UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Michael Heseltine – 1991 Speech on Oil Pollution in the Gulf

    Michael Heseltine – 1991 Speech on Oil Pollution in the Gulf

    The statement made by Michael Heseltine, the then Secretary of State for the Environment, in the House of Commons on 28 January 1991.

    Mr. Speaker, with permission I will make a statement about the United Kingdom response to the environmental damage taking place in the Gulf.

    The oil spill in the Gulf appears to be the largest ever. It is 35 miles long by 10 miles wide. It appears to contain some 8 million barrels of oil and it is moving down the Gulf at 15 to 20 miles per day. Words are inadequate to condemn the callousness and irresponsibility of the action of Saddam Hussein in deliberately unleashing this environmental catastrophe.

    There is a threat to desalination plants and fresh water supplies, to birds and other wildlife, to fish, sea mammals and shellfish, and to local communities dependent for their livelihoods on the sea.

    With our allies, the United Kingdom is playing a full part in the world’s response to this abomination.

    First, we must stem the flow of oil. The United States has already acted on this decisively and, we believe and hope, effectively.

    Secondly, we must assess the way in which the oil may flow so that we can assess likely consequences. Action is in hand in the Gulf itself to do that. To supplement it, United Kingdom scientific resources are already being mobilised. Existing computer models at the Meteorological Office and Proudman oceanographic laboratory are being urgently adapted to help give the best possible predictions of the likely behaviour of the slick in the Gulf.

    Thirdly, we need to assess possible effects on marine life. The United States is already sending experts. The Natural Environment Research Council is co-ordinating urgent work to bring together here in the United Kingdom information that we have on marine life and effects that could be useful in the Gulf.

    Fourthly, in common with other countries, the United Kingdom is taking practical steps to help to protect desalination plants and sensitive coastal areas and inlets. The airlift of an initial 70 tonnes of equipment from the stores maintained by the oil industry will go ahead today, with a further flight tomorrow. Further material will be available if needed. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is looking sympathetically at requests that we have received from the Saudi Government for the loan of small numbers of skilled pollution control experts and advisers. We anticipate being able to respond later today. The Department of Transport will meet European Community colleagues tomorrow to consider whether the Community should send in its standing task force of national experts on oil pollution response. We shall be urging strongly that it should do so.

    For the longer term, the United Kingdom is considering now how it will be able to help with the clean-up and restoration of the habitats and human settlements affected once it is safe to do so. We are making arrangements to assess and bring together the contribution that United Kingdom bodies outside Government, whether public, private or voluntary, can make.

    The first responsibility for dealing with the environmental problems facing the Gulf lies with the Gulf states themselves. We do not yet know what final form the arrangements for co-ordinating their efforts will take: matters are still developing fast. But, whatever they may be, the United Kingdom stands ready to play its full and immediate part. We shall be in touch later today with Saudi Arabia and the other states most closely involved with a first indication of the help that we can offer.

    Meanwhile, the United Nations Environment Programme is today announcing its intention to take a lead on improving environmental communications and co-ordinating technical expertise. I have been in touch with UNEP to establish what we can offer by way of expert staff or other help.

    On Wednesday, the Environment Ministers of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development meet in Paris. I shall be calling then for all OECD members to respond to this disaster and to take action according to their experience, equipment and skills to offer help to the Gulf states likely to be affected. But there is a wider issue. It is not only war that creates risks. It seems important to recognise the ongoing dangers of environmental calamity which arise from time to time which go way beyond national frontiers.

    I mean to raise with OECD colleagues the proposal that we should set up a working party to recommend what more effective preparations we could undertake to cope with these disasters. I have in mind that there should be a register setting out available expertise and available facilities on which affected nations could draw in times of crisis. In this context, we shall be pressing for an early conclusion to the work already in hand in the International Maritime Organisation to put into effect a full-scale international convention on preparedness and response in relation to oil pollution and to set up regional centres to pool resources.

    The whole House will be appalled at the environmental damage threatening the Gulf. The Government are determined to do all they reasonably can to assist those faced with the consequences of this outrage. We also intend to inject a new urgency into consideration of the wider issues raised by environmental threats that require co-ordination above the national level.

  • Michael Heseltine – 1991 Statement on the Local Government Finance Settlement

    Michael Heseltine – 1991 Statement on the Local Government Finance Settlement

    The statement made by Michael Heseltine, the then Secretary of State for Environment, in the House of Commons on 17 January 1991.

    With permission, Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to make a statement about the local government finance settlement for 1991–92.
    On 31 October, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) announced the Government’s proposals for next year’s finance settlement. As the House will know, since then I announced that the Government are undertaking a fundamental review of the structure and finance of local government. We are looking both at longer-term changes and at changes that we might implement in the short term. My statement today deals with the changes that we can make for next year, but announces first our decisions following consultation on the finance settlement for 1991–92.

    I have considered carefully all the representations that we received on the proposed finance settlement from the associations and from individual authorities. My hon. Friends the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary responsible have reported to me on the meetings that they held with a number of authorities.

    My predecessor’s proposals envisaged that it would be appropriate for local authorities to spend £39 billion in aggregate. That is an increase of 19 per cent. over the corresponding figure for 1990–91—a very substantial increase. It follows an increase of 10 per cent. for this year over last year, and takes account of the fact that local authority spending has grown substantially in the last three years. I am satisfied that £39 billion is fully sufficient for local authorities’ services, taking account of all the pressures that local authorities face, as well as the scope for saving and what the country can afford.

    I considered the representations that were made about the methodology for calculating standard spending assessments. My right hon. Friend had proposed a number of improvements for 1991–92, and with those improvements in place, I am satisfied with the method for calculating SSAs for 1991–92.

    My right hon. Friend proposed that aggregate external finance—that is, central support from grants and from business rates—should be set at £26.05 billion—an increase of 12.8 per cent. on this year’s settlement. I considered very carefully the argument for providing a greater level of support from national taxation to reduce the burden on community charge payers generally, but I concluded that in the present circumstances—notably those in the middle east—no further increase can be afforded in the amount of AEF beyond the increase of nearly £3 billion already proposed. So I confirm today that figure for the increase in aggregate external finance.

    I am therefore fixing AEF and its distribution on the basis described in the consultation paper that was issued on 31 October. I have placed in the Vote Office, and have sent to local authorities, exemplifications showing the final standard spending assessments and grant entitlements for each authority that will follow from the settlement. The formal reports will be laid before the House shortly and debated in the normal way.

    When we moved from rates to the community charge, the Government were concerned to protect many of those whose bills rose significantly as a result of the changes. We therefore introduced some transitional relief to protect those former rate payers, and elderly or disabled people even if they did not pay rates.

    My predecessor announced in July improvements to the transitional relief arrangements that would take effect in April. The Government have reviewed the impact of those arrangements, and we have decided that they are no longer adequate for the present circumstances. We intend to replace them from April with a community charge reduction scheme that will reflect the improvements already announced but provide considerably more help.

    The new scheme is designed to help those whose bills have increased significantly over what they paid in rates. It will continue to limit increases over rates. This year, the limit is £3 a week. The limit next year will be £2 a week, as previously proposed—but unlike the transitional relief scheme, the new scheme will be based not on notional charges but on actual community charges after allowing for the unwinding of the safety net. Sadly, in many areas local authorities increased their spending by much more than we had provided for in the settlement, and almost all actual charges were higher than those notional charges.

