UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Keith Joseph – 1985 Speech on the Teachers’ Dispute

    Below is the text of the speech made by Keith Joseph, the then Secretary of State for Education and Science, in the House of Commons on 22 October 1985.

    With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the teachers’ dispute in England and Wales.

    Intense efforts have been made in recent months by the Government to bring this damaging dispute to a satisfactory conclusion. I regret to say that they have, so far, been unsuccessful. Some of the teacher unions have chosen to continue to disrupt the education of the pupils in their charge rather than accept—or even to discuss—the offer made to them. I deplore this, the damage it causes, and the example it sets.

    In August, the Government offered the prospect of an additional £1,250 million for teachers’ pay over four years from next April, a sum equivalent to an extra 4 per cent. on the present pay bill rising to an extra 9 per cent. by the fourth year. On 12 September, the employers made an offer constructed upon the conditional Government willingness to see this substantial extra investment on teachers’ pay. Under that offer, all teachers stood to receive increases in April and November. Those on their scale maxima would have got additional increases in either September or next March. The average end-of-year increase would have been over 8 per cent. in addition, one in five classroom teachers would have benefited significantly from the additional 70,000 promotions planned from September 1986. All of this would have been on top of any normal annual increase negotiated from April 1986.

    All classroom teachers at present on scale 1 or scale 2, even without promotion, could have looked forward to £10,500 a year plus whatever is negotiated each year on pay. In return for these proposals, which would have brought real benefits to the education service, as well as substantial improvements in pay for large numbers of teachers and in promotion prospects, the teachers were asked for a clear commitment to the professional fulfilment of their duties and an acceptance of a pay system which would have offered relatively greater rewards to promoted teachers and to those holding senior leadership posts.

    The teacher unions took just 20 minutes to reject this offer. Since then some unions have been engaging in forms of industrial action explicitly intended to cause the maximum disruption to the education service at the minimum cost to the teachers involved in the disruption. This is deplorable and underlines why we so urgently need an agreement to define more clearly the teachers’ professional responsibilities.

    Since then I regret to say that the employers, by a small majority, have been willing to make offers relating to pay alone. Even before the teacher unions confirmed that their demands far outstripped the employers’ capacity to pay, I repeated the Government’s position. We refuse to provide any additional resources for a “no strings” pay deal which would be a reversion to the discredited approach where negotiations on pay are separated from negotiations on pay structure and conditions of service. Separation has for years meant, “You pay us now and we will talk about reform later.”

    Simultaneous negotiation of all elements provides the only credible way forward. Notwithstanding the passage of the original deadline, therefore, the ​ Government remain ready to consider whether additional resources could still be approved within the £1,250 million envelope for 1986–87 and subsequent years provided the conditions for reform are met. The Government are also willing to set aside resources from within the total of £1,250 million to help employers cover the cost of supervising pupils at midday. I have discussed that proposition with the employers, and it is agreed between us that officials should now clarify the way ahead.

    The Government will continue to make every effort to see a bargain struck, which would provide improved pay and prospects for teachers in return for a better career and promotion structure, the clarification of teachers’ duties, and an end to the disruption.

    Our objective is to improve the standard of teaching in schools and the quality of our education system. That is why we have agreed to the commitment of such substantial additional resources towards improving teachers’ salaries. But we are not prepared to release the resources without simultaneous action on teachers’ duties and the pay structure to ensure that the nation receives a fair return for the extremely large investment.

  • Ray Powell – 1985 Speech on Public Opinion Polls

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ray Powell, the Labour MP for Ogmore, in the House of Commons on 22 October 1985.

    I beg to move,

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the holding of and publication of the results of opinion polls about voting intentions at times prior to general elections and by-elections for the House of Commons.

    To try to help the House after the laborious points of order and everything else, I shall try to be as brief as possible and not deal extensively with market research opinion and so on.

    All right hon. and hon. Members fully understand chat the only poll that matters finally in an election is the result of the votes counted at the ballot box. Many years ago that depended on the political parties’ presentation of their policies. The electors listened to speeches on street corners, in parks or local halls and coverage by radio or other means had very little impact. But now, in 1985, with mass media coverage on the box in the corner of many homes, electors are easily persuaded by the announcement of the result of opinion polls.

    Considerable sums of money are spent on the commissioning of those polls. We are all aware of the international code of practice that pollster organisations are obliged to follow. Nevertheless, the honesty, objectivity, efficiency and techniques used can result in the presentation of biased, manipulated results for partisan political purposes. Most hon. Members are well aware of many polls that predicted a totally different result from the actual result at the counting of the votes.

    I refer in particular to the recent by-election at Brecon and Radnor. On the day of the election, one opinion poll gave the Labour candidate an 18 per cent. lead. That undoubtedly resulted in many known voters not voting, thinking that the candidate would be elected with a substantial majority. In fact, the alliance candidate won by 1·5 per cent.

    I could give many more examples of similar results and predictions, such as one recent announcement that was not only a maverick but was absolute nonsense. It was bold enough to suggest to thinking, intelligent electors on 19 September that the alliance had a 9·5 per cent. lead over Labour. Surely that is proof enough that the Bill, with its objectives, is absolutely necessary.

    Many countries ban opinion polls before elections— Portugal recently adopted legislation on similar lines. If we are to preserve the true democratic process of electing a Government by the majority accepting the presentation of political parties’ policies, we must ensure that pollsters are not the deciding factor and that they are not allowed to sway electors to vote for a party the policies of which are not liked just to keep out another party that is liked even less. Tactical voting is encouraged by the present applied system. Until the electorate votes according to conscience, principle and the policies presented, uninfluenced by somewhat bizarre pollster predictions, we are allowing the franchise won for us after a considerable struggle by former generations to be lost to the fancies and favourites of the few large influential pollster organisations.

    I conclude by hoping that those organisations will understand the real need for legislation. Only today I received a letter from the chairman of the Market Research ​ Society, Mr. Peter Bartram, confirming discussions that I had with Phyllis Vangelder, Gordon Heald and himself welcoming the setting up of an all-party parliamentary working group to discuss matters of concern relating to the commissioning, execution and reporting of election polls.

    I therefore urge all hon. Members to support my request for leave to bring in the Bill so that a fair, sound and practical solution is found for this extremely worrying problem.

  • Alan Clark – 1985 Speech on Northern Unemployment

    Below is the text of the speech made by Alan Clark, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment, in the House of Commons on 11 October 1985.

    In an eloquent and finely constructed speech the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) raised a number of issues about unemployment in the northern region and in his constituency. I shall try to answer fully.

    The Government, who now have two Ministers in the Cabinet dealing with employment matters, are only too well aware of the seriousness of unemployment, particularly in the north where there have been longstanding and deep-seated problems. I shall try to answer all the hon. Gentleman’s questions, although he did not observe the convention under which we share the time available equally on such occasions.

