UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Norman Buchan – 1985 Speech on the Arts Council

    Below is the text of the speech made by Norman Buchan, the then Labour for Paisley South, in the House of Commons on 14 November 1985.

    First, I take this opportunity to welcome the new Minister to the Dispatch Box for the first time. Secondly, I thank him for making a statement on arts funding, for the first time. Thirdly, I thank him for fulfilling a pledge, which may be unusual for the Conservative party, which he gave a month ago, when he said:

    “I must make it absolutely clear that there is no prospect of my being able to fund the sort of growth which many in the arts are seeking.”

    Today’s statement certainly fulfils that pledge. The figures show that we are facing, not an increase, but a massive shortfall in the total provision for the arts. The baseline figure of £105 million increases to £110·6 million. Therefore, basic arts funding has increased by £5 million, which is designed to meet the problems of regional arts developments. The bare inflationary increase has already reduced that figure by almost half, we are already facing a minus quantity.

    That does not take into consideration the massive shortfall in arts funding following the abolition, out of political pique, of the Greater London council and the metropolitan county councils. The Minister seeks to cover that by the sum of £25 million, but that leaves a massive shortfall of £19 million to meet the needs of the arts occasioned by the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils.

    The Minister must inherit the pledges of his predecessors, because he is a member of the same Government. In a letter to me on 2 August, his predecessor said:

    “I reject any insinuation that the Government will not stand by its assurances that the present level of public support for the arts will be maintained.”

    It is no longer an insinuation; it is a charge. Funding for the arts has decreased by the vast sum of £19 million to £20 million for the reason that I mentioned alone, and the minimum £5 million anti-inflation grant is already halved by the need of the Arts Council to finance its regional development.

    We shall seek an early debate on the matter. I must ask the Minister not to attempt to do what his predecessor tried to do, and hoodwink the arts bodies into thinking that their funds are being restored. Many companies will die as a result of the amount announced today. We are already seeing the fruits of the Government’s policy at Covent Garden. It is not only the national institutes that will be harmed, but the various community art groups, which have been playing a major role in developing our communities socially and culturally during the past three years. If the Government would pay more attention to that, instead of to the hard line advocated by the chairman of the Conservative party, we might prosper. I hope that the Minister will retract his statement and restore the massive shortfall that he has now brought about in arts funding.

  • Richard Luce – 1985 Speech on the Arts Council

    Below is the text of the speech made by Richard Luce, the then Conservative Minister for Arts, in the House of Commons on 14 November 1985.

    With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.

    I have decided to announce the Arts Council’s grant-in-aid for 1986–87 now to meet the need for the earliest possible sign of provision for the arts after abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils. Subject to parliamentary approval, the grant for the Arts Council next year will be £135·6 million. I understand that this will enable the Arts Council, in accordance with its normal practice, to enter into commitments worth nearly £137 million for the financial year. The grant of £135·6 million is a substantial increase above both the current year’s—1985–86—grant of £105 million and the provisional planning figure of £122 million originally set for next year.

    Last year, my predecessor announced £16 million in additional central funding for the performing arts, and £1 million for film, in the abolition areas. Since then, a strong case has been made for more funding. The Government have decided to respond. I am therefore raising the £16 million to £25 million for the Arts Council, and the £1 million to £1·3 million for the British Film Institute. With the £17 million already announced for museums, this brings the total of additional central funding for the arts in the abolition areas next year to over £43 million.

    The remaining basic provision of £110·6 million for the Arts Council—a further increase on the originally planned £106 million for next year—is intended to meet other special needs which have been put to me by the Arts Council, especially to continue its strategy of regional arts development. It also includes £0·6 million of continued special support for the Scottish national companies, made necessary following changed responsibilities in local government in Scotland.

    These additional sums are a demonstration of my determination to keep up the Government’s support and, in particular, to give arts bodies in the GLC and metropolitan areas a good foundation on which to build. In that context, I invite the districts and boroughs in those areas to give early and constructive thought to the contribution they can make to this joint venture. They have an important role to play.

    So have private companies. I hope that business sponsorship of the arts will continue to grow in the abolition areas as in the country as a whole. I shall be looking to see what further action I can take to encourage this through the business sponsorship incentive scheme next year.

    Some uncertainty is inevitable at the beginning of a period of transition. For this reason, I propose to give maximum help to the Arts Council in the first year. As time goes on, local authorities which have been relieved of GLC and MCC precepts should be able to increase their share. The central Government’s contribution of £25 million for the Arts Council will accordingly be tapered down. It will be about £21 million in 1987–88, and about £20 million in 1988–89.

    All other grants within my arts programme will be announced in a more detailed statement in December. I have not yet taken decisions on the allocations for individual arts bodies, but in overall terms the amounts available will be broadly at the levels which were allowed ​ for in the last public expenditure White Paper, and subsequently communicated for planning purposes to the bodies concerned.

    Today’s announcement will now enable the arts to plan ahead with confidence.

  • Terry Patchett – 1985 Speech on Darfield Main Colliery

    Below is the text of the speech made by Terry Patchett, the then Labour MP for Barnsley East, in the House of Commons on 12 November 1985.

    May I express my gratitude for the opportunity to raise this matter on the Floor of the House? Although I am aware that Darfield Main colliery is the subject of the review procedure between the National Coal Board and the appropriate trade unions, there are certain aspects of which the Minister should be made aware.

    Darfield Main is a mine with which I have had close associations for many years. Indeed, I was present at the negotiations when the Silkstone seam was added to the reserves of Darfield Main from Houghton Main, with assurances of at least 15 years of extended life. With the committed investment at Darfield Main of some £28 million, there opened up a potential of 1 million tonnes in the Winterbed seam where headings were already laid out. The 250,000 tonnes in the Melton Field seam took the potential life of Darfield Main to well over 20 years. However, those arguments will no doubt be put forward by the relevant trade unions in the review procedure.

