain Duncan Smith’s think tank has suggested – a policy that discriminates against working class people – especially in manual jobs.

    It’s past time that we rewrote the rules of the economy – to shift wealth and power – from a small elite at the top into the hands of the majority.

    And that principle of empowering people doesn’t just apply to the workplace.

    We’ll bring rail, mail, water and the national grid into public ownership. So the essential utilities people rely on are run by and for the public, not shareholders.

    And we’ll give tenants more power and security including controlling rents, so dodgy landlords can’t rip them off.

    And when we talk about inequality, we aren’t only talking about economics. We need a government that’s seriously committed to tackling the entrenched inequalities faced by women and ethnic minorities too.

    The coming general election will be make or break for our public services.

    The new prime minister has been making some pre-election spending pledges over the past few weeks.

    That shows Labour has won the argument that austerity damages our country and that it was always a political choice.

    But it insults voters’ intelligence to expect them to be grateful for a bit of extra money here and there, with no confidence that it will actually be delivered when it’s Boris Johnson’s Tories who ran our public services into the ground in the first place.

    And it shows no understanding of the depth of the problem.

    Take crime which the Prime Minister is now trying to turn to his political advantage, with yet more promises to tackle what the Tories have failed to bring under control for a decade.

    In the 2017 election, Labour won the argument that Tory cuts to the police had made people unsafe, and we pledged to hire more officers.

    The Conservatives have now conceded that we were right, but police cuts are not the only reason violent crime has doubled.

    What the Tories won’t address is the much wider impact of austerity; the closed youth services; under-resourced mental healthcare; and the lack of funding for community mentoring.

    We take youth services so seriously that we will make it compulsory for local government to deliver them.

    And we know the direct impact that rhetoric around immigration, crime and stop and search can have on the lives of those from minority communities.

    Labour will rebuild our public services because we understand they are the glue that binds society together.

    We’ll restore pride in our NHS by funding it properly and end the sell-offs and privatisation.

    And we’ll create a National Education Service providing free learning from the cradle to the grave including free school meals for all primary children smaller class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds and no tuition fees at university or college.

    So who can the public trust to rebuild our public services after a decade of Conservative austerity – Labour, or the Tories led by Boris Johnson?

    And on the issue that poses the greatest threat to our common future the climate crisis, it’s Labour that has shown leadership.

    We ensured our parliament was the first in the world to declare a climate emergency.

    That must be followed by radical and decisive action that will only be delivered by a Labour government.

    It certainly won’t come from the Tories the party that scrapped the Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon, effectively killing off new onshore wind power projects, and is forcing fracking on local communities who oppose it.

    We have to turn the climate crisis into an opportunity, to rebuild British industry with a Green Industrial Revolution that will create 400,000 well-paid high-skilled jobs in renewable energy and green technology, particularly in parts of our country that never recovered from the decimation of our industrial base by Margaret Thatcher’s government places like here in Corby, where the closure of the steelworks cost thousands upon thousands of jobs.

    Imagine if the Derbyshire and Yorkshire coalfields that once powered the nation became the new centres of green energy generation.

    Or if towns that used to make locomotives built the next generation of high-speed electric trains.

    Just imagine how it would feel for those communities to once again be the beating heart of our economy while reducing our greenhouse emissions.

    That future is within our grasp.

    But I ask again: who do you trust to act on the climate emergency – Labour, or the Tories led by Boris Johnson?

    We can’t afford more of the same, but even worse. The future could be fantastic. New technologies have the power to liberate us and help tackle the climate emergency.

    But for too many, the future is frightening and uncertain because those technologies have been used instead to benefit the wealthy elite while driving down pay and security for millions.

    The next Labour government will take on those who really run our country the bankers, tax dodgers and big polluters. So that the real wealth creators, the people of this country, can have the services, jobs and futures they deserve.

    Because when Labour wins, we all win. The nurse wins, the pensioner wins, the student wins, the office worker wins, the engineer wins, we all win.

    The chaos and dislocation of Boris Johnson’s No Deal Brexit is real and threatening as the government’s leaked Operation Yellowhammer dossier makes clear. That’s why we will do everything we can to stop it.

    Then, after years of elite-driven austerity and neglect, we will recharge our politics with a massive injection of democracy kicking out the big money interests and putting the people in the driving seat.

    We will rebuild our public services by taxing those at the top to properly fund services for everyone.

    We will drive up people’s living standards by boosting pay, improving rights, and running our utilities and economy in the interests of the millions, not the multi-millionaires.

    And we will transform our communities with investment in every part of our country breathing new life into our high streets, giving security to older people and hope and opportunities to our young people.

    This is a historic moment, with the potential for real change to transform our country if we grasp the opportunity.

    Thank you.

  • Lynda Chalker – 1986 Statement on the Foreign Affairs Council

    Below is the text of the statement made by Lynda Chalker, the then Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in the House of Commons on 30 January 1986.

    With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council which took place in Brussels on 27 January. I and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry represented the United Kingdom. A statement of forthcoming business in the European Community has been deposited in the Vote Office.

    Ministers had a further preliminary discussion of the Commission’s proposals for a negotiating mandate on renewal of the multi-fibre arrangement. They reviewed progress in negotiations to adapt the European Community agreements to take account of enlargement. In response to the imposition by the United States of quotas on imports of EC semi-finished steel, the Council decided to introduce quotas on United States exports of fertiliser, coated paper and bovine fats. These restrictions will not be introduced until 15 February, allowing time for further efforts to achieve an agreed outcome. The President of the Commission reported on his discussion with the Japanese Government on EC-Japan trade relations during his recent visit to Tokyo. I emphasised the importance that we attach to the achievement of a better balance in trade between the European Community and Japan.

    In political co-operation, the Foreign Ministers of the Twelve agreed and issued a statement on international terrorism. They announced further measures to strengthen defences against terrorism within the Community and to discourage support from other Governments for terrorist attacks. They agreed to set up a new group within political co-operation to ensure effective follow-up in the areas covered by the statement. They agreed not to undercut measures taken by others against Governments which support terrorism. The Foreign Ministers reviewed briefly the implementation of the measures vis-à-vis South Africa which were agreed at Luxembourg on 10 September.

    In the Intergovernmental Conference member states finalised the text of the amendments to the EC treaties and treaty provisions on European political co-operation. On the question of the working environment, we secured inclusion in the treaty text of provisions protecting the position of small and medium-sized undertakings, as proposed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the European Council in Luxembourg last December. This enabled the only outstanding United Kingdom reserve to be lifted. All member states have accepted the agreed text. The Netherlands Presidency hope that the new Act will be signed by all member states on 17 February. If the Danish Government cannot sign on that date, they will aim to do so after the referendum in Denmark.

  • John Stanley – 1986 Statement on the Army

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Stanley, the then Minister of State for the Armed Forces, in the House of Commons on 30 January 1986.

    The past year has been one of sustained progress and achievement for the Army both at home and overseas.

    In addition to the Army’s normal deployments, 1985 saw continuing and effective operations against terrorists in Northern Ireland, the largest home defence exercise we have ever conducted, significant progress in the modernisation of the Army’s equipment, the provision of military training to over 70 foreign countries, important contributions to international peacekeeping in Cyprus and the Sinai, and a rapid and highly valued response to the natural disasters in Mexico and Colombia.

    Nineteen eighty five also saw no fewer than 12 regiments of the British Army celebrating 300 years of continuous service to the Crown — a record that we believe is unmatched by that of any other army in the world.

    I shall start with the main areas of actual or potential Army operations. During the past year, there has been no let-up in the modernisation of the Warsaw pact nuclear and conventional forces facing us on the central front. The Warsaw pact has continued to deploy new self-propelled artillery in eastern Europe, both conventional and nuclear capable. There has been significant additional deployment of its latest main battle tank, the T80, which has a gas turbine engine and a laser range-finder system, and which can fire an anti-tank guided missile as well as normal tank ammunition through its main gun barrel.

    The deployment in eastern Europe of Frogfoot aircraft which are designed to provide close air support for Warsaw pact ground forces, and which has been used extensively by the Russians in Afghanistan, has continued. The aircraft has now made its first appearance with Soviet forces in the forward areas of East Germany. The formidable Hind anti-tank helicopter is still being added to the Warsaw pact front line at a fast rate.