    I shall first dispel the legend which the hon. Gentleman described. The Prime Minister did not call the people in ​ the north of England “moaning Minnies.” The context in which those words were used has been distorted and gone into mythology. It is inaccurate.

    Mr. Don Dixon (Jarrow)

    The words were used.

    Mr. Clark

    The Prime Minister was describing some of the success stories in the region. Alas, they are few, but she was trying to give hope to those who live in the region. The journalists round her would not accept that and pressed her with unpalatable and familiar statistics. She reproached them for not allowing her, even for a few minutes, to disclose some of the good news to encourage people and to emphasise that the north is not a total and abject failure. The Prime Minister was behaving correctly, but the incident was portrayed as if she categorised the people living in the area as “moaning Minnies.’ That is inaccurate, as those who saw the incident on television will confirm.

    I admit that over the past 20 years more than 200,000 jobs in traditional industries in the north-east have been shed, largely as a result of the world recession, technological change and market shifts. The people of the area have, therefore, had the difficult task of moving away from the old heavy industries towards the growth sectors of the economy. That brings continuing problems and much still needs to be done, but it is encouraging that the rate of redundancies in the region is about half what it was in 1981.

    There are many encouraging signs. We should emphasise them without minimising the problem. For example, self-employment in the region has grown significantly. The number of self-employed people is now 87,000, which is over 50 per cent. more than when we took office.

    Growth sectors are increasingly important. About 16,000 people are engaged in electronics in firms such as Isocom, the components manufacturer whose new factory in the Hartlepool enterprise zone will be employing up to 500 workers by 1988, and Middlesbrough’s CADCAM computer centre which could bring 5,000 jobs to the area by 1995.

    The pharmaceutical industry has grown from virtually nothing to an industry employing 5,000. The north-east has a firm foothold in the future with such industries as biotechnology and advanced manufacturing technology. Much of the good news is not publicised as widely as it should be.

    Another example is the Nissan factory at Washington which should create 4,500 jobs if all goes well, with a further seven overseas companies attracted to the region this year—[Interruption.] Unfortunately, I cannot hear everything that is said from a seated position. I was not left as much time to reply as I should have liked. I have detailed some of the good news and some of the new growth sectors. If another hon. Member succeeds in obtaining another Adjournment debate, we may deal with other matters.

    On the retail side, the Metrocentre, due to open in Gateshead in 1986, will be the largest out-of-town shopping complex in the United Kingdom creating up to 5,000 new jobs.

    My Department has recently taken responsibility for tourism, and here, too, there are good opportunities for new employment — not only in the traditional tourist areas but in regions such as the north-east.

    Over the past three years, the Northumbria tourist board has been able to assist directly more than 84 tourism projects with Government assistance of £1·3 million. There has also been substantial Government support for major tourism and leisure developments in the region, such as the Beamish open air museum.

    The English tourist board has set up tourism development action programmes at Tyne and Wear and Kielder to develop the potential of the areas which will create new sources of employment for the local population. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that there is significant scope for new employment in tourism in the region.

    The region is far from being without hope and there are no insuperable disadvantages. With the right help much has been achieved and much more will be achieved. The right help includes a major infusion of Government assistance of various kinds, all of which has a direct effect on employment.
    The hon. Gentleman will be aware that almost the whole of the region has assisted area status. It has benefited by well over £500 million since 1979 through regional development grants and selective assistance. The Department of the Environment has funded economic, social and environmental projects of nearly £300 million, especially in inner urban areas in the region. Only last week my hon. Friend the environment Minister announced an additional £15 million to tackle inner-city deprivation, £2·5 million of which will go to the north-east.

    Middlesbrough, Hartlepool and Newcastle-Gateshead have enterprise zones. Newcastle-Gateshead also has a city action team to co-ordinate local and central Government action, especially on job creation, environmental recovery and housing improvement. In Cleveland, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned on a number of occasions, the Department of the Environment has launched the Cleveland initiative for a co-ordinated programme of action on major areas of derelict and underused land.

    I must mention the Manpower Services Commission schemes. Government aid to support and encourage economic recovery and the creation of jobs in the region amounts to well over £1 billion since 1979. In that period, the Manpower Services Commission spent more than £300 million—and the planned expenditure this year is £151 million—in helping to create work or provide vocational training. As a result of the expansion of the community programme to help the long-term unemployed, 27,200 places are to be provided by May 1986 in the region—more than double last year’s target.
    In vocational training, lack of qualifications among the young is a particularly worrying problem. We recognise ​ the value of a well-trained young work force, which is why the youth training scheme is to be extended nationally to two years, leading to vocational qualifications for school leavers from 1 April 1986.

    That is a major step towards ensuring that all young people under 18 are in work, in full-time education or undergoing high quality training, so that unemployment need not be an option for them from now on.

    Organisations in the northern region have generally responded positively to YTS and the Manpower Services Commission plans to provide more than 25,000 places for young people on the scheme in the northern region this year.

    Under the adult training strategy, we are focusing on known labour market needs. We plan to help to train nearly 13,000 people in the northern region this year under the adult training programme—an increase of 82 per cent. over the last year—and to help more than 18,000 people next year. At least three quarters of those helped this year will have been unemployed.

    We recently announced our endorsement of the expansion of jobclubs to 200 by the end of the year. We were particularly encouraged to do that by the success of two of the first jobclubs, which were established in Durham and Middlesbrough. They have been doing an excellent job in helping the long-term unemployed to help themselves by providing advice and facilities for job hunting. So far, three quarters of unemployed people leaving jobclubs have found jobs, the majority of them quickly.

    My Department has recently taken over responsibility for policy on small firms, which have an excellent potential as job creators through their ability to respond quickly to market demands, their flexibility in filling gaps in the market and their capacity for innovation. We aim to stimulate the development of small businesses and to create an economic climate which will be conducive to their sustained growth. There are nearly 80 proposals in my noble Friend’s recently published White Paper, “Lifting the Burden”, further to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and regulation in this sphere.

    I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept that the Government fully recognise the problems faced by many areas in the north. A great deal of well-focused assistance has been directed to those places that have been worst hit by the world recession. We should recognise also that there are encouraging signs; people in the north-east are responding well to the problems and challenges that they face.

  • Ted Leadbitter – 1985 Speech on Northern Unemployment

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ted Leadbitter, the then Labour MP for Hartlepool, in the House of Commons on 22 October 1985.

    I wish to draw the attention of the House to the problems of unemployment in the norther region. The economic problems of the region have been the subject of a mass of reports over the years. There have been many grand designs, all ending with some form of declaration about the prospects.