    Being experienced in negotiations with the NCB, I am aware of the Government’s influence over the NCB. It is to that that I wish to draw the attention of the House. During the miners’ dispute, which is generally accepted by political commentators as having been perpetrated on the country by the Government, I wrote to the Secretary of State about the future of Darfield Main.

    Darfield Main’s future lies with heavy investment in the Silkstone seam which connects to the Cortonwood reserves of the same seam. The then branch secretary of the union, Walter Swift, had written to me expressing concern about the future of Darfield Main in view of the fact, stated many times, that the NCB could not sell Cortonwood coal. We are all familiar with the history of Cortonwood.

    I wrote to the Secretary of State and he passed my letter on to Mr. Ian MacGregor, chairman of the National Coal Board. I expressed concern about the future of Darfield Main and Houghton Main collieries, which mine the same seam. In response, Mr. MacGregor assured me—he was writing during the strike—that

    “Darfield Main and Holton Main collieries have substantial reserves, and, unlike Cortonwood, produce coal from other seams as well as the Silkstone.
    These two pits are part of the south side washery complex, centred on Grimethorpe colliery and they have benefited substantially over recent years from the board’s massive programme of capital investment under plan for coal. Both pits now have a complete new underground infrastructure, with streamlined operations for men, material and mineral handling, at low cost.
    The coal mined from these collieries (including that from the Silkstone seam) will form part of a comprehensive blend to produce a low cost product, suitable for both industry and power stations.”

    That letter was written during a different climate, but given Mr. MacGregor’s assurance one can readily understand my amazement when a proposal to close Darfield Main was announced within only four or five weeks of the end of the dispute, after such a glowing reference. I am aware of the dirty tactics used by the board and the Government during the dispute, which misled ​ public opinion so gravely, but an attempt to mislead a Member of the House in such a way by the chairman of a nationalised industry is intolerable behaviour.

    When I heard of the proposed closure, I immediately wrote to Mr. MacGregor requesting a meeting to discuss the matter. I was entitled to do so following the assurances that I received during the dispute. He replied by saying that his office was arranging for me to meet the area director of Barnsley area, Mr. Frank Ramsden, so that the present position could be explained, although it was Mr. MacGregor who sent the initial letter. I immediately contacted Mr. Ramsden’s office by telephone. I have known Frank Ramsden personally for many years. However, his secretary told me that he was out that day and going on holiday the following day. I made that contact on my initiative—nothing came from the coal board, regardless of promises.

    That happened in the middle of July. From that time to this there has been no attempt to contact me by letter or telephone. In fact, that part of the Barnsley area of the NCB no longer exists as it is now under the auspices of the north Yorkshire area director, Mr. Albert Tuke, who has not contacted me either.

    I feel strongly that I have been treated with contempt by the chairman of a nationalised industry. Anyone treating a Member of the House in such a contemptuous manner is treating the House itself with contempt. I am satisfied in my own mind that Mr. MacGregor feels that he does not have to justify writing off £28 million of public money to a duly elected Member of the House. I wish to take up that line of thought with the Minister because I feel strongly that that attitude has been encouraged by the Government. The Government have been and are prepared to write off many millions, indeed billions, of pounds during the dispute, to pursue their political dogma. Had the Government been prepared to spend half as much money in creating markets for coal as they have spent in union bashing, I am sure that the NCB would be in a much sounder position today.

    I also regret that the Government’s arrogance has infiltrated local management. Indeed, Mr. Griffin, the manager of Houghton Main, makes repeated calls to the work force for co-operation, but that is only in public. The work force are members of the National Union of Mineworkers. Away from the public eye, Mr Griffin tells union officials that he is looking for a way to sack them—that is the branch officials, of course. What a way to run an industry.

    To return to the major reason for bringing this matter to the attention of the House, I feel that the NCB is in a dilemma because the Government have no clearly defined energy policy. Is it not ironic that the coal board is turning down coking coal export orders to the tune of 2 million to 3 million tonnes to Romania and a possible 3 million tonnes, going up to 1990, from Denmark; and

    I am reliably informed of Irish interests preferring British coal to American. I am speaking of coking coal which is the backbone of the Darfield Main colliery—the coking coal that the board could not sell from Cortonwood when it started this trouble.

    It is to this dilemma that the Government contribute. For example, the main argument which contributed to the costly mining dispute concerned reserves. Since the strike, this has turned into a question of economics, meaning that ​ even a pit with reserves has no guaranteed future. Darfield Main, with its 20 years’ reserves, was set an economic target of £42 per tonne. It had almost achieved that aim and was suddenly told, “You cannot score goals. We are moving the net. We are dropping it to £38 per tonne.” It is a ridiculous way to run a business.

    I must ask the Minister to come clean on the Government’s policy for the energy industry. It really is time that he did so. I feel confident that the Government do not have too much of an interest in the electricity generating industry for sales because of their obvious enthusiasm for nuclear energy. It seems clear that the recent reorganisation of the coal board areas is leading up to a sale of lucrative pits such as Selby and the Vale of Belvoir, with its thick seams, not necessarily with a view to competing in the electricity generating industry but with an eye to the potential market in the gas industry. It is quite well known that by the year 2010 the gas board will require as much as 100 million tonnes of coal for conversion purposes when those wasted assets in the North sea have gone, when the Government have done with the easy meat.

    I ask the Minister, therefore, to give a direction to the board, indeed to the country, by declaring quite clearly and specifically their energy policy. It cannot be so difficult a task when we realise that 2010 is only 25 years away. Until the Minister comes clean on this, the work force will always face the dilemma of not knowing where its future lies. Like Darfield Main, many more pits will face apparently desperate searches for reasons to close them. The reasons vary from week to week. One used to be worked-out reserves. Now it is economics. This is what the coal board is now indulging in. It cannot even find a genuine reason for closing pits.

    I ask the Minister to do his duty to the country by spelling out his policy honestly and clearly. We want to know how many more millions of pounds the Government are prepared to write off and how much more of the coal industry will be destroyed before the Government’s targets are satisfied.