    The Warsaw pact’s logistic support for its forces will shortly be further improved with the deployment of its new heavy lift helicopter, designated, somewhat improbably, by NATO as the Halo. We saw for ourselves in the Falklands what a force multiplier helicopters in the logistic role can be.
    The Soviet chemical threat remains as significant as ever. To counter the Warsaw pact threat, important improvements to the Army’s equipment programme have been made in the past year. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement will refer to these when he comes to reply.

    From the operational standpoint, I am glad to say that these improvements will give 1st British Corps larger numbers of modern main battle tanks, much improved protected mobility with new wheeled and tracked armoured personnel carriers, new small arms, improved air defence, an improved targeting capability for the artillery and a quantum jump improvement in its communications and data processing facilities. These all represent very important contributions to NATO’s plans for strengthening the Alliance’s conventional defences right down the central front.​

    Mr. Robert Atkins (South Ribble)

    Regrettably, I must go north tonight to my constituency to face the problem of the redundancies at the royal ordnance factories in my constituency and elsewhere. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the regrettable redundancies at ROF Chorley result from Ministry of Defence war stocks being returned to their requisite high level following the Falklands conflict? Will he further confirm that the contract for 105 mm shells, which will go some way towards alleviating the obvious distress caused by those job losses, has been awarded as a direct result of ROF’s improved competitive edge and the sheer quality of product compared with foreign alternatives?

    Mr. Stanley

    My hon. Friend is again forcefully representing the interests of his constituents. As he knows, my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement has been in correspondence with him about the detailed background to those particular redundancies. I know that my hon. Friend wishes to refer to them when he replies.

    Mr. John McWilliam (Blaydon)

    If the Minister of State for Defence Procurement has been in detailed correspondence with his hon. Friend, why has he not yet been in correspondence with me? I have not received a letter.

    Mr. Stanley

    My hon. Friend the Minister advises me from a sedentary position that he has.

    Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland)

    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement has kindly been in correspondence with me. He has made it clear that although orders will be placed with royal ordnance factories, and they will go some way towards reducing the size of the announced redundancies, the reduction will be by less than 10 per cent. Will the Minister confirm that?

    Mr. Stanley

    As I have already said, my hon. Friend the Minister will deal with that specific issue when he replies, and in view of the interest shown by three hon. Members I am sure that he will do so.

    The past year has also been notable for the adoption of an improved concept of operations by northern army group (NORTHAG) of which C-in-C BAOR is the Army Group commander, and of which 1st British Corps comprises one of the four NORTHAG army corps.

    The adoption of this new concept of operatons marks no change in NATO’s wholly defensive posture, and no change in NATO’s fundamental strategy of forward defence and flexible response. It has been adopted in response to the continuing improvements in Soviet firepower, the Russians’ tactic of concentrating their forces so as to achieve local superiority, and their creation of operational manoeuvre groups of divisional size or larger, which are intended to exploit initial breakthroughs and penetrate rapidly into NATO’s rear areas. In the light of those developments, NORTHAG needed a less static: defence, more defence in depth and strong armoured reserves. The new concept of operations provides all of these.

    The House will wish to he aware of the major contribution to the formulation of this new concept of operations, and to getting it agreed by the Alliance as a whole, played by General Sir Nigel Bagnall, then the commander of NORTHAG and now chief of the general staff. ​ In a letter to The Times on 3 July last year, General Chalupa, commander-in-chief allied forces central Europe, said:

    “I would also wish to acknowledge General Bagnall’s significant contribution towards the successful accomplishment of our primary task, which is the prevention of war by maintaining a credible defence posture. I appreciate in particular his untiring efforts in developing and refining further the defence concepts and plans evolved by his predecessors.”

    I am sure the House was gratified to see General Chalupa’s generous tribute to General Bagnall.

    Turning to northern Norway, although the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines have major roles in protecting this key area of NATO territory, the Army also makes a significant contribution, and trains accordingly. We deploy to northern Norway, not merely 3 Commando Brigade, but the battalion with logistic support that the Army contributes to the ACE mobile force (land) AMF(L).

    These units undertake the same arctic warfare training as the Royal Marines, and have recently been equipped with the new BV206 over-snow tracked vehicle. The AMF(L) role is currently being discharged by the 1st Battalion of the Parachute Regiment.

    In terms of operations outside the NATO area, the House will recall that in November 1983 my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Defence announced, in the light of our Falklands experience, an important range of enhancements for 5 Brigade. That brigade has been renamed 5 Airborne Brigade to reflect its new ability to mount a parachute assault with a minimum of one parachute battalion and its supporting air defence, artillery, signals, engineer and medical elements, all of which can now be parachute dropped.

    The House will be glad to know that all the enhancements announced in November 1983 have now been implemented, as has the programme of fitting station-keeping radars to a number of Hercules aircraft so that the whole of the leading parachute battalion group can be delivered in a single parachute drop. In view of the importance we attach to our out-of-area capability, we announced last month that a major strategic exercise would be held in Oman later this year involving British forces and those of the Sultanate of Oman. The exercise is to be called Saif Sareea, which I am advised is Arabic for Swift Sword.

    The aim of the exercise will be to practise our ability to respond rapidly to a crisis outside the NATO area. The exercise will involve some 5,000 service men from all three services. The units taking part will include elements of 5 Airborne Brigade and 3 Commando Brigade. It will also involve ships from the Royal Navy task group, which will be on its way back from its planned deployment to the Pacific. In addition, the RAF will make a major contribution in the form of a detachment of Tornado aircraft and substantial air transport resources. Exercise Saif Sareea will be the largest out-of-area exercise we have undertaken for many years and should prove to be of great value.

    The one operation in which the Army is involved every day of the year is supporting the police against terrorism in Northern Ireland. In recent years, and indeed over the centuries, terrorism has taken many forms. Today, terrorism is increasingly assuming an international dimension, and in Northern Ireland takes one of the most ​ sophisticated forms of any in the world. Fortunately, the British Army has unique experience and unique expertise in combating this menace.

    The Army’s assistance to the police in dealing with terrorism is not confined to Northern Ireland. It also assists the police, who have the primary counter-terrorist responsibility in the rest of the United Kingdom. It does so through the provision of specialist skills such as Royal Engineers explosive search teams, Royal Army Ordnance Corps bomb disposal teams, and through specialist training and equipment. In June last year it was an RAOC team that rendered safe and cleared the large quantity of terrorist bomb-making equipment found by the Strathclyde police in Glasgow.

    However, it is of course in Northern Ireland in support of the RUC that the Army’s counter-terrorist effort is overwhelmingly concentrated. Last year saw some significant successes. As a result of the security forces’ efforts, 522 charges were brought relating to terrorist offences and 237 weapons were seized and nearly seven tonnes of explosives were recovered. One cannot speak too highly of the skill and bravery of all those elements of the armed forces and the RUC who secured these results.

    The work of the Army’s bomb disposal and search teams in Northern Ireland in saving lives, property and jobs from destruction by terrorist bombs continues to be outstanding. These teams dealt with some 200 explosive devices last year, one of which contained 1,600 lbs of explosive. For the bomb disposal teams, the smallest device represents as great a personal danger as the largest. The way those teams combine outstanding technical skill with selfless personal bravery commands our highest admiration.

    The achievements of the security forces in Northern Ireland in 1985 were not obtained without cost. Twenty nine police officers and soldiers lost their lives last year, and a further 340 were injured. Of the 29 killed, 27 were members of the RUC or the UDR. As the House recognises, the men and women of the RUC and the UDR, knowingly and willingly, accept the particular risks that service with either force or its reserves automatically confers. These men and women are at risk on duty, at home, and, if part-timers, at their place of work as well. They are at risk both when they are serving and when they retire. One man killed last year had finished his service with the UDR seven years previously. They are at risk at any place and at any time. The commitment and the courage of the men and women of the RUC and the UDR are of the highest order.

    That commitment and that courage have been recognised in the award to service personnel last year of a further 73 decorations for gallantry in Northern Ireland. Those decorations included one George medal, one military cross, 12 Queen’s gallantry medals and six military medals, one of which, sadly, was posthumous. In addition, 102 service men and service women were mentioned in dispatches. We salute those who were honoured in this way. My only regret is that for security reasons the citations cannot be made public. They make remarkable reading.