    As I shall explain, the new scheme will provide help for many of those in sheltered housing who largely did not qualify for transitional relief. The new scheme will reduce the amount paid in charges by £1.7 billion—of which £1.2 billion is new money—compared with £350 million of transitional relief this year. The number of people receiving help will go up from about 7 million this year to more than 18 million next year, which, as the House will realise, represents more than half of all those liable to pay the community charge.

    The House will be aware that many people who lived in sheltered accommodation were ill-served by the old scheme. No matter how many people live in a sheltered housing scheme, in many cases they shared an entitlement to transitional relief as if there were only two people living there. Under my new scheme, most individuals or couples in such accommodation will be able to qualify for a reduction in their own right. Within the new scheme, that will provide about £150 million of help for these people. I know that that change will be warmly welcomed.

    I also propose that my new scheme will give more help to people who previously benefited from charitable rate relief. It will require local authorities to take account of charitable relief granted under the General Rate Act 1967 when calculating the assumed rates bill. Among those who will benefit will be clergymen who live in church accommodation and elderly people who live in almshouses or other accommodation provided by a charity. Further details have been sent to local authorities today. Copies of the letter are in the Vote Office.

    My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is making a separate announcement on the wider public expenditure and financing implications of the new scheme.

    By adding the new scheme to the increase in AEF announced by my predecessor, the Government will be providing more than £4.25 billion extra support for England alone towards community charges next year than has been given this year. In addition, there is help from community charge benefit, which is paid to about 10 million people and is running at nearly £2 billion this year.

    Given the extensive help available from relief and benefits, it is not surprising that the community charge that people actually pay on average is much less than the figures that local authorities have announced as their charges. This year, although the headline average charge was £357, the average amount payable was only about £280. Next year, provided that local authorities budget in line with the realistic provision that we have made, it is within their power to ensure that the average amount actually paid is less than £300.

    It is of the utmost importance that that additional Government help should go to the benefit of charge payers, not to finance higher spending. In October, my right hon. Friend announced the criteria that he was minded to adopt in using his powers to cap excessive budgets, or excessive increases in budgets between years. I should make it clear to the House and to local authorities that I stand firmly by the intentions that he then announced. Let nobody think that the additional support means that authorities can relax their efforts to control spending.

    The finance settlement I have announced and the new community charge reduction scheme reflect the Government’s commitment to financing local government. It will now be for local authorities to provide the services that their charge payers want, at a price that their charge payers can afford.

  • Michael Heseltine – 1990 Statement on the Number of Prosecutions Undertaken by the National Rivers Authority

    Michael Heseltine – 1990 Statement on the Number of Prosecutions Undertaken by the National Rivers Authority

    The statement made by Michael Heseltine, the then Secretary of State for the Environment, in the House of Commons on 12 December 1990.

    I understand that the National Rivers Authority brought 3,997 successful prosecutions for all types of offences during its first year of operation. Of these, 3,549 were for fisheries offences, 370 for water pollution offences, 59 for navigational offences and 19 for water resources offences. I shall be reviewing progress with Lord Crickhowell in the near future.

    I attach great importance to securing improvements in environmental standards wherever they are needed. We have established an environmental and economic framework within which decisions will be taken.

  • Michael Heseltine – 1990 Speech on the Community Charge (Poll Tax)

    Michael Heseltine – 1990 Speech on the Community Charge (Poll Tax)

    The speech made by Michael Heseltine, the Secretary of State for the Environment, in the House of Commons on 5 December 1990.

    I beg to move, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof: congratulates the Prime Minister and the Government for their decision to undertake a careful and fundamental review of the community charge; and deplores the fact that despite several unsatisfactory attempts, the Labour Party has failed to come forward with any clear or workable proposals of its own.”. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has described the Government’s review of the community charge which he has invited me to lead as very thorough, very constructive and very fundamental. It is time to raise the whole tone of this debate—[Interruption.] I hope that the Labour party will not rule itself out of our continuing discussions.

    The debate is not about who pays how much in each local authority. The issues——

    Mr. Alexander Eadie (Midlothian) rose——

    Mr. Heseltine

    The issues involved far exceed the precise financial impact on particular groups or constituencies of this or that local tax. The heart of the matter is the future relationship——

    Mr. Eadie

    Will the Secretary of State give way?

    Mr. Heseltine

    No.

    The heart of the matter is the future relationship between central and local government, and the relationship that local government will have in its turn with its local community, in the fullest sense.

    These relationships go to the heart of the sort of society that we have and want to have. I make no apology for putting that issue before the House. The question of the proper relationship between central and local government has lurked beneath the surface of policy making in successive Governments for the past quarter of a century. I believe that it is widely recognised that in those 25 years we have not been able to bring ourselves to look at the structure and finance of our local government as two sides of the same coin.

    Mr. Eadie rose——

    Mr. Heseltine

    The time has now come to address both issues together.

    In seeking to improve standards, central Government have begun to change attitudes to the pursuit of value for money, significantly by the establishment of the Audit Commission, but Government have yet to see sufficient progress in raising the quality of services that many local authorities deliver. In advocating accountability, successive Governments have not dealt with the structural and functional weaknesses to make accountability a reality.

    We will not solve this problem unless we are prepared to recognise the proper partnership between the different parts of our democratic system——

    Mr. Eadie rose——

    Mr. Heseltine

    and my first purpose must be to try to bring that about. I shall begin with the Opposition parties.

    Mr. Gould

    Before the Secretary of State goes off on a detour, perhaps he will save us all a great deal of time and trouble by answering the single question that is in the minds of millions of poll tax payers. Will he now commit himself to abolishing the poll tax—yes or no?

    Mr. Heseltine

    There is a certain—[HON. MEMBERS: “Yes or No?”] There is a certain quaintness about the fact that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) has not been able to answer any questions in three years, but he thinks that I will give him a yes or no answer in three days. [HON. MEMBERS: “Yes or No?”] Let me help the hon. Member for Dagenham and the Labour party.

    Mr. David Clelland (Tyne Bridge) rose——

    Mr. Heseltine

    I shall start with the Opposition parties. If Opposition Members could bring themselves——

    Mr. Eadie

    Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

    Mr. Speaker

    Order. The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) is an experienced Member, and he knows that, as the Secretary of State has not given way, he must resume his seat. There is no point in persisting.

    Mr. Heseltine

    If Opposition Members could bring themselves to do so, I should like to take this matter beyond the narrow bounds of party political conflict. The country wishes us to try to identify a stable and just basis for the future development of local government and the provision of local services. I should like to explore with the Opposition parties the extent to which we can establish common principles for the future role and direction of local government. [Interruption.] The country will not have lost sight of the fact that, when we offer to discuss these matters, all we get is baying and divisiveness. [Interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker

    Order. This debate is of great interest not only to every hon. Member in the House but to many other people outside who may well be listening to it. If this din continues, they will not be able to hear it.

    Mr. Heseltine

    What I could hear from the Opposition was not worth hearing.

    I hope that the Opposition will take my proposal seriously, because it might help them in a material way. If they were prepared to enter into dialogue, it might help them to clear their own minds about the answers to questions that have escaped them for so long. I hope that local authorities will recognise that they have an important role to play. They too must help to improve the climate in order to allow these essential developments to flourish.

    Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North)

    Perhaps there was so much noise that the Secretary of State did not hear the question that was posed earlier. Will he answer yes or no about whether he will commit himself to the abolition of the poll tax? That is an easy question. Why does the right hon. Gentleman dodge it?