  • Roy Hattersley – 1985 Speech on the Autumn Statement

    Below is the text of the speech made by Roy Hattersley, the then Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the House of Commons on 12 November 1985.

    The Chancellor, with characteristic modesty, claims an achievement which a generation of his predecessors sought but failed to obtain. The speaking note for Government Back Benchers, which has been circulated on today’s subject—the economy—describes its state as a dream come true. Does the Chancellor regard the economy as a “dream come true” for the 3·5 million men and women who are unemployed, for the families whose child benefit is to be cut in real terms, for the 95 per cent. of taxpayers who are paying more now than in 1979 and for the owner-occupiers who are burdened by uniquely high interest rates?

    Will the Chancellor tell us some of the details of his proposal? Why have we not this year been told the size of what is called the “fiscal adjustment”? Is it because last year the right hon. Gentleman so mismanaged and bungled his tax cut promises that he precipitated the January sterling crisis? Is it simply because, like so many other promises—especially tax cut promises—what started out as an estimate of fiscal adjustment ended with a promise that he failed to deliver? Or, more likely, has he failed to ​ tell us the fiscal adjustment because he wishes to pretend that the sale of British Gas is not intended to finance the temporary tax cuts with which he hopes to solve some of the Conservatives’ electoral problems?

    If the Chancellor denies the connection between the sale of British Gas and the prospect of tax cuts, will he tell us whether the proposed temporary tax cuts could be financed without selling off those national assets? What other possible explanation can the right hon. Gentleman give the House for creating a private monopoly, already equipped with the power to fleece its consumers?

    When the Chancellor has explained the purpose of that privatisation, will he tell us about the long-term implications? What does he think should happen when the privatisation proceeds run out? Does he think that the tax cuts that they finance should be restored, or does he think that there should be more cuts in public expenditure? After British Gas is sold and that annual income to the Government is lost, how does the right hon. Gentleman recommend that it should be made up—not for one year or two years, but in perpetuity?

    All that the right hon. Gentleman can buy with the proceeds of the sale of British Gas is time. I ask the Chancellor again: what happens when the privatisation proceeds run out? What happens when the oil revenues run out? What happens when the report by the House of Lords predicting a collapse in manufacturing industry is proved to be true? In short, is the Chancellor capable of thinking beyond, looking beyond and planning beyond October 1987?

    Tucked away in the seventh paragraph of the Chancellor’s statement was the aside that the public sector borrowing requirement had increased £1 billion above its target; yet, despite the PSBR being £1 billion out of line, the right hon. Gentleman still boasts about the economy’s strength. As the Government have now been partly converted to the virtues of investing in public sector capital —a proposition that they derided and scorned last year when it was advocated by the Opposition—why does not the Chancellor at least allow the same overshoot next year which he has found tolerable this year to finance some more job creation through public sector capital expenditure? Is it because all his plans, all his intentions and everything revealed by this statement are concerned not with long-term investment but with short-term expediency?

    Let me give the House an obvious example from the document. The Chancellor boasts about growth next year. Every penny of that growth will be accounted for by personal consumption. According to the right hon. Gentleman’s own figures, export growth will collapse to 2 per cent. and imports will grow by twice that amount. Of his asset sales, one tenth will go on capital expenditure and nine tenths will be used to finance the election bribes.

  • Nigel Lawson – 1985 Autumn Statement Speech

    Below is the text of the Autumn Statement speech made by Nigel Lawson, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the House of Commons on 12 November 1985.

    With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.

    I am laying before the House today an autumn statement which brings together the Government’s outline public expenditure plans, proposals for national insurance contributions next year, and the forecast of economic prospects for 1986 required by the Industry Act 1975.

    This year’s autumn statement contains considerably more information than its predecessors. It breaks new ground by providing a forecast of the public expenditure outturn for 1985–86 for each Department, and the plans not just for the year immediately ahead but for each of the next three years. Both these innovations meet specific requests from the Select Committee on the Treasury Civil Service and I hope that they will be welcomed by hon. Members.

    The outturn for this financial year is expected to be the same as set out in the Budget, that is, £134 billion. After allowing for inflation, this is lower than last year, which bore the brunt of the public expenditure cost of the coal strike.
    The Government will continue to maintain firm control over public spending.

    Following this year’s review, the planning totals for 1986–87 and 1987–88 will be held to the levels set out in the Budget —£139 billion and £144 billion, respectively. For 1988–89 the total has been set at £149 billion. Over these three years public spending in real terms is expected to be broadly flat at very slightly below this year’s level. As a percentage of national output it will continue to decline as it has since 1982–83. By 1988–89 it should be back to its lowest percentage since 1972–73.

    In order to meet contingencies, the plans contain large reserves, rising from £4½ billion in 1986–87 to £8 billion in 1988–89. The reduction in the reserve for 1986–87 as compared with the provisional reserve for that year, which I announced at the time of the Budget, chiefly reflects the fact that the passage of time allows part of the reserve in any given year to be allocated to individual expenditure programmes as their costs become known more accurately. But the £4½ billion reserve for the year immediately ahead remains a substantial figure.

    Although I expect the planning total for 1985–86 to be the same as I did at the time of the Budget, the public sector borrowing requirement—subject to the usual margin of uncertainty at this time of year—is forecast to be about £ 1 billion higher—some £8 billion rather than £7 billion. This is due to lower sterling oil revenues. But even at £8 billion the PSBR would be the smallest that it has been as a percentage of GDP since 1971–72.

    The PSBR would, of course, have been running at a higher level than this were it not for the proceeds from privatisation, to which I will turn in a moment. But even without the privatisation proceeds, this year’s forecast PSBR would still be the smallest as a percentage of GDP since 1971–72.