    Over the years the terrorist threat in the province has moved through various phases, and the security forces have had to adapt their response to meet each phase. Currently, the terrorists are making particular use of homemade mortars against police stations. This has been coupled with the attempted intimidation of building ​ contractors doing work for the security forces. The Government are firmly determined to ensure that such tactics do not succeed.

    An additional battalion, the 2nd Battalion of the Royal Anglian Regiment, was moved at short notice to Northern Ireland at the beginning of this month and became operational there with commendable speed. Additional Royal Engineers have also been deployed in the province and, as I saw for myself recently, they are doing a first-class job in providing the security forces with additional protection. The House will be glad to know that the work of rebuilding the first of the RUC stations that was severely hit before Christmas has already started.

    The events of the last few weeks have underlined once again the importance of security co-operation across the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. We are in no doubt that the Anglo-Irish agreement marks a crucial step forward in this area which is equally vital to the Republic and to ourselves. I should mention that the terrorist weapon find — about which we were all delighted to hear—made by the Garda last weekend just south of the border was one of the largest ever such finds in the Republic.

    It is to the immense credit of the security forces that we have come a long way from the peak of violence in the early 1970s. The RUC has increasingly been able to resume policing on the streets, and the overwhelming majority of the people of Northern Ireland are able to live normal lives. I know that the whole House will wish me to express our gratitude to all the members of the security forces in Northern Ireland for the dangerous and essential work that they do.

    Last year reminded us, to an unusual degree, of the Army’s value in being able to respond quickly and effectively to civilian needs. In the last 12 months, the British Army has helped in three major natural disasters outside the United Kingdom. Successive teams of Army air dispatchers from the Royal Corps of Transport, including three Territorial Army members, served continuously in Ethiopia from February to December last year air-dropping desperately needed grain to areas inaccessible by vehicle.

    With the RAF, the air dispatchers air-dropped over 14,000 tonnes of grain in a huge total of 954 separate sorties. Almost all these airdrops were made at extremely low level from RAF Hercules aircraft flying at about 50 ft from the ground. This reflected both flying and air-dropping skills of the highest order. Following the Mexico earthquake disaster, a Royal Engineer troop was on the scene within 48 hours of our being asked to help. It was given the key job of trying to save the partially collapsed building that was the hub of a high proportion of Mexico’s telephone network and therefore represented a vital communications link for the whole country. The building was unstable, and contained a number of rapidly decomposing bodies. The Royal Engineers worked round the clock on that building for nearly three weeks in physically hazardous and most unpleasant conditions. They rightly earned the high regard and very warm appreciation of the Mexican authorities.

    Only a few weeks after that, the Army was again on hand with the service team that was deployed to Colombia to help evacuate and get relief supplies to civilians in the Armero district who survived the devastating volcanic eruption there. ​ In case anyone should think that the Army is only likely to play that sort of a role outside the United Kingdom, the House will recall that when over a quarter of a million people in Leeds suddenly found themselves without a water supply just before Christmas, the situation was saved by all three services sending water bowsers to Leeds with most impressive speed, following a no-notice emergency call-out in the middle of the night. The speed and proficiency of the responses made by the Army and of course by the other two services to these major crises for civilian communities has been extremely creditable.

    Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

    My right hon. Friend has talked about the admirable service given by the armed services here and overseas. I endorse everything that he has said. Can he tell us whether he will deal with the crisis in the services brought about by so many young, skilled, qualified officers, NCOs and other ranks leaving the services because they are deeply upset and concerned about the level of pay and the dramatic reduction in allowances when they are serving in not very popular parts of the world, including the British Army of the Rhine?

    Mr. Stanley

    My hon. Friend is anticipating a later section of my speech.

    I now want to turn to the other main commitments that the Army has. My right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Defence made it clear that we shall continue to be responsible for the defence and internal security of Hong Kong up to 1997, and that we shall maintain the forces needed for that purpose. He also made it clear that we intend that there will be a continuing role for the Gurkhas after 1997 with the British Army, though not of course in Hong Kong. We shall be giving continuous consideration to the Army’s force level in Hong Kong up to 1997.

    There is no change at present in the Army’s commitments in Brunei, Cyprus, Gibraltar and Belize, or to our contingent in Sinai with the multinational force and observers on the border between Egypt and Israel.

    As far as the Falklands are concerned, our policy is to maintain the forces at the minimum size necessary to defend the islands and the dependencies. The opening of Mount Pleasant airport has greatly improved our rapid reinforcement capability. Once the airport and garrison facilities are complete, we should be able to reduce still further the level of forces permanently stationed on the islands.

    Given the events of the last few days, the House will wish to know the situation of our small training team in Uganda. The value of the British Army presence to foreign expatriates in Uganda, of which British expatriates are still the largest component, was shown immediately after the coup against President Obote last July. A considerable number of expatriates wanted to leave at that point. An evacuation convoy from Kampala to the Kenyan border was, therefore, jointly planned and administered by the British high commission and the British Army training team in Uganda. That action won widespread praise and gratitude from all involved. During the events of last weekend we did, of course, keep in the closest touch with our team in Uganda. We will now be considering its future in the light of the new situation in that country.

    The House will also be interested to know that, building on the success of British training teams in Zimbabwe since ​ independence, it has been agreed by the Governments of Zimbabwe and Mozambique and ourselves that the British army training team in Zimbabwe should provide some training for Mozambican officers and NCOs at the Battalion battle school at Nyanga in Zimbabwe. The first course is due to begin in February.

    The contribution we make to providing military advice and training to foreign countries all over the world through the loan service personnel of all three services receives less prominence than I believe it merits. The Army contributes some 450 personnel in 20 countries. Those teams maintain an excellent standard of training, are highly regarded by their host countries and are an asset to Britain, and to the West, out of all proportion to their size and their cost.

    I have spoken so far about the operations and commitments of the Army’s full-time professionals. I now turn to the Regular and volunteer reserves. The critical importance of the reserves is shown by the fact that, in a period of tension and after full mobilisation, the size of the Army as a whole would increase by some 175,000 through the addition of the reserves, and the size of the Army in Germany would almost treble. From that it can be seen that the Army would be in no position to discharge its wartime commitments without our reserve forces. Moreover, the reserves are strikingly cost-effective. The TA, for example, generates over 30 per cent. of the Army’s order of battle for only some 5 per cent. of its budget.

    As for the regular reserves, we are carrying out more detailed planning for fitting them to their wartime tasks. We also started a new training scheme last year to give regular reservists a week’s refresher training in their third year out of the Army, and we gave some 2,000 of them the opportunity to take part in exercise Brave Defender last year. We shall continue to look for cost-effective ways in which we can make greater use of our regular reserves.

    Mr. Derek Conway (Shrewsbury and Atcham)

    My right hon. Friend’s words on the Territorial Army and the volunteer regular reserves are welcome in many quarters of the House but particularly on these Benches. Can he say whether progress has yet been made with his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Health and Social Security to try to help those members of the TA who are unemployed and who find that their supplementary benefit or dole is cut immediately whereas it can take several weeks for the pay office to go through the administration of payment? That is causing great hardship in areas of high unemployment. Progress would be very much welcomed by the TA.

    Mr. Stanley

    I am aware of the problem to which my hon. Friend has referred. I assure him that my noble Friend the Minister of State for Defence Support is pursuing the matter personally with my right hon. and hon. Friends in the DHSS.

    Mr. John Browne (Winchester)

    We greatly applaud my right hon. Friend’s remarks about the TA, its reliance and its cost-effectiveness. None the less, can he assure the House that cost-effectiveness will not be taken to the point of penny-pinching? I am thinking particularly of the recent successful recruiting drive which is bringing in many young people who are enthusiastic and are excellent material. However, they have to train in drill halls that ​ were built for the 1930s and have been virtually unmaintained, giving an uncared for impression that can be discouraging to young recruits.

    Reference has been made to people leaving the services. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that he is aware of the serious drain at the level of lieutenant-colonel or of regimental and battalion commanders, a rank that is crucial?

    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)

    Briefly, please.

    Mr. Browne

    It is a matter not just of pay but of career opportunities.