    Mr. Heseltine

    The hon. Gentleman clearly heard what I said. I said that, in our review, we wish to enter into a dialogue with Opposition parties to see whether we can find a basis of stability in our future relationships with local government.

    Mr. David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside)

    So that we may be clear about the matter, will the Secretary of State confirm that he intends to try to take the issue of the poll tax out of party politics and to go for a second review of both the tax and the structure of local government, even though he knows that he has no intention of abolishing the tax? He has no permission to abolish it, on the very simple grounds that it would be the greatest U-turn in political history and a clear admission that we have been right all along.

    Mr. Heseltine

    The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that I am offering the Opposition the chance to contribute constructively to the establishment of a basis for stability within which local government can operate. It is quite apparent that the Opposition have no interest at all in constructive dialogue, because they can produce only negative proposals.

    I hope that local authorities will also recognise that they have an important role to play. They must help us to improve the climate. In the past, I have not been slow to criticise waste and inefficiency in local government. I make no apology for that, and that will continue to be an aspect of criticism. However, I have also paid tribute to the part that local government plays—and should play—in defining and giving expression to our quality of life.

    The hon. Member for Dagenham spent some time quoting speeches that I made when I was a Back Bencher. I am not sure whether he was wise to call in aid what Back Benchers say about their party’s policies. If the hon. Gentleman listened to what his Back Benchers say about Labour’s policies, he would realise that Back Benchers have a degree of freedom and discretion which is at the heart of our parliamentary democracy.

    I do not for one moment attempt to escape from the fact that I have been involved in these matters before. Like many right hon. and hon. Members, I have views that I have expressed, and they are on the record. I have always assumed that that is what Back Benchers are for. Today, as Secretary of State, it is my responsibility to start afresh; in doing so, I neither overstate the possible, nor deny the potential.

    Mr. Allen McKay (Barnsley, West and Penistone)

    The Secretary of State may or may not be aware that the offer of co-operation was made three years ago, in Committee on the Local Government Finance Bill, when my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) made the then Secretary of State for the Environment the same offer. He pointed out the dangers facing the Government, and we told the Government to forget the poll tax altogether. We said that they should take the Bill back and that we should look together at a proper system of local government funding. The Secretary of State’s present offer is three years too late. Does his present offer of co-operation include the abolition of the poll tax if it is found to be at fault?

    Mr. Heseltine

    My position is absolutely clear. We are conducting a comprehensive review, as defined by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. In that context, we rule nothing in and nothing out. In that spirit, I believe that the Opposition will come to regret their instant hostility to my offer.

    Mr. Malcom Bruce (Gordon)

    Does the Secretary of State accept that my party believes that his philosophical approach is correct and that we must have a system for local government that will be permanent and which will last? Does he therefore accept that we would be willing to discuss with him all possible options, provided he repeats that no options, including complete abolition, are ruled out?

    Mr. Heseltine

    I made it quite clear that no options are ruled in and no options are ruled out. The observations of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) are a great deal more statesmanlike than the instant party, divisive views of the hon. Member for Dagenham.

    Mr. Donald Dewar (Glasgow, Garscadden)

    I want to understand what is being offered to me and my right hon. and hon. Friends. The right hon. Gentleman referred to a constructive dialogue. What is he actually offering? Is he suggesting all-party talks or that other parties join the working party? What is he suggesting exactly?

    Mr. Heseltine

    We can all welcome the thinking man’s contribution from the Labour party. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has suddenly spotted the trap into which the hon. Member for Dagenham fell from a million miles. My offer could not have been clearer. I am offering to consult the Opposition parties to see whether we can find a basis of stability for the relationship of this House with local government. That could not have been clearer, and it is recorded in Hansard.

    Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray)

    I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for recognising that a variety of views are held by hon. Members who represent different Opposition parties on what should replace the community charge. My party has made that clear with our amendments and in our letter to him. Is the right hon. Gentleman to introduce a time scale for the completion of the dialogue to which he has referred?

    Mr. Heseltine

    I hope that the hon. Lady will accept my assurance that that matter will be addressed in my speech as I make progress.

    Mr. John D. Taylor (Strangford)

    First, I take the opportunity of congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on his return to the Government Front Bench. I can well understand his difficulty in answering the question yes or no, but surely he can answer with a yes or a no the question whether he will extend the poll tax. There still remains one party in Northern Ireland, the Conservative party, whose spokesmen want an extension of the poll tax. It is the only party left in the nation that takes that view. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he will not extend the poll tax to Northern Ireland?

    Mr. Heseltine

    I said that I rule nothing in and rule nothing out but I hope that the House will understand if I rule out the concept that the poll tax should be extended to Northern Ireland.

    Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon)

    I welcome the Secretary of State’s undertaking that nothing whatsoever is ruled out. It will obviously take time to examine such a broad scenario. Can he give an undertaking that, in the meantime, some assurance can be given to the beleaguered poll taxpayers that some relief will come as from next April?

    Mr. Heseltine

    I hear clearly what the hon. Gentleman says, and my answer is the same as that which I gave to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to expand my speech, I think that he will find that these matters will be thoroughly covered.

    Mr. Dave Nellist (Coventry, South-East)

    Will the Secretary of State give way?

    Mr. Speaker

    Order. I think that the Secretary of State has now given way to all the minority parties in the House. I think that it would now be wise to get on with the debate. Hon. Members will have an opportunity later of expressing their views if they are called.

    Mr. Heseltine

    I think that the House will feel that I have tried to reflect the interests of the House. If I give way further I might be trespassing on what I have to say later. The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) might have a small part to play in what I have to say.

    Mr. Gould

    I have been listening carefully to the Secretary of State. He appears to be saying that he and his party are now so bereft of ideas that they are prepared to come a-begging and to ask others whether they might be prepared to help. As we have already developed a fully worked out position, I am prepared to make a counter-offer, from a position of some strength.

    If the right hon. Gentleman would care to talk on the basis of an agenda on which the abolition of the poll tax is the first item, and a proper consideration—with the help of the civil service and the Government’s computers—of our alternative is the second item, I am prepared to make available to him, free of charge, our fully worked out proposal. I make a further offer. If the right hon. Gentleman recognises the merits of what we propose, we shall support him in any Division that takes place over any legislation that he brings forward to implement our proposals.

    Mr. Heseltine

    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me an additional copy of his party’s policy. It contains only one fact—the price, and that is too high. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on a new record. He has been the proud possessor of the ability to move from policy position to policy position at three-day intervals. He has now done that in about three minutes. Having rejected what I have been saying, he now realises—with the assistance of his right hon. Friends—that I was actually giving the Opposition the most generous opportunity that they have ever been offered.

    Several Hon. Members rose——

    Mr. Heseltine

    I think that I should continue arid say something more about my attitudes towards dealing with the matter.
    I yield to no one in my belief that central Government must exercise their mandate; that in the end, power lies in this House. Indeed, all Governments insist that the mandate upon which they were elected should prevail. The Labour party must learn to accept that in opposition, just as surely as they have always accepted it in government.

    Certainly, no Chancellor of the Exchequer can tolerate a challenge to his authority to manage the economy with prudence and discipline. No Secretary of State can turn his back on inadequate standards simply because they are administered by a local authority. Indeed, I would go further—I do not believe that this House would have legislated to share so much of its responsibility for financial prudence or for the quality of services if it had believed that local authorities would claim the right to frustrate or undermine the mandate of central Government.