    The Government’s privatisation programme is now getting into top gear and will continue for many years to come. [Interruption.] I am glad to see that the Opposition welcome that. I cannot stress so strongly the importance of this programme—now being emulated throughout the world—as a fundamental objective of Government policy. The transfer of state-owned businesses to the free ​ enterprise sector of the economy brings enormous long-term benefits to the nation as a whole in terms of greater concern for the customer and increased efficiency. It also provides the opportunity for a massive boost to wider share ownership, among both the public in general and the employees of those great enterprises in particular.

    The increased pace of privatisation means that the proceeds from this programme will rise substantially from £2½ billion this year to £4¾ billion in each of the next three years. In particular, the planned flotation of the British Gas Corporation is included for the first time. At the same time, however, there have been increases in a number of public expenditure programmes, so that the overall planning totals have remained unchanged.

    However, this needs to be seen in perspective. Even if the proceeds from privatisation were to be ignored altogether, the public expenditure planning total would still be broadly flat in real terms, at less than 1 per cent. above this year’s total, and public spending would still be on a steadily declining path as a percentage of GDP, reaching by 1988–89 its lowest level since 1972–73.

    The annual review of public spending provides an opportunity to reconsider priorities and adjust the balance between programmes. While some programmes this year have been held back, it has been possible to make significant additions to others.

    There will be increased spending on the National Health Service over previous plans of £250 million in 1986–87 and £300 million in 1987–88. On top of this, health authorities are able to spend the savings from their cost improvement programmes, which are expected to amount to £150 million this year and still more in future years. This should enable health authorities to meet demographic pressures and to deliver improvements in services as well.

    Total public sector provision for housing is being increased by £220 million net of receipts in 1986–87 and £200 million in 1987–88, and the housing plans now provide for some £3¼ billion of capital spending next year. Within this total, the Government believe that there should be a substantial shift in priorities in favour of renovation of the existing public sector housing stock.
    An extra £54 million in 1986–87 and £71 million in 1987–88 is being made available for capital expenditure on national and local roads.

    Just over £1 billion is being added to the social security programme for 1986–87, largely as a result of the 7 per cent. increase in benefits taking effect this month. Expenditure in the subsequent years of the survey period is subject to decisions on the Government’s social security review, on which a White Paper will be published shortly.

    Additional provision has been made under the law and order programme to allow local authorities to direct extra spending towards the police.
    For defence, the provision is unchanged. After the substantial real increases in spending since 1978–79, from which the defence programme will continue to benefit, the emphasis must now switch to improving our defence capability through greater efficiency and value for money, especially in procurement.

    On employment, there were large additions in the Budget to fund an expansion of the youth training scheme and the community programme. In this survey, a number of new initiatives have been agreed, but savings are to be made by a reduction in payments from the redundancy ​ fund. My right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General will be making a statement giving further details later today.

    There have been significant improvements in efficiency and value for money in many programmes. It is a great mistake to fall into the trap of measuring public expenditure programmes solely in terms of the money put into them: it is improved output that matters.

    Further details of these and other changes are contained in the autumn statement itself, and of course full details, together with information on running costs and manpower, will be given in the public expenditure White Paper to be published early in the new year.

    I now turn to national insurance contributions. The Government have conducted the usual autumn review of contributions in the light of advice from the Government Actuary on the prospective income and expenditure of the national insurance fund.

    The lower earnings limit will be increased next April to £38 a week, in line with the single person’s pension, and the upper earnings limit will be similarly increased to £285 a week, broadly in line with earnings.

    I announced in the Budget reduced rates of contribution for the lower paid and their employers—5 per cent. for those earning up to £55 a week, 7 per cent. for those earning up to £90 a week and 9 per cent. for employers of workers earning up to £130 a week. These took effect at the beginning of last month and are already starting to provide welcome assistance to the low paid and their employers, and a stimulus to the employment of the young and unskilled.

    The limits for these reduced rate bands will also be increased from April, in line with the lower and upper earnings limits, to £60, £95 and £140 a week, respectively.

    There will be no change in the main class 1 contribution rates, which will remain at 9 per cent. for employees and 10·45 per cent. for employers. This is the third year running in which national insurance contribution rates have been held constant, despite a growing number of pensioners and the substantial uprating of benefits taking effect later this month.

    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services will this afternoon announce details of these proposals, and will lay before Parliament the necessary order and the accompanying report by the Government Actuary.

    Finally, I turn to the Industry Act forecast. The economy is progressing very much as I envisaged at the time of the Budget. Inflation is falling again, after the predicted temporary rise in the spring, although I now expect inflation in the fourth quarter of this year to be slightly above the Budget forecast: 5½ per cent. rather than 5 per cent.

    The overall growth of the economy this year still looks like turning out at 3½ per cent.—the highest rate of growth since 1973.

    The pattern of growth, too, has been much as envisaged. Exports and business investment, as expected, were the fastest growing elements in demand in 1985. The rise in total investment is now put at 4 per cent. in 1985; within this figure business investment is expected to be up by 7 to 8 per cent., to yet another all-time record.

    As a result of this steady progress, there has been a substantial growth in the number of people in work since ​ 1983. This has now been reflected in a levelling out in unemployment—albeit still at a sadly high level, not least because of the rapid growth in the total labour force. The prospect here is for some further improvement, assisted by the measures I announced in the Budget to help on the jobs front, which will have their main effect in 1986. But that improvement could easily be put at risk by excessive pay settlements.

    The prospect for 1986 is one of continued growth and still lower inflation. The composition of growth is likely to change somewhat, with consumer spending taking up the running as exports—which had an exceptional rise of 7 per cent. this year—grow more slowly. The current account balance of payments surplus is forecast at £4 billion, compared with £3 billion in 1985. Fixed investment is expected to grow, once again, slightly faster than the economy as a whole.

    Overall, the economy in 1986 is expected to grow by a further 3 per cent.—the fifth successive year of growth at an average of 3 per cent. a year, and into the sixth, the best performance since before the first oil shock. At the same time, inflation is expected to fall further, to 3¾ per cent. in the fourth quarter of 1986.