    Mr. Stanley

    I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the points he has made. I have not yet completed what I wish to say on the TA but I can assure my hon. Friend that we are encouraged by the levels of recruitment which we have been achieving. I am about to come to that. I take his point that if we could provide a training base in reasonably attractive conditions that would be a plus for recruiting.

    Dr. Alan Glyn (Windsor and Maidenhead)

    I hope that my right hon. Friend will say something about the cadet force because that is the nursery for recruiting. I understand that the cadet force is now much better equipped. On page 45 of volume 1 of the “Statement on the Defence Estimates” a good deal of space is rightly given to the cadet force. If young people are properly trained, not only does it do them good for civilian life but a very high proportion join the regular forces or the TA.

    Mr. Stanley

    I endorse what my hon. Friend has said. One meets a large number of people who have come into all three services, but particularly the Army, from the ranks of the cadets and the junior leaders. As he will see in the second volume of the “Statement on the Defence Estimates”, we have been maintaining a high level of entry into the cadet force and we hope that will continue.

    The expansion of the Territorial Army is making steady progress towards our target of 86,000. The strength of the TA was only some 59,000 when we came into office in 1979. It is over 76,000 now, having increased by some 4,000 in the past year.

    The House will be interested to know that we are having good results from our trial scheme to raise TA units from the many British people living on the continent. Many of these are ex-service men, and they invariably have language skills and good local knowledge as well. These continental TA units look like proving a very valuable addition to our reserve forces.

    Equally successful has been the expansion of the home service force. The enthusiasm of the force can be judged from the fact that 92 per cent. of the force’s strength participated in exercise Brave Defender.

    The HSF has already grown to 2,800 — in other words, over halfway to our initial target strength of nearly 5,000. We shall be considering whether we can go beyond that figure.

    As I have made clear, the Army’s Regular and volunteer Reserves are an indispensable element of the British Army. We are very grateful indeed to employers who are generous and sympathetic towards the release of their staff with TA commitments, recognising that it is in the national interest that those commitments should be fulfilled. In this context, I am very pleased to be able to announce the formation of a national employer liaison ​ committee, under the chairmanship of Mr. Tommy Macpherson. I know that Mr. Macpherson and his committee will make a most valuable contribution to maintaining and increasing the essential support that the TA receives from employers. Mr. Macpherson has the two essential qualifications: substantial experience as an employer in industry and substantial experience in the services as well.

    We are very grateful to all those in the Regular and volunteer Reserves for giving their time, their skills and their enthusiasm to the British Army.

    Mr. Keith Best (Ynys Môn)

    I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He will know that his remarks and the emphasis that the Government place on the Territorial Army are widely welcomed. Is he satisfied that there are now sufficient man training days for the Territorial Army to carry out its task adequately? Will he say something about the history of the expansion of man training days?

    Mr. Stanley

    It is obviously a matter of judgment as to what level of training days will meet the particular requirements of the TA. We make that judgment as accurately as possible. There is a trade-off: the more the training days are expanded, the more difficult it is for some individuals to get the necessary degree of release, which makes it that much more difficult for units to carry out their exercises as formed units. So there is a balance to be struck. The recent major exercises, both Lionheart and Brave Defender, have shown that the Territorial Army units, the Volunteer Reserve, and the Regular Reserve are now achieving a good level of training and have done very well in both exercises.

    The calibre of the British Army rests ultimately on the calibre of its people. I am glad to say that recruitment overall goes well, with both officer and soldier entries being close to target. The Army’s view is that the quality of entrants has been rising. Amongst officers the proportion of graduate entrants is now about 45 per cent. compared with 30 per cent. as recently as 1978–79.

    Rates of retention are as important as rates of entry. Though the rate of premature voluntary retirement has risen from its historic low point in 1981–82, it is still well below the record high in the last year of the previous Government. Pay and conditions of service clearly bear on rates of retention. Although we are fully aware of the concern over the reductions in local overseas allowance that have taken place in Germany, our view is that there is nothing basically wrong with the LOA system, which provides absolutely essential financial compensation for those service men who have to serve in overseas countries where the cost of living is substantially higher than in the United Kingdom.

    As far as pay is concerned, this Government, unlike our predecessors, have accepted the service pay recommendations in seven successive reports of the armed forces pay review body, with the one exception of part of the 1984 award being made subject to seven months’ phasing.

    We have also made a number of important improvements to conditions of service. We have introduced a scheme to sell surplus married quarters to service personnel at 30 per cent. discount. We have allowed time in service accommodation to count for discount purposes in the local authority and new town “right to buy” scheme. We have improved the free travel entitlement for married personnel serving in Northern ​ Ireland and the Scottish islands and we have abolished the contribution that parents serving overseas had to make towards their first child’s visit to them for the third school holiday each year, which saved many parents several hundred pounds. There is no question that the record of the present Government on service pay and conditions is very much better than that of our predecessors.

    Mr. Nicholas Winterton

    My right hon. Friend said that he was going to raise the matter later in his speech, but would he admit to the House that it is not only graduate officers and others who are very important to the armed services, it is the qualities of motivation and leadership, which do not always accompany a university degree? Would he indicate that in the future the position of non-graduate officers will be given a higher priority by the Government than has perhaps been the case in the immediate past? The position of graduate officers is very much better moneywise than that of non-graduate officers. Will my right hon. Friend attend to this point in future?

    Mr. Stanley

    I understand fully the point that my hon. Friend makes. I would not want him to think from what I have said about statistics in relation to graduate entry that the Army is reluctant to have non-graduate officers. There are very many of them and they are of the highest calibre. When people are considering the Army and, perhaps even more important, once they are in the Army, it is good to know that all officers are treated exactly the same, whether they have degrees or not, and that they are treated entirely on their merit. I can assure my hon. Friend that that will continue.

    Mr. John Browne rose—

    Mr. Stanley

    I think that this will have to be the last intervention because many of my hon. Friends want to speak, and I want to draw my remarks to a close.

    Mr. Browne

    Would my right hon. Friend comment on the fact that retention is a matter not just of pay—1 agree with much of what he has said —but of career prospects?

    Mr. Stanley

    Yes, I agree. It is a question of career prospects and a multitude of other factors. There is the degree of stretch on the force. career prospects, pay, conditions of service, it is the total of all the elements that go towards to job satisfaction.

    In the last Army debate I announced the Government’s scheme to make it possible for war widows, for the very first time, to visit their husbands’ graves overseas, almost entirely at public expense. I can tell the House that the scheme has been an unqualified success, as I know at first hand. It was a privilege to meet a number of widows taking part in the scheme at the El Alamein commemoration service last October. The letters I have had from widows taking part in these pilgrimages have been as appreciative and as moving as any I have received.

    In the first year of the scheme, some 350 widows, often accompanied at their own expense by other members of their families, visited cemeteries in a total of 11 countries, stretching from Europe to the far east. I cannot speak too highly of the way in which the scheme has been run by the Royal British Legion, both at the legion’s headquarters and at its newly created pilgrimages department at Aylesford which, as it happens, is in my own constituency. ​ The British Legion’s organisation and sensitivity, both in the preparations and on the actual pilgrimages, has been superb, as the war widows themselves have been the first to say. I should like to express our very warm appreciation to the president of the Royal British Legion, General Sir Patrick Howard Dobson, and his pilgrimages team for the outstanding way in which the Royal British Legion is running this scheme.

    The Army today is a well balanced and highly trained fighting force. It has amply demonstrated its superb professionalism in NATO reinforcement and home defence exercises, in supporting the police against terrorism, in international peacekeeping, in providing military training for many other countries, and in responding with speed and great effectiveness to a large variety of civil emergencies. The Army, like the other two services, does our country the greatest credit.

  • John Major – 1986 Speech on Poverty in Barnsley

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Major, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, in the House of Commons on 30 January 1986.

    It is never a hardship to listen to the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) representing his constituency. Yet again, he has spoken movingly about the problems that he sees in Barnsley, and I am pleased to be able to respond. I will try to pick up as many of the issues that he raised as possible in the time remaining to me. I am pleased to see that the hon. Members for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) and for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) are in their places.