    The region has not lacked attention. As the subject of analysis it has been a very tolerant patient. Its past contribution to the wealth of the nation is acknowledged and its present fitness to survive and make the best of its opportunities is undoubted among those who live and work there. The future depends on that confidence being accepted and acted upon through national policies and a new economic strategy to match the competence of the regional leadership and effort.

    One of the more interesting reports on the region was commissioned by BBC North East. It was the result of a considerable amount of research in particular areas, including my own, where a third of the male population are out of work. This was followed by a study of Consett and what has happened there since the closure of the steelworks. Those reports conclude that the efforts to regenerate communities devastated by economic disaster were seriously deficient and inadequate.

    Two months ago BBC North East published a further report, a study of Cleveland, which said:

    “This time we have examined the economic change in Teeside showing how this area has experienced a spectacular and remarkable economic collapse.”

    Here we have a description of a transformation from the greatest hopes of expansion to one of the highest levels of unemployment. Not long ago Cleveland was considered to be an economic success story and one of the nation’s most important industrial centres, yet now in this report it is described as grim. The region, and this part of it, ought not to have a future that looks grim. If there is heartache instead of hope, despair instead of confidence and misery instead of happiness it is because the reality of unemployment in my region is an experience that has lasted too long for too many thousands of people. The past they know, they expect something better for the future. They live in the land of the three rivers—theTyne, the Wear and the Tees. It is ideal for industrial development. Their ports have trading links with Europe and the world. The road systems supporting them provide a network of accesses to the first-class locations available for industrial development. The rail and air services complete our communication advantages. The concentration on the cultivation of the environment recently continues to be art impressive bonus for a region renowned for its variety of physical attractions.

    History has recorded the nature and character of the people. There are no doubts about the industry, tenacity and tolerance. There is an abundance of evidence of their adaptability and responsiveness to change. They have produced some remarkable leaders in politics, the trade union movement and commerce and industry, establishing a framework of social, economic and local government institutions in which new industrialists can find fulfilment in their business, cultural recreational and educational aspirations.

    Why, then, have we a grim account of the region? Where does responsibility lie? I am not aware of one organisation, individual or local authority in the region active in industrial promotion and the provision of employment which lacks the spirit of co-operation or the professional standards needed for success. Why, then, the assertions of economic collapse? Some recent news, which continue the drama of decline, absolve the region of any responsibility. On 16 October, the Northern Echo, published in Darlington, ran a headline:

    “North job shock—1,000 axed in a day.”

    That was the full meaning of a the closure of coke works, an electronics factory, a heating equipment works and redundancies in a telephone company in different areas and towns in the region. Three days earlier, the Mail, in Hartlepool, had a front page headline:

    “Region is dying on its feet”.

    It referred to a report from the transport workers’ leader, Mr. Joe Mills — a man known for his care and moderation—to his regional committee. The newspaper described it as a crisis report. These are the latest signs of the blight in the lives of a fine people who have watched the years of closures in their steel, coal and shipbuilding industries, observed the withering of the construction industry and the redundancies in the chemical and allied trades, metal manufactures and mechanical engineering.

    None of this arises from any action of the region. The nature of the closures, the industries involved and the contraction in the major industries that I have mentioned suggest that the cause rests elsewhere. We are fully aware that the employment structure had to become more diversified and that the traditional base of heavy industries would be shifted. The capital investment was directed to more capital — intensive industrial replacement and productivity which did not provide the employment levels needed to match displacement. That fact, and the causes related to it, give the Government a greater responsibility to understand the changing world and its impact on regions such as the north. What is happening in world and home markets? New technologies are displacing traditional methods, new forms of production are being introduced, and a complex of new tariff and credit conditions in international trade and other factors external to the region have an impact.
    It is convenient that the House of Lords Select Committee on Overseas Trade has just issued a remarkable set of conclusions after years of study. The first volume of the document published on 30 July 1985 states

    “Government should give more and not less support to those bodies which are engaged in promoting exports, such as the Export Credits Guarantee Department, the British Overseas Trade Board, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Overseas Development Administration.”

    I have studied the matter with care over the years, and it is high time we increased the amount of aid in the aid and trade provision programme. Moreover, there is a need for concern in the regions, where many jobs could have been made available, if the Government had been vigorous and active regarding the Bosporus bridge contract.

    Clearly, national policies are needed to bring about effective conditions for regional survival and growth. I hope that the Minister will not give us a tutorial about what we can do for ourselves. We have had enough lecturing from Whitehall. I assure the Minister that the region is not short of industrial and professional standards, or the ​ armoury of commercial and local government agencies well suited to promote and exercise all that is needed to attract new industries.

    Nor do we want from the Minister a repeat of comparative performances of different Governments. The unemployed in my region are hungry for hope, not a history lesson on past failures. After six years of Tory rule they are entitled for once to hear the Government accepting their full responsibility, recognising that time has placed the ball fully in their court, and that it is their intentions in that matter.

    The Cleveland experience may well concentrate the mind. A Cleveland review from 1974–84 addressed itself to the broader national trends and the analysis of industrial shift, to which I have already referred. The report stated that the unemployment rate doubled between 1979 and 1981, and that by 1984 the county job gap was about 67,000. Service employment as a proportion of total employment rose to 60 per cent. from 44 per cent. 10 years earlier.

    That briefly describes the massive loss of manufacturing jobs. The scheduled transfer of central Government offices to the area never took place. Three thousand jobs were involved, but the transfer was rescinded in 1979. By 1982 the position had become so bad that the area was designated a special development area. That is not only the story of Cleveland, but of the region, where 244,000 people are now unemployed. Aid that might have come was withdrawn and policies never matched the nature of the problem.

    The Government are ever ready to take credit for their rare successes. Let them now accept the responsibility for their failure. We have heard from one former Tory Prime Minister who supports the line of Government responsibility. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), with his experience as a former Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development, made a significant speech to the Sunderland Conservative association on 14 January this year in which he said:

    “My message is, do not despair. The situation is not hopeless. The North has faced these problems in the past and has come through them … the White Paper on the North East … is now more than 20 years ago, but there are lessons to be learned. The first is that a strategy can be developed to deal with the problems of economic decline, the second is that the strategy can be successfully implemented … It should be possible to create a thriving industry in the North East … And it is here that the Government has a role to play. It can help identify key sectors of industry and co-ordinate their development.”

    No prevarication there. The message is clear: no doubt remains about what ought to be done and what can be done. How different from the reply of the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand), who asked about the effects of the Budget on unemployment in the northern region. She said:

    “Although unemployment is very high in the north, indeed it is the highest of all, the wages in the region are also comparatively high … The two might be related.”—[Official Report, 21 March 1985; Vol. 75, c. 986.]