    Indeed, if the forecast is correct—and I am the first to admit its inevitable fallibility—1986 promises to be the first year since the ‘sixties when inflation and growth will be within one point of each other. What is beyond doubt is that we are now achieving the steady growth with low inflation which successive Governments have sought in vain for a generation.

    All in all, Mr. Speaker, the progress and prospects I have described amount to the clearest possible vindication of the policies we have been following these past six years, and will continue to follow.

    The autumn statement is now available from the Vote Office, and the House will no doubt wish to take it into account when we debate the economy tomorrow. The framework of public expenditure control which it sets out should allow scope for considered and justified reductions in the burden of taxation; and these in turn will further reinforce the economy’s flexibility and dynamism. It is on that prospect that the future prosperity of all our people depends.

  • Norman Fowler – 1985 Speech on Social Security and Education

    Below is the text of the speech made by Norman Fowler, the then Secretary of State for Social Security and Education, in the House of Commons on 11 November 1985.

    The immediate context of the debate on social security is that in two weeks’ time we will be uprating social security benefits. That will add another £2 billion to spending on social security. It will bring total spending on social security to well over £40 billion a year—almost a third of all public expenditure.

    Uprating pensions and other linked long-term benefits by 7 per cent. will raise the single person’s pension by £2·50 a week and the married couple’s pension by £4 a week. That will mean that between November 1978 and November 1985 pensions will have gone up by over 96 per cent.—some 10 percentage points ahead of the rise in prices. Thus we have more than fulfilled our pledge to protect the value of the retirement pension, and that is a pledge that we stand by as firmly today.

    This month’s uprating means that since 1979 this Government have increased the social security budget by 30 per cent. in real terms. Some of that increase has been due to unemployment. I make no apology for the fact that we have given that substantial support to those in need of it, but it is important to recognise that the major part of that real increase in spending is due to real increases in the value of benefits, and in particular to the increased number of pensioners. Since 1979 the total number of pensioners has increased by over 750,000. The result is that we are now paying higher value pensions to more pensioners than ever before in history.

    This Government have done even more. We have more than doubled the mobility allowance and taken it out of tax. We have abolished the invalidity trap and taken war widows’ pensions out of tax. We have cut national insurance contributions for the lower paid. Therefore, let us be clear. The debate is about the policy of a Government, who, by any measure, have already committed vast resources to social security and, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s statement tomorrow will show, are planning to maintain that commitment.

    There is a further fundamental point. Since 1979 we have also cut inflation to a fraction of the 27 per cent. peak that it reached in the mid-1970s. It is now below 6 per ​ cent., and falling. The reduction of inflation is of crucial importance to all those on low incomes and to pensioners in particular.

    The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) tends to have a short memory on this matter, but when we look back to 1976, when inflation was running at 20 per cent., and more for a whole year on end, we see that it was the hon. Gentleman who, according to The Times, was shouted down at a pensions rally. The report stated:

    “Old age pensioners shouted down Mr. Meacher, Under-Secretary of State at the DHSS yesterday as he tried to explain the Government’s record on pensions”.

    In fact, those pensioners had learnt from bitter experience a fact that we should all face—that one cannot separate economic policy from social policy. High spending and the high inflation that follows will always undermine a Government’s social objectives, however worthy they may be. Inflation is a social evil as well as an economic one. It attacks the poor hardest and destroys the security of the pensioners first. It must therefore be a first social priority to drive inflation down and to keep it down. We must never return to the days of hyper inflation of the mid-1970s.

    There is another aspect of the debate that goes beyond comparisons of past performance, and that is the case for reform for the future. The fact is that the present system cannot be sustained. Social security has become a creaking structure in danger of collapse, and parts of the system are simply indefensible.

    We cannot defend a system whose rules are frequently contradictory and which can leave so many people trapped in a position where it is not worth saving, not worth bothering to earn more and where a man can actually lose money when he takes a job. We cannot defend a system that is so complex that it creates major difficulties, both for those who operate the system and for those whom it is supposed to help.

    We cannot defend a system that fails to deliver adequate support to many of those who are in the greatest need. For example, the evidence accumulated during the course of the social security review pointed to a clear need to provide help to working families on low incomes, which the present system fails to meet. We cannot defend a system that makes promises for the future that are clearly beyond the capacity of this generation to command and of the next to fulfil.

    Presented with those challenges, it is simply no good to proclaim that every existing benefit must be preserved, or to come out with a stream of worthless promises to raise public spending more and more. The question is not whether social security should be reformed but how it should be reformed. That is a challenge from which no party can stand aside.

    That is why the Government have carried out their review of social security with the aim—for the first time since the 1940s—of looking at social security overall rather than in a piecemeal way. In developing our approach, we believe that the system should meet three main objectives.

    First, social security must be capable of meeting genuine need. That means rather more than constructing an adequate income support scheme to replace supplementary benefit. It means recognising that needs change. In particular, it means today recognising that one of the groups which are by any definition in most need are low-income families with children—not just those where ​ the head of the family is unemployed, but where the head of the family is in work. It is for that reason that we have set out proposals for a family premium with income support.

    Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)

    Although I very much appreciate my right hon. Friend’s sterling work and his sympathetic attitude towards the least well off in our community, I must ask whether he accepts the grave anxiety among women that child benefit may not continue to be paid direct to them? Many women, not only those in the lowest income group, have child benefit as their only source of independent income. If that is to be frozen, they will be very annoyed.

    Mr. Fowler

    Indeed, I thought that my hon. Friend would go on to make a further point about how child benefit is paid. I cannot pre-empt the uprating statement that I shall make on child benefit, but clearly the whole intent of the Green Paper and the policy that we have set out is to continue child benefit as a basic support that is paid to women, but also to do something more.