    I am aware that social security provision is an emotive matter, which arouses considerable controversy. I also understand that the present Bill, which I strongly support, which proposes fundamental changes in the social security structure, is a matter of high political dispute. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends accept that, whatever might be the political disagreement between us, the Government share their deep concern for the effects of poverty. We believe that many of the proposals in our Bill, as with many of our other policy proposals, are geared to alleviate precisely the problems that the right hon. Gentleman has outlined.

    The right hon. Gentleman mentioned some of the problems that apply to Barnsley at the moment. I appreciate, and would not deny, the special difficulties that have been caused to that area by pit closures and the resultant high unemployment. The latest unemployment figures for Barnsley are depressing and dispiriting. I cannot deny that and would not wish to.

    I share with Opposition Members the hope that unemployment will soon begin to fall, but I can understand their frustration at the fact that the present high levels appear to be remaining for so long. Despite the difficult circumstances, people in Barnsley are finding jobs. Between April 1985 and January this year, the employment service placed more than 2,300 people in ​ permanent employment in Barnsley—an increase of 23 per cent. on the same period in the previous year. I am sure that we all hope that that trend will continue.

    It is not true that the Government are unconcerned and harsh about the problems in Barnsley and elsewhere. I might draw attention to the substantial funds that are made available to Barnsley in the urban programme. In recognition of its economic problems, the need to help the area and the need to broaden its industrial base, Barnsley qualifies for help under the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978. The council, to which the right hon. Gentleman paid tribute, has responded by establishing industrial and commercial improvement areas in Barnsley and in the outlying mining town of Goldthorpe. There is also a conservation workshop at Hoyle Mill, which is funded in conjunction with the Manpower Services Commission. It places 80 trainees, who are engaged in restoring sites of historic interest in and around Barnsley. There are other interesting and innovative projects in the area.

    The right hon. Gentleman talked about housing and some of the related problems. To help Barnsley overcome its difficulties, some £6·7 million has been allocated under the housing investment programme, and there is a further allocation of up to £1 million to meet obligations under the Housing Defects Act 1984. Despite those and other initiatives with which I shall not bore the House, Barnsley faces great problems, many of which spill over into social security requirements.

    The right hon. Gentleman spoke of current board and lodging regulations. We have monitored their effect carefully. On the basis of preliminary information, there is no evidence that they are causing nomadism on the scale that many people feared. The time limits to which the right hon. Gentleman referred are subject to many exemptions. For one reason or another, large numbers of young people will find that they are exempt from the time limits, even if they are in circumstances in which they would otherwise be applied. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the limits do not apply to people who were in their accommodation some time ago.

    I am not familiar with the cases that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned this evening, but I strongly suspect, although I cannot guarantee it, that those young people may have been entitled to some form of exemption. If the right hon. Gentleman cares to let me have the details of the cases, I shall carefully consider them and respond to them.

    In his remarks the right hon. Gentleman spoke of social security provision. At present. spending on social security is running at more than £40 billion a year. That is a pretty substantial amount by any standards. It is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that that money is well spent, and primarily that is what we seek to do through the proposed changes in the Social Security Bill, which will go into Committee early next week. In many quarters, the review that preceded the Bill has been represented as a cost-cutting exercise. That is simply not so. I understand that that is the type of representation that often occurs in political debate. We believe that the proposals that underpin the Bill are principled and worthwhile. They are a part of the reform that we believe will simplify a social security system that is far too complex. They will direct resources far more effectively than at present to the people of whom the right hon. Gentleman spoke, who are in the greatest need.

    The right hon. Gentleman is clearly worried about the living standards of those families in his constituency on low incomes. We, too, are worried about people on low incomes. Under the Bill those families are likely to be eligible for income support, if unemployed, or family credit if in work. The right hon. Gentleman said that many of his constituents would be worse off if the White Paper proposals were enacted. On the basis of the illustrative figures published with the White Paper we shall be spending £200 million a year more on family credit than we spend at present on family income supplement. The income support scheme is likely to cost more than we spend now on the main structure of the supplementary benefit scheme.

    One aim of the social security reforms is to ensure that help goes to the people who need it most. Our reforms will direct that help to families with children. That applies to low-income working families and to those where the parents are unemployed. Today, those families are often in the greatest need, in Barnsley and sadly, in other areas too.

    Our proposals will substantially reduce the unemployment trap, in which people are better off out of work than they are in work. They will eliminate the worse effects of the poverty trap, where a rise in earnings can be more or less wiped out as benefits are withdrawn.

    The new family credit scheme will cost substantially more than family income supplement—about twice as much. It should reach more than 400,000 families—double the present number on family income supplement. Almost all those families will be better off than they are with family income supplement.

    On the basis of the illustrative rates in the technical annex to the White Paper, a couple with two children on gross earnings of £100 could receive £27·40 in family credit compared with £5·50 on family income supplement.

    The right hon. Gentleman is rightly concerned about people who are not in work. Our proposals will get more help to families who are not working. Income support will replace supplementary benefit and in our judgment that will be a significant improvement. A noticeable feature will be its simplicity. At present, to determine the amount of weekly benefit, staff may need to make intrusive and detailed inquiries, such as the number of baths taken by a claimant or what his special laundry needs are if someone in the family is incontinent. However tactfully those inquiries are handled, they are plainly embarrassing and often insulting to the people to whom the inquiries are directed. Yorkshire men and women especially would find those inquiries deeply offensive.

    We must find a better way of getting help to people who are in need, and with the system that we propose—one of premia based on easily identifiable criteria—it will be entirely possible to remove many of those intrusive inquiries. That simplicity—that certainty of entitlement —will be a great improvement, and will be generally welcomed in the House when the proposals are more fully understood.

    I would have wished to have been able to say much more this evening, but only a short time remains. On the transitional protection for claimants, no one receiving supplementary benefit at the point of change to income support will have his weekly income reduced by the change. Anyone on family income supplement whose FIS award is higher than his family credit will keep the FIS award—the higher award—for the remainder of the ​ 12-month award period. We made that clear in the illustrative figures published with the White Paper, and I emphasise it again this evening.

    The right hon. Gentleman mentioned single payments. I deeply regret the fact that time does not permit me to deal in detail with the points that he raised, but if he wishes to discuss that matter later, I shall be happy to meet him and his hon. Friends at any time, when we can discuss the anxieties that he expressed this evening.

    The reforms that we shall make will be seen in due course as a positive advantage to people on low incomes, whether in or out of work. That is part of the intention of ​ the reforms, and we shall seek to persuade the House and the country that they are compelling and worthwhile reforms. In the meantime, may I conclude by telling the right hon. Gentleman that I understand the difficulties which he faces in Barnsley and which he has expressed this evening in such compelling fashion. I hope that he will accept from me that our reforms are aimed at helping people in special difficulty, wherever they live. We believe that they will, and we hope that they will generally be seen to do so when they are more fully understood.

  • Roy Mason – 1986 Speech on Poverty in Barnsley

    Below is the text of the speech made by Roy Mason, the then Labour MP for Barnsley Central, in the House of Commons on 30 January 1986.

    Rapidly increasing poverty in Barnsley over the past five years has had a dramatic and depressing impact on my town. I have represented Barnsley for nearly 33 years, and I have never known such misery on such a large scale as today. I lived through the 1930s and the pre-war depression years, but have never witnessed so many personal pictures of soul-destroying unhappiness through being penniless and pleading for help as are evident in Barnsley today.

    That awful and worrying rise in poverty in Barnsley over the past five years of Tory administration has shattered individuals, many families, our small communities and our local economy. The crucial poverty indicators, such as the local level of unemployment, the number of social security claims and the increasing demand on social services section 1 moneys all reveal a sharp decline in personal and household incomes against a background of increasing job losses, redundancies and pit closures. That scale of poverty is placing intolerable pressure on our local services and resources, both statutory and voluntary, especially the social services, the advice services and housing.

    Although Barnsley metropolitan district council has responded with various practical initiatives, trying to stave off the harshness of personal distress, Government cuts in the rate support grant, and the further cuts proposed in the so-called reform of social security will only exacerbate the serious poverty levels and the social security problems in Barnsley.

    One might ask, where is the evidence? I believe it to be the frightening catalogue of social concern, which is the most distressing that I have ever come across in my time. One in five people in Barnsley is now without a job. In January this year 16,897 people were on the dole, and there was a 20 per cent. rate of unemployment, approximately 6 per cent. higher than the national average and 9·2 per cent. higher than in 1981.