    That was the Prime Minister’s reaction. The fact she acknowledges; the responsibility she does not. Months later, during a fleeting visit to the region, she told the people there, “Don’t be moaning Minnies.” That was petulant, imprudent and unjustified. Then she ordered, “Stop it.” Such posturings gain her no great credit and it is regrettable and sad that in the time that has elapsed she has taken no opportunity to make some redress and ​ perhaps admit that the region has a long-standing reputation for objectivity in presenting its views. How different it would have been if she and her Government had matched that objectivity. Instead, we have a Government obsessed with promoting failure as success, a Government suffering from tunnel vision, obscuring reality and the consequences of their own policies, and a Government who act out of prejudice against the GLC and spawn a Local Government Bill abolishing all metropolitan county councils, under the pretence of needed reform. Tyne and Wear county council is an important authority and damage to it is damage to the region.

    We have a Government spending many months of parliamentary time on ratecapping legislation and imposing penalties on local authorities and, yes, we have a Government who are oblivious to the social and economic costs of their own surgical operations although in my region there has already been too much blood letting. We have a Government who have become abrasive and intolerant.

    It is no wonder that another former Tory Prime Minister said in another place that it was breaking his heart to see what was happening to Britain. It is breaking my heart to see what is happening to my region; it is breaking my heart to see the despair of young people, the anxiety of parents and the misery of poverty.

    We are not so poor in this land that we cannot afford better regional regeneration. We are not so rich that we can neglect the young and the future that their training, their work and their health can provide. We need the will to do what is right and the guts to find the resources for the support of peace and work and leisure—resources that are so easily found for war and related purposes.

    In drawing attention to unemployment in the northern region, I am pointing to the need to invest in Britain. The Government have had six years. They have had their chance. They refuse to change with the times or from their own course. They have no new strategy and they refuse to consider one.
    No doubt the Minister will seek to deploy some selective material to provide a better face for the Government. It will be of no avail. The balance sheet of failure is there for all to see. We need a new board of directors for the business of Great Britain, and the electors in my region are waiting to make that possible.

  • Theresa May – 2019 Speech at Launch of Augar Review

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, on 30 May 2019.

    Thank you, Philip, for that introduction, for all the work you and your panel have undertaken over the past year, and for sharing some of your findings with us this morning.

    Your report is a ground-breaking piece of work, because it is one that sets out in compelling detail the challenges confronting all of us who care about post-18 education in all its forms.

    It’s a sector that, since 2010, the Government has consistently supported.

    We have increased the funding flowing to universities, delivered more high-quality apprenticeships and developed brand new technical qualifications on a par with A-Levels.

    Yet, as we have just heard, there remains much to be done.

    The UK boasts some of the finest universities in the world, universities that we can proud of and that all governments should pledge to support and protect.

    But in technical education we have fallen behind other leading nations.

    Our further education colleges have the potential to transform lives and grow our economy, but the FE landscape can be confusing to navigate.

    Too many students, parents and employers see further education as a second-best option.

    And successive governments have failed to give it the support it needs.

    For nearly 20 years there has been a relentless focus on getting 50 per cent of young people into higher education.

    Yet most have lost sight of the fact that the original target referred not just to university degrees.

    It, quite rightly, covered the whole higher education spectrum – including vocational and technical qualifications.

    That is why, in February last year as you’ve just heard, I set Philip a clear and ambitious challenge.

    To break down the false boundaries between further and higher education.

    To look at all the options open to young people.

    And to say how they could be improved, and how the state should support students, so that every school-leaver – and indeed every adult learner – can follow the path that is right for them.

    With today’s report, Philip and his expert panel have provided a blueprint for how those improvements and changes could be carried out.

    As we’ve heard, it makes many recommendations across further and higher education.

    The proposals on adult and lifelong learning are also important.

    Decisions about whether and how to implement these recommendations will not fall to me, but to the next Government.

    But regardless of the debate to come, there can be no doubt that this report represents a major landmark.

    And that the data, analysis and insights it contains will help us to deliver a post-18 education system that truly works for everyone.

    That needs to begin with Further Education.

    Our FE and technical colleges are not just places of learning.

    They are vital engines of both social mobility and of economic prosperity, training the next generation and helping deliver our modern industrial strategy.

    But for too long, further education has been allowed to stagnate, with student numbers falling.

    With MPs, civil servants and, yes, even journalists overwhelmingly coming from university backgrounds, it’s no surprise that attention has drifted away from other post-18 options.

    I found it rather telling that, despite the wide-ranging remit of the panel, in the year since the review was launched the debate has concentrated almost exclusively on what it will mean for universities.

    As the panel argues, this focus on academic routes at the expense of all others has left further education overlooked, undervalued and underfunded.

    Routes into and through our colleges are confusing and opaque, with no equivalent of the clear, straightforward and comprehensive UCAS system.

    And this situation isn’t just bad for students – it’s bad for our economy.

    By failing to equip more of our young people with the technical skills they will need to compete in the jobs of the future, we have hampered our ability to compete on the world stage.

    Businesses here in the UK regularly tell me that they struggle to find workers with the technical qualifications they need – but that their rivals overseas have no such problems.

    As the report says, in Germany 20 per cent of the workforce holds a higher technical qualification.

    Here in the UK, just four per cent of 25-year-olds can say the same.

    Behind that statistic lies an immeasurable number of opportunities missed and potential wasted, both for individuals and employers,

    So reinvigorating FE is vital if we are to help all our young people develop the skills they need to get on – and if we are to truly make a success of our modern industrial strategy.

    As Prime Minister, it’s something I’ve worked hard to do.

    This Government has made sure there is an education or training place for every 16- to 19-year old who wants one.

    We’re rolling out T Levels – new, high quality technical qualifications on a par with A-levels – to give students a clear choice at 16.

    We’ve committed to launching Institutes of Technology in every major English city, and this year announced the first 12.

    And we’re creating more high-quality apprenticeships that deliver for students and employers alike.

    But while these reforms have made a real difference, the report is clear that if the half of young people who do not go to university are to have the skills they need for the future then we must go further.

    It’s not enough to simply say that FE and HE should be seen as equals.

    As the report argues compellingly, to make that happen we will have to invest much more in further education – in the buildings, in the equipment and of course in teachers who are expert in their field.

    And making a success of FE is not just about increased funding – it’s about giving these young people a genuine choice about their education.

    So more also needs to be done to ensure that further and technical options are every bit as attractive a path for students as more academic options – including by reforming the sector so that colleges can thrive.

    That will mean more specialisation and collaboration – while also continuing to make sure all young people have access to a college in their local area – and reforms to ensure the courses offered by colleges deliver the skills that are needed by local businesses.

    And of course we also need to make sure that only high-quality qualifications are on offer.