    I think my hon. Friend accepts that it is no good relying only on child benefit. The problem that has been highlighted in our inquiry into social security is that a whole range of low-income families with children need additional support. Family income supplement is not reaching those children. That is why I believe that although FIS rightly sought to tackle the issue and at the time was undoubtedly a major step forward, it suffers now from a number of defects, not least that it has not adequately tackled either the unemployment or the poverty trap. Our view is that it cannot be justified to have a system where a man can be worse off in work than out of work, or where his take home pay may actually fall even though his nominal pay rises. Our proposals for family credit—using net income—seek to tackle that problem and to bring increased help to some of our poorest families.

    Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead)

    We welcome the Secretary of State’s statement that the working poor will be given substantial help. I should like to question the right hon. Gentleman about what he means by substantial and extra help. May we have a guarantee that when one takes account of the loss of family income supplement, the cuts in housing benefit and the freezing of child benefit, the new family credit will amount to more than the loss of income on those three fronts?

    Mr. Fowler

    The purpose is to bring extra help to low-income families in work. We shall set out the objectives and the tables in the White Paper. By introducing family credit we mean extra support, not less support, in that area.

    Mr. Tony Favell (Stockport)

    Is it not also important to bear in mind the Government’s avowed intention to reduce the income tax burden on the poor? Are not many people in receipt of family income supplement paying tax?

    Mr. Fowler

    The whole House will share the aspiration to raise tax thresholds. We all agree that many people on low incomes who are paying tax now should be taken out of tax. That is the Government’s aim. I am sure that there is widespread support throughout the country for that.

    Mr. Frank Field

    Poor families will not be reassured by the statement that more money will be available globally. People want a commitment that individually they will be better off. Will the right hon. Gentleman give that clear commitment?​

    Mr. Fowler

    I have tried to answer that precise point. These issues will be set out in the White Paper. Like everyone else, the hon. Gentleman, even with his expertise, will have to wait until the White Paper is published.

    Our second objective is that the social security system must be simpler to understand and easier to administer. I do not see how anyone can be happy with a supplementary benefit organisation which requires almost 40,000 staff to administer, but which, through absolutely no fault of the staff, is not always able to provide the service which is needed.

    I do not see how anyone can be happy with a system under which all the main income-related benefits—supplementary benefit, housing benefit and family income supplement—use different measures of income and capital. I do not see how anyone can be happy with a system where local offices simply lack the modern aids which are necessary to provide a modern service.

    It is for all these reasons that we are proposing the reform of supplementary benefit, the introduction of a common basis for our systems of income support, housing benefit and family support, and that we are now embarking on the biggest computerisation programme in Europe so that offices will not depend on manual records in the same time-wasting and inefficient way as they do now.

    Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Cromarty and Skye)

    DHSS staff are experiencing difficulty throughout the country. Will the Secretary of State comment on articles which appeared in the press last week about the confidential Ernst and Whinney report, which apparently advises that 10,000 extra civil servants will be needed to administer the complex new schemes which the right hon. Gentleman intends to introduce?

    Mr. Fowler

    We are examining the staff implications of the new proposals. A reduction in DHSS permanent staff is expected, and we are examining the temporary, transitional implications. I do not advise the hon. Gentleman to rely on reports about that matter. A newspaper report should not be relied upon for an accurate opinion.

    Our third objective is that the social security system must be consistent with the Government’s overall objectives for the economy. The scope for sustaining social security provision depends on the performance of the economy and the creation of wealth. Equally, it means that social security itself should not place barriers in the way of economic development—barriers such as high national insurance rates, which can discourage jobs, or restrictions on pensions which can prevent job mobility.

    The Government’s proposals for the reform of social security are set out with those objectives in mind. Clearly the final proposals will be set out in the Government’s White Paper shortly.

    Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South)

    When?

    Mr. Fowler

    In the next weeks. At this stage, there are two major points to make. The first, is on the current problems we face, and the second is on future policy. The first point is this. Inevitably, there must be a limit to the resources that any Government can devote to social security. The lesson of that is that resources cannot be wasted—that can only mean areas of undoubted need ​ getting less. However difficult the problems may be, we must ensure that resources are properly directed at those who need them.

    That is why we are seeking the control of board and lodging spending. Spending in this area has risen from around £200 million a year at the end of 1982 to £600 million a year by the end of 1984. For ordinary board and lodging it rose from £166 million to £380 million in those two years. There was evidence of abuse—both by landlords and claimants—and young people were being drawn into accommodation which they could not afford to pay for if they were in work. Our aim has been to ensure that proper help goes to those with a genuine need to be in board and lodging, while excluding those who do not.

    One part of the regulations was called into question by a High Court judgment at the end of July, and as a result we have appealed to the Court of Appeal. The question of what to do in the interim obviously arises. There is a prospect of prolonged uncertainty, because, whatever the outcome in the Court of Appeal, it will be open to either side to consider an appeal to the House of Lords. So if we do nothing there is the risk of confusion—while at the same time calling into question the increase in benefit payable later this month to people in residential and nursing homes. That is an effect that no one wants.

    So, for all the reasons that I set out in my statement at the end of last month, I am laying fresh regulations today which the House will have the opportunity of debating very shortly. They meet the Government’s immediate objectives, while at the same time responding to the Joint Committee’s concerns.

    The revised regulations establish the framework of board and lodging areas, time limits and financial limits, without providing for any of the powers questioned in the High Court. They provide for the time limits to be reintroduced for new claimants as soon as regulations are made, but they will not be applied to existing boarders on benefit until 28 July 1986, coinciding with next year’s general uprating of benefits. The regulations also give statutory backing to the increase in the limits for residential care and nursing homes due to come into effect on 25 November.

    A number of other provisions enable us to deal with difficult cases. I am taking powers to exempt from the time limits claimants who would otherwise suffer exceptional hardship. I am also taking discretionary powers to help in individual cases of genuine hardship. This will mainly help people in residential and nursing homes who before last April were meeting their own charges, but are unable to carry on doing so and are now entitled to supplementary benefit.