    The mass of poverty is startling. The social services, working on Department of Health and Social Security criteria, establish Barnsley’s poverty line as being a family of four on supplementary benefit receiving £69 weekly income. In Barnsley, there are 7,875 people on the poverty line and, below the poverty line, 3,375 unemployed and 1,500 in work—a total of 12,750 poverty-striken people in the town of Barnsley. Is it any wonder that I decided to bring that to Parliament’s attention?

    In November, 16,739 people were claiming unemployment benefit in the Barnsley travel-to-work area. Most disturbing was the rise in the number of long-term unemployed. Although most people believe them to be in the older age brackets, that is just not true in my town. Of the registered claimants between 19 and 24 years of age, there were 1,087 people unemployed over the year. That is 45·4 per cent. of all the registered unemployed in that age category. What a damning indictment of the Government it is that so many young people in one small town in Britain should be condemned to the dole for so long with no hope on the horizon. What, then, of their poverty? ​ Since the beginning of 1981, 11,420 redundancies in Barnsley have been notified to the Department of Employment. Barnsley council is on a fast-moving treadmill, struggling to fight this surge of job losses. The Regional Manpower Intelligence Unit in January 1985 compared the vacancy levels in travel-to-work areas throughout England. Barnsley was ranked as having the second highest number of unemployed per vacancy in England, with 128 registered unemployed for every vacancy.

    That is an appalling picture of misery thrust upon my town and constituency by a Government who have used monetarist controls, who have squeezed the economy, slashed regional aid, ruthlessly closed steelworks and coal mines, cut social services and caused massive job losses in coal mining towns like Barnsley. Yet the Government cannot provide any answer to the problems in such areas.

    Barnsley council has made strenuous efforts to stem the tide. It has established an employment strategy, built an enterprise centre, small factories, seedbed workshops, and an information technology centre. The council has 35 staff working in teams to help new firms to set up, to help existing firms to survive and expand and to attract new industry and training. I have led teams to Brussels to obtain European regional development grants for the development of a business and innovation centre. This worked has saved and created 1,000 jobs in 1985.

    Barnsley council launched the coal field communities campaign, which now involves more than 60 local authorities representing 16 million people, in an attempt to draw attention to the social, economic and environmental problems facing coal field areas like Barnsley. The community campaign was also intended to advocate policies to alleviate poverty, misery and unemployment in the declining economies of the coal fields.

    As everyone can see, Barnsley council has not sat on its backside. It is fighting the problem. Government policies will have to be radically changed if there is to be any hope of a solution to these problems. National Coal Board Enterprise Ltd. is not the answer. Even if it is creating 500 jobs a month, that is for Great Britain as a whole. Barnsley alone needs that figure every month this year just to stem the tide and avoid being swamped.

    Some 50 per cent. of all Barnsley households are in receipt of housing benefit. Earlier this year the housing department undertook a review of the waiting list. The review revealed that there are now more than 4,700 people on the council’s waiting list. That means that over the past two years the waiting list has grown by 16 per cent. and in some cases in the borough the list has grown by more than 20 per cent. Of particular concern is the increased number of old-age pensioners on the list and the increasing demand for single person accommodation, which has increased by 22 per cent. over the past two years.

    During that time the number of single persons sharing households has increased from 200 to 286, an increase of 43 per cent. That is another tragic story of social distress for which the Government must accept responsibility.
    The ratio of new house building has declined markedly in the council sector due almost entirely to Government restrictions. The rate of council house building has declined from an average of 330 units per annum in the mid-1970s to 128 in 1981–82; 15 units in 1982–83; 19 units in 1983–84; and 33 units in 1984–85.

    With regard to housing benefits, I quote the case study of a miner’s widow on a widow’s pension of £38·38 and an NCB pension of £8·43. She receives a total housing benefit of £11·53. Under the new scheme her total housing benefit will be £9·01, a weekly loss of £2·52. That sum will be taken away from a miner’s widow. Bearing in mind that 50 per cent. of all Barnsley householders are in receipt of housing benefit, thousands more people will be driven into deeper poverty because of the effects of the Social Security Bill now going through the House.

    It is estimated that 29,000 people in Barnsley could lose some or all of their benefits. In Barnsley, more than 19,000 people are dependent upon supplementary benefit for the whole or part of their income. Local DHSS officers are so overstretched that they are taking up to six weeks to process the many claims for single payments for exceptional need. According to their statistics, the Barnsley, east office has 10,893 supplementary benefit recipients and the Barnsley, west office has 8,155. That amounts to 19,048, which is a considerable work load for an overworked staff.

    Also noticeable is the number of supplementary benefit and family income supplement appeals listed for Barnsley. Between January and December 1985 there were 699. The abolition of the right of appeal and the review which has been mentioned are not satisfactory. They represent a major erosion of the legal right of Barnsley claimants. A significant number win their case on appeal. If the appeals procedure is abolished, a claimant’s only recourse will be to the local DHSS manager. I doubt whether many decisions will be overturned under that system.

    Many more claimants will approach the local authority’s social service departments for financial assistance. It is inevitable that the demand on the limited section 1 moneys will be intolerable. How much more poverty will result?

    In Barnsley, the most significant area of increased demand on statutory and voluntary services arising from increasing poverty is on the welfare rights officers. Within the social services department, referrals to the welfare rights officers have increased by 100 per cent. in the past two years. All staff record a dramatic rise in the number of cases with a primarily financial content. There has been an alarming increase in the volume of debt-related problems. Council staff have recently attended a training course on debt counselling. A special leaflet has been produced to help people to cope with enormous debts owed to building societies, fuel boards and hire purchase firms.

    The emergence of loan sharks during the recent miners’ strike was a new and worrying social phenomenon. Mrs.Catherine Allan, the Barnsley citizens advice bureau organiser, wrote to me and said:

    “During 1984–85 the bureau dealt with 1,751 social security inquiries —a 63 per cent. increase in one year…In December 1985 the Barnsley CAB dealt with 731 inquiries compared with 569 in December 1984 …Indicators of the increasing poverty of clients are the large numbers of debt problems.”

    I received a letter from the Soldiers’, Sailors’ and Airmen’s Families Association. Mr. J. R. Foster. secretary of the Barnsley division, said:

    “1985 saw an increase of 25 per cent. in the number of applicants, a 33 per cent. increase in the Funds disbursed, and of the total number of cases, 41 per cent. were for assistance with. fuel, light, water rates and funeral expenses … I have one case of a pensioner whose gas supply was cut off two years ago, one of a pensioner who has had no water supply since October 85 and some others who are or have been subject of court orders. Some ​ of these are elderly ladies and the thought of court action frightens them a great deal so they cut out other things to pay these bills. I may add that being the widow of ex servicemen or the men themselves, they are very uptight at having suffered the privations of wartime service they have to call on SSAFA and like organisations in their last years.”

    Fiona Moss, the secretary of Age Concern in Barnsley, wrote to me saying:

    “I am perturbed by the increasing number of enquiries related to the standard of living of this area. In fact some are individuals who through pride have deliberately avoided what they believe to be the acceptance of charity. Many tears have been shed in my office. We have miners widows with approximately £7 a week extra pension. Their claim for housing benefits are reduced by the same amount.”

    She goes on to say:

    “Can we afford to die? The £30 state grant is soon to be abolished. What will replace it? Our local paper states that elderly people worry about a ‘Pauper’s Grave’, and figures show that a Barnsley family paid almost £600 for a funeral in 1985 compared to £90 in 1972. I should know—it was my own mother’s funeral. In the past with fuller employment many elderly people were cared for by their own families. These families are also now in the poverty trap. I get many more of these families coming for advice about their parents’ problems —they themselves are at their wits end struggling to survive on low incomes.”

    What a tale of woe and distress and more and more poverty.

    The Barnsley Council’s co-ordinated welfare rights group, Barnsley’s anti-poverty team, has mounted several successful benefit take-up campaigns which have injected substantial amounts of cash to vulnerable groups such as the unemployed, the sick and the physically disabled. A team of dedicated civil servants and volunteers led by Roy Wardell, the director, and Councillor Judith Watts work well beyond their wage-related hours to alleviate stress and worry in the town.