    I have made as clear as I can my belief that, with the authority of Parliament, the will of Governments must prevail. However, that clear statement does not and should not close the options for a partnership with local government that provides for civic pride and local initiative; nor should it close the potential for men and women to have their desire to serve their community fully satisfied within their own local authority; nor should it divert our attention in Parliament, or outside in local government, from the responsibility to deliver quality of service and value for money, without which it is the nation and its people that pay an unacceptable price.

    I believe that now, far more than appeared possible 10 years ago, the importance of partnership is recognised. For all the rhetoric, and despite all the difficulties in the relationship between central and local government, there is a sense of partnership and co-operation in our inner cities, very much satisfying the aspirations that I held years ago. Despite all the tensions of the past 10 years, central and local government are now able to work together to regenerate some of our worst urban areas. Local authorities throughout the country, of all parties, have accepted the vital role of the private sector in economic revival——

    Mr. Neil Kinnock (Islwyn)

    The right hon. Gentleman is saying a great deal about partnership and the role that he wants to be developed between national and local government. Would he care to reflect on the fact that, when he was previously Secretary of State for the Environment, the amount of central Government expenditure as a proportion of total local government expenditure fell from 61 per cent. to 52 per cent., and that over the same period there were education cuts of 16 per cent.?

    Mr. Heseltine

    Those figures are not immediately in my mind. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, when his party was in government, the collapse of local authority council building was imposed upon them by the International Monetary Fund. The reason why our waters and our sewers are in such a state today is that the Labour Government slaughtered the capital programmes. It is nothing short of hypocrisy for the right hon. Gentleman to try to deny what his Government were forced to do by the profligacy of their economic mismanagement.
    I repeat what I profoundly believe—that, despite all the tensions of the past 10 years, central and local government can now work together to regenerate life in some of our worst urban areas. Local authorities are working together. Local authorities which told me 10 years ago that the message of involving the private sector was unacceptable are now at the forefront in their plans to do exactly that.

    In all our big cities, there are now collaborative projects which show the right way ahead. The Birmingham Heartlands initiative is bringing together the city council, a number of private companies and central Government to regenerate east Birmingham.

    In St. Helens on Merseyside, Ravenhead Renaissance is a consortium of private sector companies and the local council. With Government support, it is regenerating a large rundown area of the town.

    Mr. John Evans (St. Helens, North) rose——

    Mr. Heseltine

    In Newcastle, the Cruddas park project to regenerate two council estates grew out of a private 321sector initiative. In Glasgow, there is a striking example of the transformation that can be achieved when central and local government work in partnership with the private sector. If hon. Members doubt the success of that partnership, I urge them to go to Glasgow and see for themselves what is being achieved by partnership between local authorities and the private sector.

    Mr. John Battle (Leeds, West) rose——

    Mr. Heseltine

    There is now a range of co-operation in the network of enterprise agencies giving advice and support to small companies. The Groundwork Trust is using the enthusiasms of the voluntary sector, the enterprise world and local authorities to clean the rural fringe in many of our older towns. [Interruption.] The nation will be dispirited by the Opposition’s total indifference to all those major advances.

    Mr. Thomas Graham (Renfrew, West and Inverclyde) rose——

    Mr. Heseltine

    For a century, the Opposition have shown a deep embittered resentment at any constructive attempts to bring new life to the inner cities. They have a vested interest in talking down the success of Scotland. Time and time again, when they get the opportunity, they shout down anyone with whom they disagree.

    Several Hon. Members rose——

    Mr. Heseltine

    I take a wholly more optimistic view. There has been a change of culture in Britain. Just as the flow of private sector cash into urban renewal has followed from the Government’s initiatives, there is now a widening range of opportunities in our run down areas.

    It is not simply a question of urban renewal. My Department has to deal with environmental issues. The entire nation is preoccupied with the view that we should develop an international presence in environmental matters. It is gravely damaging——

    Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunningham, North)

    On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

    Mr. Speaker

    I hope that it is a point of order.

    Mr. Wilson

    It is a genuine point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it, the debate is entitled “Abolition of the Poll Tax”. It is not an opportunity for a tour d’horizon to cover the five years during which the Secretary of State has been out of government. May we have your guidance on whether the Minister should address himself to the subject of the debate?

    Mr. Speaker

    If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Order Paper, he will see that the Secretary of State is moving his amendment, and that is what he is addressing himself to.

    Several Hon. Members rose——

    Mr. Speaker

    Before we proceed, in what I hope will be good order, I should add that many of those hon. Members who are seeking to intervene are the very same hon. Members who are seeking to participate in the debate. It will be difficult for the Chair to call them if they seek to delay the proceedings in this way.

    Mr. Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough)

    Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

    Mr. Speaker

    Order. As there was no point of order, the hon. Member cannot raise anything further on it.

    Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian)

    On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

    Mr. Speaker

    It is really not good practice to seek to intervene in a speech by making a point of order, but I will allow the hon. Member to do so on this occasion.

    Mr. Home Robertson

    You, Mr. Speaker, drew attention to the fact that the Secretary of State is speaking to his own amendment, which is all about the poll tax. His comments about urban renewal and the international perspective are fascinating stuff, but they have nothing to do with the business before the House.

    Mr. Speaker

    Every right hon. and hon. Member has a right to make points in his own way. I have heard nothing that is out of order. If the hon. Member will examine the Government amendment, he will clearly see that the Secretary of State was perfectly in order.

    Mr. Heseltine

    It is inconceivable that one could address the subject of financing local government by whatever means and not be preoccupied with local government structure or the quality of the services for which the money is to be raised. I am glad that, despite the Opposition’s totally artificial and almost irrelevant attitude, local Labour councils know that they must co-operate with central Government in the ways to which I referred.

    Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East)

    Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

    Mr. Heseltine

    At the moment, no. The hon. Gentleman does not even pay his poll tax.

    Mr. Kenneth Hind (Lancashire, West)

    Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given the way that he has presented the review, which provides for open and honest consultation, the electorate and others outside the House who are watching this debate will not understand artificially imposed conditions on his offer of discussions, designed to avoid councils participating in what many of them accept is an absolutely necessary reform of local government finance?

    Mr. Heseltine

    I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The general public will understand exactly the role that the Labour party is playing this afternoon. I greatly regret it, because from my talks with councillors of all political persuasions, I know full well that they want stability. They want to know the nature of the relationship and that it will stretch into the future. The Opposition are trying to frustrate a genuine attempt to find a constructive way forward.

    I must refer to one more area in which co-operation is essential in the national interest. Local and central Government have an inseparable role in attracting inward investment—discretionary and footloose—to depressed areas of Britain where jobs need to be created. That will not happen if an alien atmosphere is created by Labour for party political reasons.

    In all those matters, it is increasingly obvious that a new relationship is emerging between local and central Government. Local authorities are beginning to perceive and come to terms with their new strategic role as enabling authorities, as opposed to providers of all services. All that is fostering a new spirit of co-operation at local level, as private companies compete with local services, as owners intermingle with tenants, and as parents and teachers play an increasing role in school management. All those trends are to be welcomed, and are characteristic of the change in attitudes that occurred under the premiership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher).

    The 1984–86 review of local finance, which led to the proposals for the community charge, concerned itself very much with the issue of accountability. It explored the mechanisms of central funding, which produced local tax rates, which bore little relation to local spending decisions. It found that, in many areas, only a minority of voters contributed to the cost of local services, and it found that in some areas much of the extra cost of services was met by those without a vote. That situation had to be addressed.

