The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Poverty

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the Consortium for Street Children Event – 14 November 2019

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sir John Major at the Consortium for Street Children dinner held in London on 14 November 2019.

    The Consortium for Street Children is not a big Charity, but it has a heart as big as the planet. And it needs it, because Street Children can be found on every Continent.

    We don’t know how many there are, but around 150 million – nearly three times the population of the UK – seems a reasonable estimate.

    Many of them have been stripped of every natural need that we – around this table – take for granted.

    They are homeless; barely clothed; often unfed and scrambling for food; often cold, unloved, alone – and treated as criminals …. or worse. If you think I exaggerate, I can assure you I do not.

    In Uganda, one very young girl was sold to child traffickers for the equivalent of £11. 11 pounds. As a Member of the Ugandan Parliament put it: “Even a goat would fetch more than that”.

    I first learned about Street Children when I attended the Earth Summit in Brazil in 1992. In Rio, the sight of these children – in large numbers – was truly heart-breaking.

    The Consortium was founded the following year, and I have been a supporter from its early days.

    I hosted its official launch in Downing Street to bring a number of charities together to call for help and action.

    It is now 30 years since the UN adopted the “Committee on the Rights of a Child” – the most ratified Treaty in history, but not the one most honoured by its signatories.

    For Street Children still exist in large numbers, living in a dark and forbidding world, with no light or laughter.

    As I get older, I often remember small vignettes from long ago ….

    When I was five years old, my parents were elderly and frail. I used to walk to school on my own and once, bravely trying a new route, got lost. I retraced my steps, but became even more lost.

    No-one passed by. No-one noticed. No-one helped. I sat down alone and waited, and waited ….

    I still remember how terrified I was. Would I ever get home? Would I ever see my parents again? Would I ever be safe again?

    All silly fears – to an adult. But I was five. So I sat there with tears streaming down my cheeks – until a lady with a kind face came along, took me by the hand, and took me home. My nightmare was over.

    But what if I’d been a Street Child in Rio, or Johannesburg or Borneo – or anywhere? Then, it would not be a nightmare – it would be real.

    And, instead of taking me safely home, the lady with a kind face could be taking me to a much darker place.

    That is why I care so passionately about the Consortium and its work, and the children that need help.

    The lottery of life is unkind in many ways, and those of us who are the winners in that lottery – well fed, well clothed, and with a conscience – have a duty, a responsibility, to help wherever we can.

    I know there are many good causes – too many, sadly – but surely vulnerable children must be at, or near, the top of that list.

    We can move the hearts of the authorities – and we are making progress – but it is frustratingly slow.

    In 2011, the Consortium launched the International Day for Street Children. That same year, the UN Human Rights Council agreed that Street Children were a global phenomenon that should not be ignored.

    On Street Children’s Day we asked the children what they wanted to say. One replied a while ago in words that should hang in the forefront of the conscience of governments around the world:

    “We should not have to beg. All children are human beings and have the right to be happy. Working on the streets is not good as there are many bad people that can hurt you. They can force you to do things you know are wrong.”

    She added: “Please, please listen to me. Please make this world more liveable. Don’t treat me like this – I only do this to survive.”

    “I only do this to survive.” We need not go into what “this” is: but no child should ever be in such a situation. We are a richer world than ever in history – it is time to act to end the obscenity of children living in this fashion.

    So what can we do? What do we wish to achieve? The list is long.

    Children need to be protected. To be safe. To go to school to learn and play – to prepare for adult life. They need healthcare – as we all do – and access to treatment.

    They need legal documents ensuring access to their basic rights. And they need affection – to be cared about, to be nurtured, and to be loved.

    And, as they grow, they need to be assimilated into society – not treated as outcasts, without papers, without schooling, without a future.

    This litany of concerns raises questions:

    – Why do we not know how many Street Children there are?

    – Why – in developed countries – do they slip through society’s safety nets?

    – Why do they seem invisible to so many policy makers?

    – Why are they not treated with the humanity, dignity and respect that every human being deserves?

    And how and when can we put all this right?

    There is good news. We are making progress. And – with your help – we will go on doing so until these children are protected.

    Two years ago, the UN confirmed authoritative legal guidance that the rights in the UN Convention applied to all children, and directed governments specifically on how to help Street Children.

    Some are now taking action, but many more need to do so. The Consortium needs to be “an advocate for the children” and “a conscience for their governments”. And I promise we will continue to be so. But, with your help, we could achieve so much more.

    I speak to you tonight, but the real work is, of course, done by volunteers – not by me. I am full of admiration for their commitment, their consistency, and their sheer refusal to give up until progress is made.

    As I grow older, there is much in the world that makes one despair at the folly of man, but the selfless work of these men and women who donate much of their lives to helping others encourages me to believe that our better instincts will prevail.