    Unfortunately, the council’s anti-poverty measures have to be seen against a background of appeals by central Government for restraint in spending and of targets set by the Government and block grant penalties. At present, Barnsley is penalised at the highest level. Existing spending plus allowances for inflation and current commitments will result in the target which has been set by the Government by 1985–86 being significantly exceeded.

    Education officers in Barnsley have estimated that the percentage of schoolchildren on free school meals will be reduced from 26 per cent. to 18 per cent. under the proposed changes. This almost certainly will have an effect on the number of school meals staff employed by the council and increased poverty in many families.

    The financial and housing restraints on the under-25 age group, forcing young people to stay in sometimes intolerable family situations, will lead to increased family stress and breakdown in Barnsley. I received a report from one welfare rights worker at the Barnsley centre against unemployment, which says:

    “One of the most serious problems faced by the young unemployed is their inability to find accommodation. Shortage of rented property has forced up rents and many landlords refuse to let their property to unemployed people.

    Consequently, many young unemployed people find themselves having to move into board and lodging accommodation, the disadvantages of which have recently been exacerbated by the new board and lodging regulations, resulting mainly from landlords charging exorbitant rates for their accommodation in the knowledge of DHSS payments. Although landlords have been largely to blame for the abuse of the system it is the young unemployed who have been ​ penalised by reduction in benefits and time limits on their receipt of payment. Within two days of each other two young men, aged 16 and 17, attempted suicide, one by an overdose of valium and the other by slashing his wrists with broken glass. They were both lodgers in the same boarding house and both faced penalisation under the four week rule. In the same week, the week beginning 13 January, an 18 year old girl also overdosed.

    It is a nonsense to say that the under 25s should, if they have no employment, remain at home. The girl mentioned desperately needed her own accommodation due to her father’s violence towards her. Also unemployed families have their benefits reduced by having adult children at home leading often to domestic tension and violence.”

    It is all so sickening to me and I hope that it is to the Minister.

    Barnsley council and I believe that there is a direct link between economic decline, Government policies and the resulting fall in individual and household incomes —poverty. The local economy has suffered more than most from the effects of disputes in the coal industry. Punitive and inequitable legislation in social security reform and local government finance will serve only to increase rather than decrease the scale of the problem of poverty in Barnsley.

    This is the story of poverty in Barnsley brought about by heartless and ruthless Tory Government policies. The town refuses to be dejected. We shall fight on, but we deplore being neglected. That is why the Minister has had to listen to this case today.

  • Dale Campbell-Savours – 1989 Speech on the Televising of the Commons

    Below is the text of the speech made by Dale Campbell-Savours, the then Labour MP for Workington, in the House of Commons on 12 June 1989.

    Over 12 months ago, I and other hon. Members were invited by Granada Television to the mock Commons studio in Manchester to debate the televising of Parliament. During those proceedings, I spoke against edited excerpts and in favour of a dedicated channel. I returned to my constituency after the programme had been transmitted and was confronted by people who said that I was opposed to the televising of Parliament. In so far as my comments had been edited, that served to confirm my reservation about the whole question of the editing of parliamentary proceedings. That is why I support a dedicated channel.

    I want what Nye Bevan described in his last great speech in 1959, the re-establishment of intelligent communication between the House of Commons and the electorate as a whole. I might add that I do not want to see trivia. I have tabled three amendments, the first of which would block all transmissions from the Chamber apart from those on a dedicated channel. That amendment was not selected. My second amendment would permit edited excerpts to run concurrently with a dedicated channel over an experimental period. The dedicated channel was considered by the Committee and supported. The Committee report says:

    “We believe that continuous coverage of the House’s proceedings on a dedicated channel is a highly desirable objective in the public interest. The fact that we have not felt able to make any specific recommendations on the subject in this Report has nothing to do with the merits of the idea itself, which we strongly support; it stems from practical considerations related to the timing and nature of the experiment.”

    British Aerospace and British Satellite Broadcasting gave evidence to the Committee. However, the Committee rejected their case and the proposals that they put forward for a dedicated channel. The problem, especially in the case of the submission by British Aerospace, was that it was based on funding the scheme from terrestrial broadcasting income and the use by the consumer of a dish costing more than £500 and a dish for professional purposes that costs £5,000.

    British Aerospace was never asked a most important question. It was never asked whether it could transmit on a dedicated channel proceedings of the House to be received on a £150 to £200 Amstrad dish which is currently sold by Comet and Dixon’s and a host of other retailers across the United Kingdom for receiving Sky television. The price of that dish is likely to fall and its use could bypass completely the terrestrial broadcasters because programmes could be transmitted straight from Westminster and received in people’s homes on a cheap dish.

    Mr. Dobson

    Does my hon. Friend accept that even if his proposition went through the current viewing figures for Sky television are such that there are probably more people in the Strangers’ Gallery watching this debate than would see it if his proposition were accepted?

    Mr. Campbell-Savours

    I can assure my hon. Friend that more people watch Sky television than are in the ​ Gallery for the debate, and that dishes are being sold. My amendment would provide the kind of support that is needed.

    As I say, the question that I have mentioned was never put to British Aerospace. I contacted the company today and it said:

    “British Aerospace Telecommunications confirms that it could provide satellite and uplink facilities for the televising of Parliament using the ECS … low power satellite (needing a 1·2–1·5 m receiving dish) for about £1 million pa.

    Based on a usage of 32 week year, 37·5 hour week”— that is equivalent to our proceedings in their entirety apart from debates that take place after 10 pm—

    “which is equivalent to £833 per hour. Signals could be received on dishes costing about £500 for this service.”

    I am not putting forward that proposition. The letter continues:

    “If smaller receiving dishes like those used for ASTRA are the requirement then we could, in principle and subject to availability, equally well operate to that satellite from our earthstation here at Stevenage. However, the satellite transponder charges for that space segment”—

    which is four times the power of the transponder that I referred to—

    “are much greater and the BAe Telecommunications inclusive price for the same number of hours would be about £4m pa. This is equivalent to £3,330 per hour. It is understood that receivers from ASTRA are expected to cost less than £200 and many predict that within 12 months the price could fall to about £100.”

    Some people would argue that my proposition would delay implementation of the report. I went back to British Aerospace for another letter which I received today. It says:

    “BAe Telecommunications confirms that it has reserved capacity on the European Communications Satellite for at least the following three years and therefore could guarantee coverage of Parliamentary proceedings from the October date which you identified in our telephone conversation.

    I would also comment that the figures contained in our earlier letter from David Gregory”—

    I understand that Mr. Gregory is here for the debate—

    “referring to prices and availability for the use of the Astra Satellite”—
    that is the Sky television £150 dish—

    “were based on telephone conversations of today’s date.”

    I then asked for a further qualification and this also arrived today. It says:

    “Further to Mr. Gregory’s letter to you, I can confirm that BAeTeI has both the necessary ground transmission equipment and the capacity reserved on Eutelsat satellites for the next three years and as such can certainly transmit parliamentary proceedings from October this year. We can also confirm from a telephone conversation today that adequate capacity is also available on the Astra satellite for a similar period.”

    I read that into the record to show that British Aerospace can provide the facility from October this year if Parliament seeks to resolve the matter in that way.

    Mr. Dobson

    Will my hon. Friend give way?

    Mr. Campbell-Savours

    I am sorry, but I will not. I have already given way to my hon. Friend once, and it is now nearly 9 o’clock. I have an obligation to others who want to speak after me.

    The examination of British Aerospace’s option was based on the reaction of the broadcasters, who were fearful of the expenditure implications. They never considered direct broadcasting on cheap dishes running concurrently with the Committee’s principal proposals. In other words, ​ they did not consider direct broadcasting dishes. They relied on discussion about terrestrial broadcasting being part of the process.

    I shall deal now with the cost. We have two options —£1 million for a £500 dish or £4 million for £150 reduced-in-price Amstrad dishes, plus £200,000 for a sending earthstation near Westminster. There are four options for funding that. First, there is public subscription, which some hon. Members will reject. Secondly, there is the possibility of advertising, which other hon. Members will reject. Thirdly, we have specialist consumers, a number of whom were identified by British Aerospace in a memorandum to the Committee, which said:

    “there is a market throughout the UK for information on the deliberations of Government in the form of continuous sound, television and text by businesses, local press, educational establishments and private citizens. The second group of users is important as a way of monitoring publicly the editorial decisions of the first.”