    In practice, under our previous arrangements, many who consumed the local services were paying relatively little or nothing for them. That is why there has been a broad measure of support for the simple idea that nearly everyone should make a contribution to the cost of the local services that they consume. It is not that principle which has caused difficulty.

    One thing that I have always made absolutely clear is that there is no quick fix for this problem. For next year, my predecessor announced some important proposals, which will significantly improve the financial position of local authorities and local charge payers. I am now considering the response to the consultation on those proposals. I will place the statutory reports before the House in the light of those comments, once colleagues have considered the matter.

    As all right hon. and hon. Members know, there is no prospect whatsoever that a final answer can be designed, passed through Parliament and implemented in under a two-year time scale. A complete solution may require a longer time scale. That is a matter of hard reality. But: that is not an excuse for procrastination or delay. The issues involved have been explored many times. I must keep open, however, a proper sense of timing. Our review could well identify a programme, divided into quite different time perspectives. It may well be that what is required is a programme of building blocks, constructed logically and carefully towards a clearly defined objective.

    In the context of such a review, it is obviously right to explore why it is that the ambitions originally set for the community charge have not found the necessary degree of public support and understanding.

    An argument which is much advanced is that, if the charge had been introduced at a lower level, its underlying principles of accountability and broad coverage of most of those who benefit from local services might have been more readily accepted. We shall consider whether that is true; but there is one truth which cannot be avoided. Local authorities as a whole increased their spending by nearly 13 per cent. this year—and by nearly a quarter in only two years. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that local authorities have sought to use the turbulence of the changeover to mask their spending increases and to pass the blame on to others.

    There is another truth. The law is the law. Bills legally issued under the authority of this place must be collected. There can be no dining a la carte with the law of the land. I want to say just a brief word to Opposition Members who hold to the constitutional novelty that they are the arbiters of what is legal and what is not, and particularly that they are justified in refusing to pay. I cannot abide the concept that many on low incomes from limited savings in their twilight years—[Interruption.] Of course the Opposition do not care, but we care. I cannot abide the concept that such people should be expected to pick up the tab for those who are elected to this House in the name of the world’s foremost parliamentary democracy, and then claim a bogus veto over the mandate of the people. It is neither moral nor fair; nor is it constitutionally justified. The Labour party would never tolerate it from us if we were in opposition, and it is unforgivable that they should allow it to themselves in the present context.

    Mr. Nellist

    Is it not a fact that, had it not been for the 14 million who have yet to pay the poll tax, the Secretary of State would not be here this afternoon announcing a review suggesting changes or possibly abolition? Furthermore, if the right hon. Gentleman is so concerned about people on low incomes, why—despite his announcement of a two—year review-is his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security still imposing on every local authority in the country a £100 million cut in the Government payments made to them to provide rebates for the lowest paid? He is cutting those Government rebates from 97 per cent. to 95 per cent.

    Mr. Heseltine

    As the hon. Gentleman knows, one in four people receive a rebate. He has asked the wrong question: the question for the House is whether, by majority decision, we create the legislation that governs the country, or whether the hon. Gentleman’s entrenched bigotry imposes a veto on what the majority of us decide here. But it is not just a question of the hon. Gentleman’s having a veto; it is a question whether a large number of people who are a great deal less well off than he is should be expected to pay for his self-indulgent hypocrisy.

    We are determined that the taxes that we advocate should be seen to be fair, and the British public must be persuaded that the arrangements proposed at the conclusion of the review will be fair. Our priority must now be to address their concerns as fully as possible.

    Our second priority is to put the relationships between central and local government on a healthier footing—to replace conflict with partnership, preferably within a widely accepted consensus about their proper roles. This is not a debate about complete localism or complete centralism; a myriad of options lie in the middle ground. Some we may be quick to implement, while others will take longer. The task now is to identify what is available, and what will serve us best in the long term. That is why the Government have decided to include in its review issues of structure alongside issues of finance. If we can resolve those matters, there is, I believe, a chance for a new, constructive phase in the development of local government.

    In all my consideration of these difficult issues, I cannot escape the fact that some of the greatest moments in British history have coincided with the times of resolve, civic pride and municipal initiative in our great towns and cities. I am therefore determined not to set a rigid timetable for our review. I cannot anticipate what agreements can be found; I can only promise to listen with care, to decide, with my colleagues, on the way forward once our review is complete, and then to act with determination. That is the responsibility of Government, and the responsibility that we shall discharge.

  • Michael Heseltine – 1990 Speech on the Crisis in the Gulf

    Michael Heseltine – 1990 Speech on the Crisis in the Gulf

    The speech made by Michael Heseltine, the then Conservative MP for Henley, in the House of Commons on 6 September 1990.

    I take issue with the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) on just one small, cavilling point. That is his comment that, if Saddam Hussein had been able to hear our debate he might have taken comfort from it. I do not think that he could take comfort in any way from it. I believe that it reflects overwhelmingly the view of the British people that a great wrong has been done and that Britain is determined to play its full part in putting it right. That is the only conclusion that anyone who has listened to the debate could draw. It is positively healthy that there has been the occasional speech, representing a negligible quantity of opinion, in which a different view has been taken. The very isolation of those speeches indicates the strength of the overwhelming majority in this place.

    The Government’s position I find exemplary. I have said consistently, as have so many others, that the Government have taken precisely the right view from the beginning of the crisis. However much we may have been out of touch during the past two or three weeks—we followed events as best we could, often only through the media of other countries—it is obvious that the process adopted by the Government has continued as it began.

    The position that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out this afternoon is clear and exactly right. It is completely compliant with resolution 661 of the United Nations. The Prime Minister has set out for none to misunderstand her interpretation, backed by the best legal advice available to her. She has made clear, on behalf of the British Government, what she believes the resolution to mean. It means that we shall apply mandatory sanctions, that we shall enforce them and that, within certain circumstances, as my right hon. Friend defined, that might need the use of force.

    It is necessary to have read only the occasional speech of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to know that the last thing that he wants, the Government want or our allies want is the use of force. No one can have any doubt, however, that in the mind of the Government, and presumably in the minds of our close allies, that context is not ruled out. It is not anticipated in any way in the short term but it is within our interpretation of resolution 661.

    We are an open society and part of the open world. If there are those in the United States who believe that we have misinterpreted the resolution and who wish to disown what we claim to be the meaning of the vote that they cast, they have plenty of time to make their position clear. They can start to do that now. They can react at once to what we are saying the resolution means by saying that, when they voted for it they thought that it meant something else. If they do not do so, they cannot complain if we act upon the interpretation that we set out at an early stage.

    The issue is whether we should return to the United Nations for further clarification if sanctions do not achieve the desired objective. Powerful arguments were put by the Leader of the Opposition and reinforced by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). It is not that the law may be defective, but that there is a political dimension to the enforcement of that law which it might, on some subsequent occasion, be wise to pursue as opposed to legally necessary.

    I wish to put another view. We all want the sanctions to work—that is not in question—but let us suppose we reach a stage where it is perceived that they are not working. We are not playing cricket. The object then would be to win at the lowest possible, though doubtless awful, cost. A lonely judgment will have to be made by a limited number of people about whether their action, unheralded, would be more or less likely to secure the objectives of the original resolution. They would have to weigh that against the advance warning of a change of tactics that going back to the United Nations would imply.