    The House will have a very early opportunity of debating these regulations, but there is a further important point that I should make on action which is clearly now necessary to combat the emerging evidence of fraud in this area. The House will recall that a special investigation earlier this year in Euston showed that about half of those claiming to be residents in particular hotels were no longer there—about 600 cases out of 1,200. Following that, I asked for other checks to be carried out in all regions. They are not fully completed. When they are, I shall make the full results available to the House during, I hope, December.

    Nevertheless, it is clear already that there is similar evidence of abuse in other parts of the country. The evidence that we have from other parts of London, parts ​ of Manchester and Edinburgh, and from towns like Southend, show that an appreciable proportion of claimants were found not to be resident at the hotel named on their claim form. One address which had been given for 24 claimants proved on investigation to have not a single claimant in residence.

    Such examples of abuse involve not only claimants but the proprietors of accommodation. This cannot be totally prevented by the passing of regulations alone, although the size of the abuse can be reduced. Clearly, what is needed is a further effort to reduce fraud and abuse, and I intend, therefore, to increase the scale of our effort in this area. I hope that, whatever else we may disagree on, there will be agreement that fraud, whether committed by claimants or landlords, or both in co-operation, should be combated as effectively as possible. I give notice now that this will be our intention in the coming months.

  • Fergus Montgomery – 1985 Speech on Trafford Health Authority

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Theresa May – 2019 Statement on Grenfell Tower Inquiry Panel Members

    Below is the text of the statement made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 5 June 2019.

    The fire in Grenfell Tower on 14 June 2017 was an unimaginable tragedy that should never have happened. The Government set up the Grenfell Tower Inquiry to get to the truth about what happened, deliver justice for victims, survivors, bereaved families and the wider community, and to ensure that such a terrible tragedy could never happen again.

    Section 7 (1)(b) of the Inquiries Act 2005 allows me to appoint panel members to the inquiry panel at any time during the inquiry. I have recently announced that Professor Nabeel Hamdi and Thouria Istephan will be appointed to the inquiry panel for phase 2 of the inquiry’s work.

    Professor Nabeel Hamdi is a widely accomplished academic with an international reputation in housing and participatory design and planning. Thouria Istephan is an experienced and highly respected architect with a professional focus on health and safety. She is a partner at Foster + Partners and has a range of skills and experience directly relevant to the issues that the inquiry will be investigating in phase 2 of its work.

    Given the extent of the tragic circumstances surrounding the fire, we should not be surprised by the scale and breadth of issues to be investigated that have emerged from the inquiry’s work. Phase 2 of the inquiry will be the largest phase in terms of the number and range of issues to be considered and I am confident that these appointments will ensure that the inquiry panel has the diversity of skills and expertise necessary for the scope and complexity of issues to be addressed by phase 2 of the inquiry’s work.

    I wrote to the Chair of the inquiry, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, before recess informing him of my decision and to seek his consent to the appointments in accordance ​with section 7(2)(b) of the Inquiries Act 2005. Sir Martin replied on 29 May 2019 consenting to the appointment. Our exchange of letters can be found on gov.uk: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/names-of-grenfell-tower-inquiry-panel-members-announced- 30-may-2019

  • Lord Callanan – 2019 Statement on the General Affairs Council

    Below is the text of the speech made by Lord Callanan, the Minister of State for Exiting the European Union, in the House of Lords on 5 June 2019.

    I represented the UK at the General Affairs Council (GAC) in Brussels on 21 May 2019. Until we leave the European Union, we remain committed to fulfilling our rights and obligations as a full member state and continue to act in good faith. A provisional report of the meeting and the conclusions adopted can be found on the Council of the European Union’s website at:

    https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/gac/2019/05/19/

    Multiannual financial framework 2021-2027

    Ministers discussed the structure of external action expenditure during the 2021-2027 multiannual financial framework (MFF). Discussion centred around the neighbourhood, development and international co-operation instrument (NDICI), and the European development fund (EDF). Ministers focused on the Commission’s proposal for integrating the EDF into the EU budget. The Commission stated that this would streamline previous spending on external action by bringing together 12 programmes; a single and larger fund would have more ​flexibility to respond to emerging priorities. Several member states argued that the European neighbourhood should remain a separate fund or ring-fenced within the NDICI, due to the need to prioritise Europe’s near neighbours.

    Preparation of the European Council on 20-21 June 2019: Annotated draft agenda

    Ministers discussed the annotated draft agenda of the European Council on 20-21 June. The agenda included the 2019-2024 strategic agenda, the 2021-2027 MFF, climate change and countering disinformation.

    The majority of member state interventions focused on climate change, the strategic agenda and enlargement. Ministers were keen to balance ambitious goals with maintaining the global competitiveness of the EU, and being able to address citizens’ needs effectively. A number of member states suggested that the Sibiu declaration should be incorporated into deliverable goals for the strategic agenda. Under discussions on enlargement, some member states hoped that progress would be made at the June European Council to allow accession talks with North Macedonia and Albania.

    I intervened to welcome the Sibiu declaration on the strategic agenda. I also highlighted our commitment to combat disinformation in the EU through the joint action plan, as well as domestically, through the White Paper on online harms and the Cairncross review on upholding high quality journalism.

  • John Glen – 2019 Speech on Women in Finance

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Glen, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, at the Women in Finance Summit held on 6 June 2019.

    It’s a pleasure to speak with you this morning on a subject that is right at the top of my priorities.

    Women in Finance really is central to the success of UK financial services, and our prosperity more broadly.

    Not because of social pressure or reputational risk – but to help us meet the challenges and opportunities of the global economy.

    In the future, we will never be able to compete with the likes of China or India when it comes to raw numbers, or sheer financial and political clout.

    The single most decisive factor in our success will be the expertise found within our workforce.

    And if the UK is to remain a leading centre for global finance, then we cannot afford for people with talent and skill to pass the sector by.