    We can also offer a service of electronic Hansard, and most town halls would want transmission and would pay for it. The public library system could equally subscribe, and I am also told that it is possible that the satellite companies, during this experimental period, might offer a concessionary tariff, if only with a view to getting the business long term.

    Mr. Cryer

    Will my hon. Friend give way?

    Mr. Campbell-Savours

    I am sorry, but it is 9 o’clock and I have given way once. Other people wish to speak in the debate.

    At the end of the experimental period, we could either throw out the lot—something that some want to do—or we could thrown out either the dedicated channel or what I call edited excerpt television. If we were to throw out the second, should we proceed in the way that I suggest, the effect would be to increase the number of satellite dish sales. I am not saying that that is necessarily a matter that Parliament should take into account, but it would be a factor.

    The fourth and final route that we may go down into the future is that of fibre optics. Along with others, British Telecom is advocating the principle of a fibre-optic network throughout the United Kingdom, on telephone lines. The cables will be capable of transmitting a television picture. In the longer term, those who do not take this service on a dish could take it on a fibre-optic cable.

  • David Mellor – 1986 Speech on Pamela Megginson

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Mellor, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, in the House of Commons on 29 January 1986.

    I do understand the very great sense of commitment that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) feels about this sad case, and I am most grateful to him for the acknowledgement he has made of the exceptional treatment this case has received in the Home Office, details of which I shall be happy to put on the record this evening.

    As he has indicated, my hon. Friend has taken a personal interest in the case of this unfortunate woman, and he has written to me about it on several occasions. I have also received numerous other representations on Mrs. Megginson’s behalf. As my hon. Friend has said, it is an ​ unusual case. In September 1983, some two years and four months ago, at the Central Criminal Court, Mrs. Megginson, who was then aged 62 was convicted of the murder of her 79-year-old co-habitee. Although the offence had taken place in the south of France, it was justiciable here by virtue of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. The relationship between the couple was of long standing but, in 1980 or 1981, Mrs. Megginson’s co-habitee started an association with a younger French woman. Matters came to a head in October 1982 and Mrs. Megginson killed him by striking him at least three times with a champagne bottle. She immediately returned to this country and confessed to the killing.

    At her trial, Mrs. Megginson invited the jury to convict her of the lesser offence of manslaughter because, first, when she struck her co-habitee she did not intend his death or to cause him grievous bodily harm and, secondly. when she struck him it was because she had been provoked to such a degree as to cause her to lose self-control. That issue went before the jury, as happens in all criminal cases, but after hearing all the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defence, the jury decided—albeit by a majority of 10:2 — that the charge of murder was proved. The law provides that only one penalty may be imposed following a conviction of murder, and that is life imprisonment, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has no authority to vary such a sentence. Mrs. Megginson exercised her right of appeal without success and, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we must proceed on the basis that she was rightly convicted of murder and properly sentenced to life imprisonment.

    There is no other basis on which Ministers could exercise the powers given to them by Parliament, which do not include any powers to impose any different views other than those which the courts have taken on these points of conviction and sentence.

    The release of a life sentence prisoner is at the discretion of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but, under the provisions of section 61 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, he may authorise release only if he is recommended to do so by the parole board, and after he has consulted the Lord Chief Justice and, if available, the trial judge.

    There are two essential ingredients to the decision whether a life sentence prisoner should be released: has he or she been detained for long enough to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence for the offence, and, is the risk to the public acceptable? My right hon. Friend looks to the judiciary for advice on the time to be served to satisfy the requirements of retribution arid deterrence and to the parole board for advice on risk. He is, however, not bound to accept a recommendation for release made by the parole board; nor is he bound by the views of the judiciary, although, of course, he attaches much weight to them.

    There are no fixed times at which the release of a life sentence prisoner must be formally considered by the parole board machinery. It is for my right hon. Friend to decide when this should be done. Under the revised procedure for the review of life sentence cases announced on 30 November 1983 by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorkshire (Mr. Brittan) when Home Secretary, the date of the first formal review is decided by the Home Secretary after obtaining an initial view from the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge on the length of detention necessary to meet the requirements of ​ retribution and deterrence for the offence. The first formal review will normally take place three years before the expiry of that period to give sufficient time for preparation and, where necessary, further testing before release is finally authorised, if the parole board should recommend it.

    The decision when to fix the first formal review of a life sentence prisoner’s case is not normally taken until after the prisoner has been detained for at least three or four years. However, it was recognised that there were unusual and exceptional features about Mrs. Megginson’s case and, in those circumstances, it was decided to ask the judiciary for its views on the retributive and deterrent element of the sentence at a much earlier stage than usual. This was done in May 1985—a little over 18 months after Mrs. Megginson’s conviction. In the light of the judiciary’s views, I decided that the case should be referred to the local review committee at the prison within weeks after receiving the judicial view. I decided also that the review should take place commencing in September 1985 as the first stage of the formal parole board review mechanism.

    It might assist if I make clear the stages that were then followed. When the local review committee considers the case of a life sentence prisoner, it has before it all the information available about the offence for which the life sentence was imposed and the circumstances in which it was committed; the prisoner’s history, including any previous offences; the assessments and opinions of doctors who may have examined the prisoner before the trial; and any remarks made by the trial judge. It also has copies of all the reports made previously by the staff at the prisons in which the prisoner has been detained and reports prepared specially for the review, together with any representations which the prisoner may have made to the committee, as he or she is entitled to do. In the light of all this information, the committee makes a recommendation on the prisoner’s suitability for release.

    All the papers are then sent to the Home Office, with the local review committee’s recommendation. The case is very carefully considered in the Home Office, in consultation with the Department’s professional advisers. Sometimes, reports from independent doctors, including psychiatrists, are obtained. An assessment is made of all the considerations, including the possible risk to the public if the prisoner were to be released and the case is then referred to the parole board. All this takes time, and prisoners are themselves warned not to expect a decision in their case until at least six months after the local review.

    The parole board, which does not necessarily endorse the recommendation made by the local review committee, may recommend either that the prisoner should be given a provisional date for release or that the case should be ​ reviewed again after a specified period. If it does the latter, my right hon. Friend has no power to authorise the prisoner’s release and the further review follows the same procedure, starting once again with the local review committee in the prison in which the prisoner is located.

    Mrs. Megginson’s case was duly reviewed by the local review committee at Durham prison in September last year. The internal procedures to which I have referred have been completed and the papers have been referred to the parole board. The case will be considered by the parole board next month—only five months after the local review committee procedure began.

    That is another sign of recognition in the Home Office that the circumstances of the case merit processing faster than we are generally able to achieve, given the pressure of work, in all of the many cases that come before us. I know that my hon. Friend will understand if I cannot speculate on the outcome of the parole board’s consideration of Mrs. Megginson’s case or when she might be released. I can assure my hon. Friend that the decision will be conveyed to her as soon as possible after the parole board gives its decision to us.

    Sir Anthony Grant

    I think that my hon. Friend said that the case will be considered by the parole board next month—in February.

    Mr. Mellor

    The lifer panel of the parole board will consider the matter next month. The decision will be conveyed to me. I can assure my hon. Friend that I shall personally ensure, as I have tried to do throughout the case, that matters are then handled expeditiously.

    What happens then will depend very much on what the parole board says. Obviously, I must not say anything that would influence its decision one way or another. Parliament established the parole board procedure to ensure that the public had the additional safeguard, and fetter on the Home Secretary’s discretion of independent evaluation by a lifer panel, which consists of a High Court judge, a psychiatrist and two other members.

    I understand my hon. Friend’s proper concern to ensure that Mrs. Megginson should not be in prison for any longer than is necessary. My right hon. Friend has to act within the statutory framework and he has to give due weight to the views of the judiciary when deciding when it would be right to commence the formal review. We have done that. He then has to await the parole board’s deliberations, which will happen next month.

    I assure my hon. Friend that we have treated this case exceptionally and given it considerable priority by comparison with the normal run of murder cases, and I hope to be able to give him further advice before too many weeks have elapsed.