    That FE students are appropriately supported by Government.

    And that the route to Further Education is as streamlined and clear as possible – just as it is for universities.

    Now of course, for many young people, following the path to university is absolutely the right option.

    And prospective students in this country are blessed with many of the best universities in the world – four of the top 10 and almost a fifth of the top 100, according to the latest rankings.

    Our reforms since 2010 have been designed to ensure that success continues.

    We’ve given universities the long-term funding they need, removed the cap on student numbers, and made the system fairer – with the students who will benefit from a university education contributing more and the taxpayer contributing a little less.

    And, as this report shows, those reforms have been broadly successful.

    But I agree with Philip and his panel that, while the core structure of the system is sound, there is room for improvement in the way it functions.

    For example, we need to look again at the level of tuition fees.

    We’ve already frozen the maximum level of tuition fees and raised the threshold at which graduates have to start paying back their loans.

    But when, in 2012, the tuition fee cap was raised to £9,000 most predictions were that the full amount would only be charged by the top universities for the highest quality and most prestigious and potentially lucrative degrees.

    That is not what has happened.

    The vast majority of degrees are now set at the maximum fee – and the panel’s report rightly questions whether that is acceptable.

    After all, plenty of courses do not cost the full current rate of £9,250 per student per year to teach.

    And while the majority provide good outcomes for students, we know that is no longer true across the board.

    Indeed, the report rightly calls for further action to drive out the minority of degrees that are of poor quality – and I hope to see the Office for Students using the powers we have given it to do just that.

    So there is much to be said for the panel’s proposal to cut fees and top up the money from Government, protecting the sector’s income overall but focussing more of that investment on high-quality and high-value courses.

    The top-up funding would come from an increased teaching grant, with funding distributed in a way that reflects each subject’s reasonable cost and value.

    Scrapping fees would also lead to worse outcomes.

    It would, as we have seen in Scotland, force Government to reintroduce a cap on student numbers.

    An arbitrary annual limit that, far from opening the door to opportunity, slams it in the face of thousands of young people.

    And, worst of all, it would be socially regressive – disproportionately benefiting students who go on to earn the most.

    It simply cannot be fair to expect people working hard in low-paid jobs to fully fund the education of students from well-off families who will go on to earn much more as a result.

    All the evidence shows that scrapping fees would simply be the wrong approach –unaffordable, unsustainable and unfair.

    But reducing the cost of higher education would make a real difference to many students.

    And we should also be more upfront about what that cost will actually be.

    When the Office for National Statistics announced that it would be reclassifying student loans as part-government spending, most people focussed on the £12 billion it will add to the deficit upfront.

    But this piece of technical accounting also made clear to the world what the architects of the system already knew: that many students never pay off their loan in full, with taxpayers covering 45 per cent of the cost.

    I believe we should be much more transparent about this.

    Prospective students who are put off university by the idea of borrowing large sums for their tuition bills should know that, in reality, they are unlikely to have to pay back the full amount.

    But tuition fees are not the only bills students have to deal with – the cost of living can also be prohibitively high for students from less well-off families who are living away from home.

    Going to university was one of the biggest privileges of my life, opening the door to so many opportunities that followed.

    And I want this to be a country where every young person, regardless of which school they go to or what their parents do for a living, is able to follow a similar path if they so choose.

    Nobody should feel they have to go to university – and that applies to children from middle class backgrounds just as much as anyone.

    But nor should anybody feel that, because of who they are or where they are from, the world of HE is one that is not open to them because it will cost too much.

    Thanks to this government, universities are legally required to improve access – and if you’re an 18 year-old from a disadvantaged background, you’re now more likely to go to university than ever before

    But improvements are slow and the challenge remains large – the number of young people from working class families who apply to and take up places at universities is still a long way from reflecting the country in which we live.

    That’s why I made access one of the key areas of focus for the Augar Review, asking Philip and his panel to look at the lingering barriers that prevent some young people from applying for university, taking up a place, or completing their course.

    That included the issue of maintenance grants.

    In 2015 the decision was taken to replace maintenance grants with loans, allowing us to raise the maximum level of maintenance support for students in England to among the highest in the world.

    These loans are not like ordinary debt, and are only paid off when you are earning a good salary.

    But talking to young people from less well-off backgrounds, I’ve heard too often how this financial outlay can deter them from applying for university at all.

    I’ve spoken to parents and grandparents forced to scrimp and save to fund their children and grandchildren through university.

    And I’ve seen how young graduates starting out in their adult lives feel weighed down by the burden of student debt.

    So I was not surprised to see the panel argue for the reintroduction of means-tested maintenance grants both for university students and those studying for higher technical qualifications.

    Such a move would ensure students are supported whichever route they choose, and save those from the poorest backgrounds over £9,000.

    It will be up to the Government to decide, at the upcoming Spending Review, whether to follow this recommendation.

    But my view is very clear: removing maintenance grants from the least well-off students has not worked, and I believe it is time to bring them back.

    Securing the right education for every child and every young person is an aspiration that drove me in my earliest days in politics, when I was chair of the local education authority in the London Borough of Merton.

    It drove me from my first day as an MP – indeed, it was the subject of my maiden speech in the House of Commons more than two decades ago.

    And it has driven me throughout my time in Downing Street.

    I have always believed and I still truly believe that, if this is to be a country that works for everyone, then we have to make education work for everyone.

    Because the solutions to so many of the burning injustices that plague so many lives can be found in our schools, our colleges and our universities.

    So as we look ahead to the spending review and beyond, I believe the Government will need to take very seriously the report’s proposals to boost Further Education spending and put right the errors of the past…

    …To restore higher education maintenance grants, so students from the poorest backgrounds no longer leave university with a higher level of headline debt than the richest…

    …And to cut tuition fees, so students pay a fairer price for their education.

    Now of course, it is always necessary to prioritise when it comes to choices on public spending.

    These decisions will need to be taken in the round, as part of the balanced approach to the economy and public finances that has allowed us to make long-term investments in public services like the NHS.

    But only by taking action now will we be able to deliver the lasting change and improvements we need in further and higher education…

    Give every child and young person in this country the education they need to reach their true potential…

    And ensure that everyone, whatever their background, can go as far as their talent and hard work will take them.

  • Liam Fox – 2019 Article on Trade

    Below is the text of the article written by Liam Fox, the Secretary of State for International Trade, as part of Sunday Times SME Export Track 100 on 28 May 2019.

    I am absolutely delighted to see the huge range of ambitious businesses listed in this year’s SME Export Track 100. I firmly believe that small, dynamic companies such as these are the future of the UK economy, and of our export growth, so this is a great opportunity to celebrate their international success.