    Nor can we afford for experienced and capable individuals to be prevented from rising to the top.

    I know many of you recognise this too.

    As such, I hope you’ll forgive me if I don’t repeat all the traditional arguments in favour of workplace diversity.

    It might have been necessary 10 or 15 years ago; but this is 2019. One would hope that the benefits are plainly apparent across the industry – and certainly to this audience.

    Nor do I intend to simply reel of the normal list of Government platitudes and policies as you might expect from a ministerial speaker.

    You’ve already discussed the Treasury’s Women in Finance Charter in the previous session.

    And many of the 330 organisations that have already signed-up are represented today.

    Instead, I want to talk about how we can translate our shared commitment into meaningful, measurable, improvement.

    As City Minister, I certainly hear all the right noises about diversity and inclusion.

    Corporate leaders tell me they ‘get it’.

    They have an action plan. They hold forums. They bring in experts.

    And yet the gender pay gap in financial services remains the largest of any sector within our economy.

    On average a woman earns 64 pence for every one pound earned by a man.

    There is no great mystery behind this disparity. The simple fact is men are disproportionately represented in senior roles which naturally attract better salaries.

    For all the noise and activity – for all the supposed commitment within the sector – there are still too few women reaching the top.

    Is it because companies are choosing quick and superficial wins over long term cultural change?

    Or perhaps they were only interested in window dressing in the first place?

    I have certainly heard some horror stories in my time.

    Reports of firms filling gender balanced shortlists but with no real intention of employing the women concerned.

    Or creating new seats for women in the boardroom in roles that are peripheral or – worse – roles that set them up for failure.

    These are anecdotal examples – one hopes they aren’t accurate.

    But somehow the very public commitment to diversity and inclusion throughout the sector isn’t cutting through.

    Earlier this week, I had the opportunity to visit the headquarters of Man Group.

    It’s one of the firms that is making progress.

    They’ve introduced a global parental leave policy. All new parents – men and women alike – are entitled to the same full pay and the same, extended, 18-week leave allowance.

    I wanted to speak to a cross section of women who work there to understand their perspective more broadly.

    I was particularly taken with the comments of one classics graduate who is now co-managing a billion-euro hedge fund.

    She made the point that the perception that financial services is all about complex maths and spreadsheets can put people off. It doesn’t reflect many aspects and skills required for the job. Emotional intelligence also matters.

    Alongside the requirement for hard quantitative analytical skills is the need to understand the complex inter-personal dynamics and culture of an organisation you might want to invest in.

    This point about perception came up time-and-again during our conversations.

    Take role models as an example.

    We often look to CEOs and industry ‘big names’. But if they are so far removed from your own experience or career path, what impact can they really have on your aspirations?

    People need realistic case studies. Role models with backgrounds they recognise. Attributes they can emulate.

    And I think perception also plays an important part in answering why we’ve not seen more progress in achieving a greater gender balance across the sector.

    There’s little point in having the right policies on parental leave, for example, if new mothers or fathers feel that taking their entitlement will harm their career.

    Likewise, there’s little point in permitting flexible working if staff feel they’ll be poorly judged if they work at home.

    Indeed, truly enlightened firms should be willing to publish the data to prove they practice what they preach.

    And the most inclusive firms are those where managers lead by example.

    Because if managers aren’t taking the leave they’re entitled to – or if they’re burning the midnight oil in the office night after night – is it any wonder if their staff feel obliged to do the same?

    It’s clear that having the right policies isn’t enough by itself – the culture must be there too.

    Of course, some countries have gone down the route of legislation.

    In Sweden new mothers and fathers are obliged to take their entitlement of parental leave, and that’s been the case for several decades.

    My instinct is that isn’t the right solution for the UK at present.

    I’d much rather tap into the spirit of competition that exists within the sector by sharing best practice to inspire – or provoke – firms to do better.

    And there are plenty of companies that are making progress toward their targets.

    Lloyds has a leadership development programme which has seen women being promoted at a rate 5 times greater than the average across the firm.

    Nationwide reviewed their maternity leave policy and consequently. designed a new returners programme to help ease mothers back into work.

    And at PwC all staff, at every level, have diversity linked objectives against which their performance is assessed.

    This kind of approach matters because everyone has a role to play in creating an inclusive culture.

    Everyone is a leader of some sorts, even if it’s just by setting an example for others to follow.

    And it’s important to hold people to this obligation – just as firms need to be held to account for the overall progress they make.

    This leads us back to the Women in Finance Charter

    The next annual review will begin over the summer.

    And I will be taking a personal interest in the submissions we receive.

    I don’t expect to see complete transformations overnight.

    But I do expect to see signs that you are making headway.

    Putting in place policies and programmes which will deliver consistent progress in the years to come.

    Because signing the Charter is not a ‘tick in the box’ – it’s a solemn commitment to do what must be done to right this wrong.

    So let me draw this together.

    I’ve raised a few awkward questions today, but I make no apology for asking them – nor are they for me to answer.

    Ultimately, the onus is on the sector to ask itself whether it is willing to translate warm words into the tough, tangible action which is necessary.

    I’m proud to be your advocate.

    Barely a day goes by when I don’t speak in Parliament or in public about the contribution that financial services make to our economy, or the potential it offers for the future.

    I will always try to name firms that represent the best of the sector, as I have done today.

    But nor will I shy away from highlighting where the sector is falling short; and where it needs to do more.

    And the hard truth is we still have a long way to go.

    So the time has come for real leadership.

    No more gestures.

    No more warm words.

    Decisive action is required.

    I must now return to Whitehall to prepare for a Parliamentary debate this afternoon.

    But I would encourage you to take inspiration from one another’s achievements and from all you’ve heard today.

    And to never lose sight of what we’re working toward.

    A financial sector where no one is forced to choose between their family and their career.

    A sector where anyone can succeed on the strengths of their talents alone.

    A sector that is not only more open, but more resilient, more dynamic and more successful too.