    The announcement of a new dimension to the policy could provoke a first strike—or, as the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport said, a second strike, but from the Iraqis. Do we want that? I can think of no argument for saying that in a few weeks or a few months we should alert the Iraqis to a new dimension to our policy. Our task then will be to win quickly and decisively. That is the overwhelming reason why I hope that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, in replying to the debate, will give no further assurances. All the necessary assurances have already been given in the clearest language. To do so would only undermine the strength and clarity of our position in a way that he would be the last person to want to do.

    The tragedy of the crisis is that it is dynamic and events are unfolding. I have agreed with the right hon. Member for Devonport from the beginning—I do not think that the Iraqis will launch an attack on us or move into Saudi Arabia, because that is the way for them quickly to lose. They will try to bust the sanctions. By now, they will be combing the world to find ways to do what sanctions busters have always done, which is to get around the sort of peaceful coercion that the United Nations has imposed. No one knows whether they will succeed, but that is their best chance of success.

    If that happens, the dynamics will unfold and the moderate Arab leaders will begin to wonder whether they can win. The advocates of fundamental Islam will latch on to a new hero who is likely to advance their cause. The kingdoms of the Gulf will begin to wonder whether they can contain the ever larger numbers of people injected into their societies to spread the word that their days are numbered. All over the world, people will begin to say, “It is the Americans, the imperialists, the western powers and no one else.” Indeed, they will probably say that it is just the Americans. We have heard that today, but, to the source from which it came, it is always just the Americans. If the Iraqis got out of Kuwait as quickly as the Americans got out of Grenada or Panama, who would be complaining as loudly as we are likely to have to do?

    The most difficult point of the debate—it is not just enmeshed in this particular policy dilemma—is that the reason why the Americans are hated is because they can act. They are prepared and they have the strength and the coherence to move decisively and quickly—

    Mr. Faulds

    Even if they are wrong.

    Mr. Heseltine

    That is a judgment that the hon. Gentleman must defend, as he did in his speech. This House overwhelmingly believes that, in this case, the Americans are right.

    The issue is whether the Americans want to be isolated, alone and the big brother. Like so many right hon. Members, I served as a Defence Secretary in the NATO alliance. I agree that the Americans hustled us along. We have been trying to get the initiatives right and trying to keep our nerve. It would be a brave hon. Member who said that we could have done it without them. I could not say, with my hand on my heart, that all the European members of the NATO alliance were always in such agreement that they could be relied upon. I remember the footnotes and the qualifications. I remember the phone calls from national Parliaments saying, “Don’t do this, qualify that, hold back, wait a minute.” It was always the Americans who took the lonely, tough decisions, and that is where we are today. They have taken those decisions, and because our Government were the first to back them, we have contained the appalling damage of the occupation of Kuwait.

    Now we want to try to help, but how? The way to help is to strengthen the American support. Other nations of like mind to ourselves should increase their commitment, whether military or financial, to the American endeavour. The greater the endeavour that we make, the more we can ask to be consulted and the more influential we shall be in—

    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)

    Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he has overrun his time.

  • Michael Heseltine – 1990 Speech on the Balance of Payments and Interest Rates

    Michael Heseltine – 1990 Speech on the Balance of Payments and Interest Rates

    The speech made by Michael Heseltine, the then Conservative MP for Henley, in the House of Commons on 6 March 1990.

    The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) has done us all a service. His speech was thoughtful and comprehensive, embracing a coherent strategy on how to attempt to run an economy. To paraphrase what he said, there was the once-and-for-all bonanza of North sea oil and “we”—I assume he meant the Government of which he hopes to be a member—will be able to use that money for a once-and-for-all investment process for the greater benefit of the British people. That shows the difference between the Opposition and the Government. The weakness in the Opposition’s case is that they have no idea how to use the money, which they would have confiscated through high taxes from the people who had extracted the oil from the North sea.

    It is precisely because Governments the world over do not have the sophisticated mechanisms for investing money for profit that the system described by the right hon. Gentleman does not work. Socialism fails because it misuses resources in its hand. It is the marketplace that finds the probable investments, and that is what the Labour Government, had they been in power, would have denied—the proper effective disposition of resources.

    The seriousness of the right hon. Gentleman’s speech, with the conclusions of which I wholly disagree, was in stark contrast with what I think he described as the “knockabout rubbish” of the speech of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown)—which was funny. By any standards in the House, it was extraordinarily funny, and the better the jokes, the more apparent it became that he had absolutely no policy contributions to make. If this country wants to be run on the basis of inspired humour and the odd wit of Opposition Members, it has today seen what lies over the edge of the abyss.

    The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East was quite specific about what he wanted to do. He wanted to introduce a Budget for investment to bring down interest rates. We were led to understand that that commitment was at the top of his list of priorities. He did not tell us what the Budget would contain to bring down interest rates. Bringing down interest rates would mean cutting the level of demand in the economy. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor eloquently put it, “If it ain’t hurting, it ain’t working.” The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East did not say where he would impose the pain necessary to get a grip on inflation.

    The hon. Gentleman then moved on to the second broad sweep of policy. I wholly agree with many of the sentiments he expressed, but then, all hon. Members would broadly agree with them. He argued for more education, training and research and development. He would be the first to say that those are essentially long-term policies. It is no use thinking that, if we say that we are going to put £1 billion into education, the kids will be in the factories within 24 hours, changing the nature of the performance of British industry. It is a long-term policy. With research and development, we must start with a gleam in the eye, work through to the application and then the product emerges.

    Mr. Gordon Brown indicated assent.

    Mr. Heseltine

    The hon. Gentleman is generous enough to agree with me.

    With training, we have to start the process, find people to do the training and set up the facilities, and, in five to 10 years, we will probably get a greater output of trained people. The hon. Gentleman and I are at one on that, but there is a lacuna in his argument. If, when he and his party were in power, they were doing all the training, education and investing in research and development, why did the economy fall apart when they left power? We should have been the beneficiaries and inheritors of that great legacy, but they had done none of those things.

    The third, and by no means the worst, item of the hon. Gentleman’s agenda for change is regional policy. If I understood him correctly, the implications of his speech were that the northern parts of our economy work less effectively than the southern parts, and a little bit of subsidy here from central Government to stimulate a little bit of job creation there, will change things in a way that all Governments since the war have failed to do. However, there is a small problem for the hon. Gentleman——

    Mr. Allen

    The right hon. Gentleman tried it when he was Secretary of State.

    Mr. Heseltine

    No. The hon. Gentleman says that we tried it. The Labour Government did something quite different. In their regional policy, they spent a few hundred million pounds from the centre to the regions while they took billions of pounds from the regions in the south-east in one form of subsidy or another to the City of London and the pension funds.

    What do the Opposition think they achieved with the capital gains tax that destroyed the family businesses of the north? What do they think they achieved when they subsidised pension funds to take the money out of the wealth-creating companies to institutionalise them in the City of London? What did they think they achieved when they gave the publicly quoted companies of the south of England the privilege of taking over the businesses in the midlands and the north with tax incentives? Where did the power go from? From the north. Where did the power go to? To the south. When the communications explosion of the 1980s took place, where did it take place? Where the head offices were. Where were they? Down here. Why? Because they had been driven out of all parts of peripheral Britain by the Labour party. That is what has happened.

    The fourth argument of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East—his cri de coeur to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—was, “Give me this one hope.” The hon. Gentleman’s message was, “Let there be no more restructuring of British industry.” I have heard that before. That was the essence of nationalisation—remove the industry from the initial owners, subsidise it, protect it, prevent it from being changed, do not let it diversify, ossify the economies around the country’s periphery, and then expect those economies to compete.