    Exporting not only increases the profitability of businesses, it has a positive impact on its local economy, encouraging growth and creating jobs. This year’s cohort of companies employs 8,900 people and has created 3,000 jobs in the past two years – that’s 3,000 families with more secure, stable income thanks to exporting.

    The SME Export Track 100 showcase the best of British innovation and entrepreneurship. I am especially pleased to see some familiar companies, such as such as Rarewaves (No 100), which has sold rare vinyl records, video games, books and CDs to buyers in more than 170 countries.

    This company worked with the Department for International Trade (DIT) to build its overseas ecommerce strategy, and has benefited from specialist advice on launching in China and other complex markets.

    Another is Joe & Seph’s (No 36), the popcorn maker. Co-founder Adam Sopher, 34, recently joined our Export Champion community, a network of inspirational business leaders who have expanded their companies through exporting, and are on hand to share practical advice to help turn exporting ambitions into reality.

    There is a market out there for every business, no matter its size or sector, but it is crucial that companies are given the support and confidence they need to grow, in order to unlock their economic potential.

    The DIT is committed to ensuring that more businesses seize global opportunities, which is why we launched our Export Strategy last summer. This was developed in collaboration with businesses to address the barriers they face to exporting. As we look to ramp up exports to 35% of GDP, it sets out how we will give UK companies the tools they need to enter international markets, offering not just encouragement, but finance, vital connections, and valuable advice on how to expand on the world stage.

    Our website, great.gov.uk , has a tool to help companies identify and apply to sell through a wide range of international marketplaces. Users can also find information on financial support from our award-winning credit agency UK Export Finance (UKEF), plus live export opportunities from across the world.

    In 2017-18, UKEF provided £2.5bn to help 191 British companies sell to 75 markets worldwide. Three-quarters of these were small and medium-sized enterprises. According to the IMF, 90% of global economic growth in the next 10 to 15 years will come from outside Europe, so it is no surprise that 45 businesses on the SME Export Track 100 are targeting future expansion in Asia, while 15 are looking at Latin America.

    Take Nosy Crow (No 89), for example. Under founder Kate Wilson, the children’s book publisher is pursuing Latin American opportunities for its Portuguese and Spanish editions. Cleaning products company Mirius (No 67) recently secured a trio of new contracts its bio-security products to export to the Middle East, Taiwan and Brazil — assisted by a DIT grant that helped it secure the necessary accreditation.

    Many emerging economies have a growing middle class, which is creating even greater global demand for British products. Analysis by Standard Chartered predicts that seven of the world’s top ten economies in 2030 will be made up of markets currently “emerging” — one of the reasons we have appointed nine trade commissioners to promote British trade and prosperity across the world.

    There is no better time for companies to take advantage of the international demand for our products and services. OECD figures show that between 2016 and 2018, UK exports grew faster than those in Germany, France and Italy. UK businesses are already building a truly global Britain through their innovation, ambition and hard work, contributing to our growing economic performance and ensuring we remain the trading partner of choice for so many around the world.

    The UK’s position in the global marketplace will be made stronger with the contribution of the SME Export Track 100, which hail from right across the nation.

    No matter where you are in Britain, there is much to be proud of, and I look forward to seeing greater success for our world-beating companies.

  • Gerald Kaufman – 1985 Speech on Inner City Riots

    Below is the text of the speech made by Gerald Kaufman, the then Labour MP for Manchester Gorton, in the House of Commons on 21 October 1985.

    I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment to his high office and I regret, as I am sure he does, that his first duty in that new office is to come to the House on such a wretched occasion.

    Five people have died in sad and savage circumstances, and the first duty of the House today is to send sympathy to those who are mourning Mr. Kammalia Moliedina, Mr. Amir Moliedina, Mrs. Cynthia Jarrett, Police Constable Keith Blakelock and Mr. David Hodge. We send our concern and best wishes for a speedy and full recovery to Mrs. Cherry Groce, a tragic victim of these dreadful events, and to all others—police, firemen, ambulancemen and ordinary innocent citizens—who have suffered injury in disturbances which have included arson, looting and the dreadful crime of rape.

    Many have undergone serious financial loss, and I must first ask the Home Secretary what action can be taken to speed up the payment of compensation under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 and to expand that Act’s scope to take account of loss of income after the riots.

    The House will be debating these matters on Wednesday, and I must repeat the anger that is felt on this side at the failure of the Government to provide time, which has meant that the House will have only half a day on each occasion to debate this profound issue and the crisis in southern Africa.
    Grave questions arise from these disorders and it is essential that the country receives answers on matters which have caused profound national concern. These relate to the nature of policing during riots, and such questions come from the populations of the affected areas and from the police themselves. What the Home Secretary said today will not allay any of these anxieties. They relate to the relationship between the police and the community, in the inner cities and elsewhere. They include disquiet over the spreading use of firearms by the police, the background to the riots, mass unemployment, especially among teenagers, bad housing, environmental decay and dereliction and racial discrimination.

    The Home Secretary boasted today about funds provided under the urban programme, but such sums are only a fraction of the money that has been taken away from these areas in abolished housing subsidy, reduced rate support grant and rate support grant penalties. It is an absurdity that the Home Secretary boasted at Handsworth of the money going to Handsworth when in this financial year alone more money is being taken away from the city of Birmingham in rate support grant penalty than all those sums given over a period of years.

    Only two days after the Brixton disorders, in April 1981, Lord Whitelaw, as Home Secretary, announced to the House an inquiry under Lord Scarman to start right away. After the latest riots, however, the Government stubbornly refuse an inquiry. The Police Complaints Authority inquiries do not begin to be a substitute because, as Lord Scarman in his report insisted,

    “It is necessary before attempting an answer to the policing problem to understand the social problem.”

    It is all very well for the Home Secretary to boast of the increase in police resources under the Conservatives, but he said nothing about the terrifying crime wave from which the county is suffering and which the clear-up rate shows the police are increasingly unable to combat.

    The social problem referred to by Lord Scarman has broadened and deepened. in the four years since his report, and the need for action is that much greater. Lord Scarman warned in his report that

    “to ignore the complex political, social and economic factors … is …to put the nation in peril.”

    Our fear is that, unless the Governments response is much more far-seeing than has so far been demonstrated, Lord Scarman will have been right in his grim warning that

    “disorder will become a disease endemic in our society.”

    Those are the dimensions of the challenge which we face and which the nation expects us to meet.

  • Douglas Hurd – 1985 Speech on Inner City Riots

    Below is the text of the statement made by Douglas Hurd, the then Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 21 October 1985.

    With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the recent disorders. During the past six weeks there have been three serious riots — in the Lozells road area of Birmingham, in Brixton, and Tottenham. Four people have died, one a police constable who was savagely killed. There have also been disorders in Liverpool, Leicester and Peckham in south London. Many police officers and others were injured. There were appalling attacks on the police with petrol bombs and other missiles, and especially in Birmingham and Brixton there was extensive looting of and attacks on shops and cars.

    All responsible members of our society will condemn the disgraceful criminal behaviour which has occurred and all responsible members of our society will applaud the courage and dedication of the police in doing their job of maintaining and restoring order on the streets and the housing estates of our major cities. Public order is essential for the maintenance of a civilised way of life and for the safety of individual citizens—on that there can be no compromise. So far 700 people have been charged with offences arising from the disorders.

    The riot in Brixton was triggered by the tragic shooting of Mrs. Groce, and the riot in Tottenham followed the death of Mrs. Jarrett after a search had been made at her home. These police operations are being investigated by senior officers from other police forces under the supervision of the independent Police Complaints Authority. These arrangements will ensure that they are fully investigated and that any necessary action is taken. In the case of the Lozells road riot, the chief constable of the west midlands is preparing a report which will be published. Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary is being associated closely with the preparation of that report.

    So far as police operations are concerned, although the other disorders were serious enough, the riot at Tottenham stands out for the problems which it presented to the police. In that riot, a police officer was killed, firearms were used and the police had to face a ferocious barrage of petrol bombs and other missiles. The design of housing estates like that at Tottenham poses particular difficulties in such circumstances. The Metropolitan police commissioner is urgently reviewing the tactics of the force on such occasions. There must be no no-go areas in any of our cities.

    The riot at Tottenham was the first occasion in Great Britain when the chief officer of police gave authority for plastic baton rounds to be used if necessary, though in fact they were not used. Plastic baton rounds and CS gas were made available to the police in Great Britain for public order use following the riots in 1981. They may be used only in the last resort, where conventional methods of policing have been tried and failed, or must from the nature of the circumstances be unlikely to succeed if tried, and where the chief officer judges such action necessary because of the risk of loss of life, serious injury or widespread destruction of property. That threshold was reached at Tottenham. The commissioner had my full support in making it clear that such weapons would be deployed if similar circumstances arose in the future.​

    Other matters need to be looked at. The defensive equipment introduced in recent years—helmets, shields and protective overalls — proved its worth. Without it there would have been more serious casualties. The Metropolitan police are acquiring more shields and other defensive equipment. We have to consider whether any further equipment is required, and that is being done. There may be lessons to be learnt in relation to police training and deployment. The commissioner is pursuing these matters and I am in close touch with him. I shall ensure that any lessons learnt are disseminated nationally.

    This Government have done more to meet the needs of the police than any in recent history. Since 1979 the Metropolitan police have increased in strength by nearly 4,500 officers; and other forces in England and Wales are stronger by a similar number. Including civilians, strength has increased by some 12,000. Even after a welcome intake of recruits, the Metropolitan police still have scope to increase strength by about 300 within its present establishment of 27,165. I support the commissioner in his efforts to make good this shortfall as quickly as possible. The force’s reorganisation should, in addition, release 200 officers for operational duties; and I have authorised an increase of nearly 50 in the civil staff ceiling next year for further civilianisation.

    Following my predecessor’s announcement in July on drugs, I have told the commissioner that I am prepared in principle to agree to an increase of 50 officers in the establishment next year specifically to strengthen his efforts against drug trafficking. Taken together, these steps mean that there will be a substantial strengthening of the Metropolitan police in the months ahead. Beyond that I have set urgent work in hand to assess where there are specific needs for further increases in the Metropolitan police establishment, and I shall consider applications from provincial police authorities on the same basis—namely, that the police should have what they need in the fight against crime.

    In recent years, much effort has been put into establishing good liaison and consultation between the police and the community in inner city areas, particularly, for example, in Brixton and Handsworth. These disorders must be—I know that they are—deeply depressing for those community leaders and police officers who have put so much effort into establishing a better understanding. But it would be wrong to assume that these efforts were misplaced. On the contrary, they must be continued and redoubled if the police are to protect and serve the community efficiently.

    More broadly, the Government will continue their strong commitment to urban regeneration. The urban programme has more than tripled, from £93 million in 1978–79 to £338 million in 1985–86, and there has been substantial expenditure in all the riot areas. The Department of Employment and the Manpower Services Commission are spending more than £100 million in the partnership areas, and my Department plans to spend some £90 million in 1985–86 through section 11 grants.

    We must ensure that the very substantial sums that now go, and will continue to go, to inner city areas are spent to the best advantage and directed to the real needs of the people who live there. The city action teams have been set up to improve the co-ordination and targeting of ​ Government programmes in the partnership areas. We shall do everything to ensure that our objectives in the inner city areas are achieved.

    These disorders are shocking events. It is of paramount interest of us all, young and old, people of all ethnic backgrounds, that public order should be maintained. I acknowledge—we all acknowledge—the social problems which exist in these areas, but it is no solution to loot and burn shops which serve the area or to attack the police. Mob violence must be dealt with firmly and effectively and criminal acts punished according to the criminal law. The police should have the support of all of us in striving to maintain order and uphold the law. It is their first priority. It is the Government’s also.

  • Tim Renton – 1985 Speech on the Palestine Liberation Organisation

    Below is the text of the speech made by Tim Renton, the then Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in the House of Commons on 21 October 1985.

    Following my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s announcement in Aqaba on 20 September, it was agreed that my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary would receive a joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation led by the Jordanian Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister and including two Palestinian delegates whose names had been put forward on the understanding that they personally supported a peaceful settlement of the Arab-Israel dispute on the basis of the relevant United Nations resolutions and were opposed to terrorism and violence. Our ambassador at Amman negotiated with the Jordanian Prime Minister the text of the statement which it was agreed would be issued by the delegation after their talks in London.

    Unfortunately, after their arrival in London, one of the Palestinian members of the delegation said that he could not accept a specific reference in the agreed statement to Israel’s right to exist. We concluded that in these circumstances the meetings with the joint delegation could not take place.

    We are deeply disappointed by this setback but remain convinced that the international community must be ready to encourage those who are working for a peaceful settlement in the middle east.

  • Cyril Townsend – 1985 Speech on the Dartford Tunnel

    Below is the text of the speech made by Cyril Townsend, the then Conservative MP for Bexleyheath, in the House of Commons on 21 October 1985.

    I am grateful to have this opportunity, on the first day that the House is back from the long summer recess, to raise an issue of considerable interest and importance to my constituents in Bexleyheath, Barrehurst and Welling, and to the travelling public—the Dartford tunnel. To be more precise, there are two deep-bored tunnels between Dartford and Purfleet, just to the east of my constituency. The first was opened in 1963, the second in 1980. They are the joint responsibility of Kent and Essex county councils, which built them and operate the toll booths. The Dartford tunnel joint committee acts in a proper and prudent financial manner.