    That is what the hon. Member and his party achieved. When the market winds blew, the subsidised, nationalised industries were the first to shed the horrendous number of jobs which, if they had been changed and diversified when the economy was prosperous and growing, would have resulted in much less pain and much more benefit. It took the Conservative party to face up to that, and it is because the Opposition have learnt nothing that they must remain what the hon. Gentleman made them today—an eloquent, uproarious joke, fit for opposition but not for government. [HON. MEMBERS: “What about Jaguar?”] Hon. Members know it has already been sold to the Americans.

    I wish to speak about the central issue to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry referred—the battle against inflation. Conservative Members understand that that is the battle we must win. I am grateful that the Chancellor is here today. He and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should seriously consider the first act of nationalisation in the post-war world—the nationalisation of the Bank of England. The Government have achieved wonders by working back through the corridors of history and privatising most of the major nationalised industries. It is curious that we did not concentrate on the first act of nationalisation, that of the Bank of England. We all know that it cannot be privatised, but there is every conceivable reason why we should seek to distance the Bank of England from its current relationship with the Government.

    I say that for two reasons. First, the battle for inflation is an institutional and a psychological battle. It is of critical importance that the people, the politicians and the wage negotiators of a country know what is the overriding priority of a nation, and that has to be the battle against inflation. If, as with the German, American and Swiss banks, the central bank is distanced from the Government, everybody knows that the only way in which politicians can change the influences on the value of money is by direct and open direction through a bank that is likely to resist it. That is a huge sanction. There would be no diminution in the sovereignty of the House, because it would be easier for the House to detect the process that was at work, and the power built into the central governor’s position would have a major stabilising impact in the direction that I have described.

    Secondly, whatever one might consider to be the likely effects of German unification, we are moving, driven by treaty, towards the completion of the single European market. One of the major benefits of that market is not just the removal of the structural inhibitions between the 12 countries: it is the enhanced confidence that can come from the investment profile of a much larger and more stable home market, a market that enables Britain, within a partnership of Europe, to stand on all fours with the United States or Japan. One method of achieving that is to obtain a degree of monetary stability in the wider market place.

    The debate is increasingly becoming one of sovereignty, and there are no ways in which, in logic and in the ultimate, that issue can be avoided. But in the first stages towards a more co-ordinated market, the European monetary system and the disciplines of the exchange rate mechanism, no unacceptable loss of sovereignty is involved in moving into such a mechanism. But one would preserve that sense of national independence if we saw it happening coincidentally with the establishment of a central independent bank in Britain.

    We should suggest to our European partners that they should all establish independent central banks on the same model as the Bundesbank, operating to the disciplines of the Bundesbank. Let us have no illusions about that: the disciplines of the Bundesbank are precisely those to which we are all committed. It is precisely because it has been so successful, and the deutschmark so powerful, that all of us recognise that either it will make it on its own, dominating the European economic marketplace, or there will be some arrangement within which we conduct a dialogue; in other words, we have access to the top table.

    A way in which that could be achieved without loss of national sovereignty would be if an independent team of hankers, operating to the same disciplines as the Bundesbank, were established in the national capitals, acting coherently as a council of central bankers.

    It would be perfectly possible for any country to opt out of the exchange rate mechanism or not to attend the meeting of the council of central bankers if it wanted to. But if one did not attend, it would become apparent that one was worried about the disciplines themselves and, in leaving the central mechanism, one would lose the underpinning of the exchange rate mechanism itself, so there would be a price to be paid. But if the central management of a national economy is such as to justify such a removal from the mechanism, one will pay that price in any case, so the important point is to establish disciplines which bind us into the highest standards, which are those of Europe, the deutschmark and the Bundesbank.

    It is apparent from what we have heard in the House today that the alternative policies of a putative Government are those of yesterday, with no understanding of the changes that are coming. But for Britain the 1990s will be more traumatic and the change more far-reaching than is yet perceived. We shall deal with the rationalisation of industry and commerce on a scale that is relevant to the competitive challenge of the modern world only if we get inflation under control and if we have disciplines that are equal to the best in Europe. That is something that only the Conservative party understands and has the will to achieve.

  • Sarah Jones – 2022 Speech on Passport Regulations

    Sarah Jones – 2022 Speech on Passport Regulations

    The speech made by Sarah Jones, the Labour MP for Croydon Central, in the House of Commons on 26 May 2022.

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins. I thank the Minister for introducing the regulations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) has already pointed out, at this point in time across the country there are thousands of people who believe that the passport system needs to change, but it is fair to say that the tweaks we are debating today would not be top of their list.

    The shadow Home Office team has been inundated with examples of Government failure—primarily the failure to predict and adequately prepare for the surge in demand for passport renewal after the covid travel restrictions were lifted. That is despite being warned of the problems as far back as November in this House by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). We have heard of family holidays being cancelled because passports did not arrive on time, a seriously sick child unable to take a long-awaited trip of a lifetime, of work missed, honeymoons threatened, and the huge costs incurred from cancellations, rebooking, and paying for the fast-track service and multiple applications.

    The worst is not over. Leaked Passport Office documents reported by The Times at the weekend revealed that the 500,000 application backlog is growing. How will the existing regulations be made fit for purpose when the existing system is said by staff not to be fit for purpose?

    Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)

    I agree that we are all hearing from constituents who are waiting for passports. People who did not renew their passports during covid now suddenly want to use them. Does the hon. Lady agree with me that, despite the current huge demand for passports, for security reasons all relevant checks must be made on everyone applying for a UK passport, and those should never, ever be passed by because of the huge demand that the services face at the moment?

    Sarah Jones

    The hon. Gentleman is right. All MPs have had cases of people desperately trying to get their passports on time, and of course he is right that security is important. We must make sure we do these things correctly. Our argument is that we should have seen the problem coming and done a lot more about it.

    The article in The Times reported that the existing pressures are only going to get “heavier” and that people are being given “poor, misleading advice” by the advice line provider. Yet despite these well-documented problems, the Minister in the other place, Baroness Williams, told my colleague, Lord Coaker, that the Department

    “did prepare extensively for elevated demand with no restrictions upon international travel, and those preparations have ensured that passport applications can be processed in higher numbers than ever before.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 May 2022; Vol. 822, c. GC52.]

    That is the argument the Minister made, but it is not good enough. I have to say to him that that will be news to many of those who have been waiting. Given the scale of the problem, we are unconvinced that an SI that will slow down the fast track process by one day is a proportionate response to those realities.

    Baroness Williams told the other place that the Department estimates that it will receive a total of 9.5 million applications in 2022. She insisted that the Department was

    “on target to deliver those”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 May 2022; Vol. 822, c. GC52.]

    So did this Minister. Can he explain to the House how he can be so confident, given the backlog? What urgent work are the Government and the Home Office doing ahead of the summer to prevent millions of families from being put through chaos before their summer holidays?

    Despite our sense that this SI tinkers around the edges of what is a much more serious systemic problem, we largely do not object to the measures in it. As I said, the SI will slow down the fast-track process by one day. How many applications are currently missing the seven-day deadline? Slowing down the fast track is an admission of failure. Why do Ministers not believe that the system can get back on track, and meet existing targets, in the long term? We have no concerns about the purely technical changes that set out passport fees more simply and we believe that it is fair to look at keeping the booking fee where a person books a priority appointment but fails to turn up.

    The new schedule shows that a higher fee is added for children aged under 16 to use priority services—£73 for the fast track and £102 for the premium service—than for adults, who pay £66.50 for the fast track and £101.50 for the premium service. Why is there that difference between children and adults?