    Technically, the two-lane tunnels are part of the A282, which runs from the M25/A13 junction to the M25/A2 junction. They are not part of the new, and yet to be completed, M25, which is a Department of Transport responsibility. They have a unique position in the national motorway network, and one that is clearly ludicrous and should have been tackled years ago by a Secretary of State for Transport.

    Rightly, the M25 is the Government’s motorway priority—the jewel in the motorway crown. The delays in its construction—a regular subject for Adjournment debates over the years—are a national disgrace, but we all hope that by Christmas next year we in Greater London will at last have a bypass. When it is complete, there will be much trumpeting by Transport Ministers, both male and female, and much joy among Britain’s ever-expanding army of drivers. However, that army will soon become painfully aware that the jewel is flawed, and that while the motorway may be splendid, the growing queues at Dartford are certainly not.

    The success of the M25 in attracting traffic, and each year more traffic is attracted, is far beyond that originally envisaged. The density at the Dartford tunnels is becoming similar to that on parts of the M1 and the M4. Inevitably, breakdowns in the tunnels are becoming more frequent. The highest recorded figure so far for vehicles travelling through the tunnels was 83,379 on 25 August this year, a bank holiday weekend, when traffic, involving many of my constituents, queued for five miles north of the tunnels. Regularly, the Department’s forecasts of traffic flows have been absurdly low. A Government-commissioned traffic forecast study was published in July. It predicts long delays at Dartford by the late 1980s and the early 1990s. After making some sensible assumptions the report suggests that about 85,000 vehicles per day will want to use the tunnels on an average day in six years’ time. The study states:

    “By the end of this decade excess demand is likely to be causing summertime delays of between one and two hours.”

    This is on a major motorway. It claims that when the annual average weekday traffic reaches 70,000, public complaints about the traffic delays will become fierce because drivers will have become accustomed to fast and free-flowing progress along the M25. The report thinks that when the annual average weekday traffic reaches 75,000

    “conditions will be unacceptable through the summer months.”

    ​”Unacceptable”.

    Exactly so. Already the Government have foolishly left it too late to avoid these problems, because it would take about seven years to construct another deep bored tunnel. Last week The Economist said 10 years. The Department has blundered and people know it. We debate tonight bad Government administration. The motorist and lorry driver will pay the price for years ahead—and British industry, too.

    The Dartford tunnel began life as a purely local crossing. The planners should have seen the clear need for the M25 to have its own crossing. The Dartford tunnel is Britain’s biggest planned bottleneck. Future queues may be 10 miles long. Time won by the £1 billion M25 will be turned into time lost at Dartford. It is futile for the Department to go on talking about median flows and isolated peaks. At this late hour the Minister of State must carefully consider all the possible new ways of improving the M25 crossing at Dartford, and some of them are most interesting. A bridge at Dartford, either suspension or stayed girder, might be constructed. This might take less time and money than a tunnel. The local topography would make it difficult to align the bridge approach roads with the A282 in Kent. Perhaps the private sector could take up the challenge and fund and build a new crossing, using the very latest technology. The great need is for action. That is what I call for tonight.

    In a recent letter to the British Road Federation the Minister of State wrote:

    “We are well aware that time is not on our side in the Dartford tunnel and we do not intend to let more of it slip past without taking action in this matter.”

    With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend — I am grateful to her for coming along tonight to reply to this debate—that is exactly what my constituents fear will happen.

    The Minister will remember that I led a delegation from Movement for London, which has done excellent work on this subject, to raise this matter in November 1984. I have had lengthy correspondence with her Department. She has taken the trouble to visit the tunnels but I do not need to tell her that the Government’s response to this long-contemplated congestion has been ridiculously inadequate, presumably because she has not had the support of the Treasury.

    The Government gave a grant of about £7 million to build 12 extra toll booths, making 24 in total, which opened in July, and to widen the approach roads. This temporarily relieved the pressure, but it was like thickening the walls of a sandcastle as the tide comes in. Six lanes of motorway cannot go into four lanes of tunnel, and sometimes one tunnel is blocked for repairs.

    I should be grateful if the Minister of State could answer the following questions. If she cannot do so immediately, perhaps I could have a written reply in due course. The Minister has announced that she will commission an engineering feasibility study into how a new crossing could be built. Who are the consultants to be, when will she receive the results of the study, what is the earliest date when we can expect a Government decision, and exactly how will the new crossing be provided? Is it possible to bring the date forward?

    What measures are her Department taking to warn motorists of delays next summer so that they can divert from Dartford if necessary? Where are motorists supposed to go instead of Dartford? Will they have to go into the London borough of Bexley? Will EEC funding be available for the new crossing?​

    It is wrong to argue that a third crossing at Dartford will remove the need for the east London river crossing, which is long overdue and essential for dockland. The routes serve entirely different functions. When it is built, the Bexleyheath constituency will have protection on all sides from strategic traffic crossing it.

    Current predictions are that, with the increasing flow of traffic, existing debts for the Dartford tunnels will be repaid before the end of the century. I hope that my hon. Friend will not argue tonight that the imposition of tolls is appropriate because the tunnels provide a local service to road users with the need to travel between Essex and Kent. Believe it or not, that has been the Department’s line until recently.

    We are discussing a national asset. It is located on the country’s motorway network and provides direct access between the M1, M11 and the Dover ports. Tolls are not paid where the M25 crosses the Thames to the west of London.
    Bexley council fears that if the tolls continue, traffic travelling from or to the Dover ports and the other eastern and southern locations, once on the A2, will continue through to Falconwood and use the east London river crossing to travel northwards.

    My constituents who face ever-increasing costs to travel through the tunnels, would like tolls to be abolished before too long. Bexley council has said:

    “no bridges within London are tolled; the Rotherhithe and Blackwall tunnels are not tolled; the Woolwich Ferry is the “Woolwich free ferry” and it has been made clear that it is not proposed to charge tolls on the proposed East London River Crossing. It is unlikely that any of these crossings of the Thames have the national significance of the Dartford Tunnels. Kt is apparent, therefore, that the imposition of toll charges only at the Dartford Tunnel is inconsistent.”

    If we are to have such tolls, far more sophisticated thinking must go into their collection. I have in mind a range of possible reductions and easy ways to pay for special users and the latest electronic aids to cut out delays.

    Some of my hon. Friends may believe that all that can be done at this stage is damage limitation, after too little has been done too late for too long. But problems have their possibilities. If the Government can summon courage and imagination, bring into play the skills and enthusiasm of free enterprise and, above all, act decisively, the problem could be solved in a manner that will be of lasting benefit to the people living in the locality and to the country’s transport needs.