    I have a question on the detail. The Minister touched on this, but perhaps he can clarify it. My understanding is that if an appointment is missed—sometimes people make an innocent mistake—this measure provides not only for the booking fee and priority fee to be non-refundable, but for the standard application fee to be kept. Does that mean that if a person misses their appointment, they will not only lose the fees for that appointment but lose the application altogether? Will they then have to find the money for the standard fee to start the whole process again? If the failure is the system’s rather than the applicant’s, what happens to the person’s priority fees if the system fails to deliver their passport within the appropriate deadline? And what about where a person misses an appointment with good reason, which may happen? The Minister talked about a refund on compassionate grounds, such as medical or family emergencies. Can we have more information on that policy? Will it be a discretionary decision that individuals in the Passport Office make, or will there be a complete list of criteria? If so, could we have more detail? There is no information about that in the explanatory memorandum.

    Baroness Williams said in the other place that the Department has

    “employed 500 staff since last April, and there will be a further 700 this summer.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 May 2022; Vol. 822, c. GC52.]

    May I ask when those new staff will be in place? The word “summer” is quite vague, and often the Government count autumn as summer. We hope that that is not the case here; and obviously many families will need passports before the summer holidays begin.

    Finally, Baroness Williams insisted that the Department was on course to deliver the 9.5 million passports, but she was unable to say what the current backlog is. Could this Minister fill in that detail for the House now? I look forward to his response.

  • Kevin Foster – 2022 Statement on Passport Regulations

    Kevin Foster – 2022 Statement on Passport Regulations

    The statement made by Kevin Foster, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, at the Delegated Legislation Committee held on 26 May 2022.

    I beg to move,

    That the Committee has considered the draft Passport (Fees) Regulations 2022.

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Cummins, as always.

    Before I move on to the draft regulations themselves, I will touch briefly on the issue of passport applications to put the regulations into context. I hope that colleagues understand that I will not get into specific or individual cases in a public forum, but I remind Members that they may use the dedicated MPs’ hotline and, for the most urgent cases, the passport surgeries at Portcullis House, to which staff of Her Majesty’s Passport Office have been deployed to answer passport-related inquiries.

    Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)

    I am sure that every Member present has dozens and dozens of cases outstanding with HM Passport Office. I thank the staff—they are at home and doing a fantastic job—but it still is not working. Hundreds of people are without their passports. This draft delegated legislation is about premium and fast track, but none of it is working at this moment in time.

    Kevin Foster

    Perhaps I should go on to point out what HMPO staff are doing. At the moment, they are working hard to process approximately 250,000 applications per week, and have been doing so since the beginning of March this year. That is a large increase in the number of applications and in output since January, when latent demand started to return. They are focused on maintaining a high level of service and on ensuring that people receive their passports in good time for the summer holidays.

    In the vast majority of cases, applications are being processed within the advertised 10 weeks. Nearly 2 million passport applications were dealt with in March and April alone. For the benefit of the Committee, HMPO usually deals with 7 million in a year—that is the scale of the numbers. Our advice, however, remains to allow up to 10 weeks when applying and, if planning travel this summer, to apply now if a new passport is needed.

    The draft regulations will set the fees payable for products and services offered by HMPO, as well as providing for fee waivers in a number of circumstances. The regulations revoke and replace the Passport (Fees) Regulations 2018, making minor changes to the fees schedule and specifying priority services fees, including a booking fee, which will not be refunded in certain circumstances. At the outset, I want to make it clear that no fee levels are being changed. The cost of applying for a passport is not increasing under the draft regulations.

    For customers requiring a passport more quickly than can be provided under the standard service, HMPO has for many years offered optional priority services that are available for an additional fee: the fast track service and the premium service. For background, given the intervention of the hon. Member for Wansbeck, between 6 February and 8 May 2022, on average, 9,000 fast track applications were submitted in person per week, and 4,000 digital premium appointments were booked online per week.

    Frustratingly, given the demand for the services, over the past year about 5% of customers have not attended their priority service appointment. When a customer simply does not attend their appointment and fails to notify HMPO, the slot cannot be reused. That has a knock-on effect for others seeking to use the priority services, especially when there is high demand for slots. For that reason, the priority service fees will now include a booking fee, which will not be refunded where a customer cancels their appointment with less than 48 hours’ notice—that is, too late for us to be able to readvertise the appointment to those seeking to book one.

    The booking fee will be £30, which reflects the costs incurred by HMPO up to the point of the appointment and as a result of not being able to reuse the appointment. As I said, that will not result in an increase in the total fee; it forms part of the existing priority service fee and will not lead to customers being charged more for their appointment, provided that they keep it and use the service.

    If a customer misses their appointment and fails to notify HMPO altogether, HMPO will retain the whole fee. That incentivises customers to ensure that they notify HMPO when they are not able to attend, and helps to provide a service that is more cost-effective for the taxpayer while ensuring much wanted slots are not wasted. To clarify, if the customer does not attend their appointment but meets the compassionate criteria—for example, there is a medical or family emergency that means they cannot attend their appointment—HMPO will refund the full fee.

    We are also making minor drafting changes to the descriptions of our priority services. The changes will not impact on the services provided to customers, nor the cost to them. We have also made several amendments to the regulations to make them simpler, more concise and transparent for customers. The regulations set out clearly what actions are taken as part of the administration of an application, when an application is deemed to have been made, and when a fee will be retained by the Passport Office.

    The schedule of fees has been reduced in length, and we have made the cost of priority services clearer by setting the fees separately. Previously, the fees set in the regulations included the cost of administering a passport and a priority service. Again, we now want to make it much clearer what people are paying for when they pay for the priority service that they book through that system. I hope the Committee will accept the regulations.

  • Nadine Dorries – 2022 Statement on Bradford Winning City of Culture 2025

    Nadine Dorries – 2022 Statement on Bradford Winning City of Culture 2025

    The statement made by Nadine Dorries, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, on 31 May 2022.

    Congratulations to Bradford, which is a worthy winner of UK City of Culture 2025.

    Art and culture should be accessible to everyone and this prestigious title will help Bradford deliver unforgettable events for communities on their doorstep.

    There was stiff competition and I thank County Durham, Southampton and Wrexham County Borough for their excellent bids.

    Coventry has shown us how powerful the UK City of Culture title is at boosting investment, attracting visitors and leaving a lasting legacy for local people.

  • John Stevenson – 2022 Statement Calling for the Resignation of Boris Johnson

    John Stevenson – 2022 Statement Calling for the Resignation of Boris Johnson

    The statement made by John Stevenson, the Conservative MP for Carlisle, on 31 May 2022.

    I have been deeply disappointed in the revelations concerning the activities at No 10 as well as the approach taken by the Prime Minister in his responses to Parliament.

    Recently I have called for the Prime Minister to put himself forward for a vote of confidence by Conservative MPs. This I believe is the only way we are to draw a line under all the recent issues surrounding the activities in No 10 and the leadership of the Prime Minister. Fellow MPs could then decide if the Prime Minister is the right person to continue to lead our country and take the Conservative Party into the next Election.

    The continuing criticism, revelations and questions are debilitating for the Government at a time when there are so many other important and critical issues to be addressed.

    Sadly, the Prime Minister appears unwilling to bring matters to a head and submit himself to a vote. Therefore, the only option is for the Conservative MPs to facilitate a vote of confidence. I have already taken the appropriate action.