    Since that inaugural reception at No 10 over a quarter of a century ago, the Consortium has brought together many other organisations around the world. This network now extends to 135 countries – itself indicating the scale of the problem.

    The value our own charity brings is experience, expertise, evidence to support our case, and the clout to change and shape minds.

    It would be wonderful if you felt able to help us in our endeavour.

    You may never know the children you help, and they may never know you, their benefactor. But every child’s life transformed by your kindness will be a life that has been saved.

    Let me close by letting the children speak for themselves:

    From a child in Mexico: “There are street children who die, while others survive, because they don’t have the money to pay for a hospital”.

    And, finally, from a child in Brazil: “I would like for people who have never lived on the streets to see us as human beings.”

    So, I believe, would we all.

    And, with your help and generosity of spirit, we can show them that we do.

  • Sir John Major’s Responsibilities of Democracy Speech – 6 November 2017

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech at Westminster Abbey in London on 6 November 2017.

    As a boy, in the 1950s, encouraged by close friends, I cut my teeth as a public speaker on a soapbox – across the river in Brixton Market.

    In those early days none of my friends would have imagined that – one day – my soapbox would be upgraded to a lectern in this beautiful and historic Abbey.

    I doubt that I imparted much wisdom from my Brixton soapbox, but I did learn about people. No-one barracked. No-one told me – as surely they could have done – to go away and come back when I knew something about … well, anything.

    Even in a crowded and busy market, some took time to stop and listen or question. No-one seemed to resent me or my views. No-one was hostile, although many must have disagreed with what I said.

    Today – as politics has become more rancorous – I have often thought back to that time, and wondered how we lost that tolerance of opposing views.

    Certainly, tolerance was missing from the EU Referendum Campaign, when honest and thoughtful political debate was abandoned in favour of exaggeration, half-truths and untruths. No-one seemed ashamed or embarrassed by this.

    Indeed, some revelled in it, which suggests that mendacity is acceptable if it panders to a popular prejudice. Then, it is sanctioned by many who know it to be untrue, and welcomed by others whose prejudices are supported by it. And, if delivered with wit and panache, it may even be believed.

    Some of the media reported what was said – even when they must have known it to be improbable (at best) or untrue (at worst). In this way, the Referendum showcased a deterioration in both the conduct and reporting of our politics.

    There will be those who think that my subject, “the Responsibilities of Democracy” is inappropriate for Westminster Abbey – that it is a secular concern, and that the arts and practice of democratic politics are far removed from the higher concerns of the Church.

    They are wrong – as wrong, or misguided, as those who argue that the Church should stay out of politics: it should not. Both Church and State care for the wellbeing of people, and if one institution is failing them, the other has a duty to say so. Two-way constructive criticism, if conducted civilly, is healthy – and no-one should shrink from it.

    In years gone by, the Church was criticised as “The Tory Party at Prayer”. Today, it is often told it is too Left-wing. I doubt the first was ever true; and the charge of Left-wing bias is trotted out whenever the Church talks about poverty.

    But the Church should talk of poverty. So should we all. Poverty is not the sole preserve of the Left. Conservatives from Wilberforce to David Cameron – who made overseas aid to the very poorest a signature policy – have focused upon poverty.

    On occasions such as this there are two kinds of Lecture. One is uplifting and intellectual. It enlivens the conscience and leaves us pondering the higher purpose of Man.

    My purpose is more prosaic. It is to provoke thought about democracy – both generally and in our own country. Democracy is very precious but – how is it performing in a new world that is changing at bewildering speed? Is it doing its job? Is it at risk? Where is it failing? What is its future?

    In many countries, I see a distaste for politics that runs deep. That is a danger to democracy. So, inevitably, my theme – in part – is a cry for action where there is none; and of warning where there is peril.

    What is democracy? It is surely more than electing a government through a universal franchise. Elections are an expression of democracy, but the ballot box alone is insufficient.

    President Putin wins elections – is Russia a democracy? No – it is not. Is Turkey? Is Egypt? Even on the narrowest and meanest of definitions the answer is – No. Nor are many other countries that hold elections – sometimes rigged – but, voting apart, have few of the attributes of a genuine democracy.

    My worry is that democracy is in retreat; stifled by its own virtues. Democracy operates on consent. That being so, it is slower to make decisions than autocracy or outright dictatorship. Democracy must cajole. Must persuade. Must seek consensus. Not so autocracy.

    This can make autocracy seem more efficient than democracy, more decisive, more able to deliver its promises, more swift to act in crises.

    The rise of non-democratic China to economic super-stardom is one of the great stories of history, but there is a price to pay for her success.

    The price is a lack of personal freedom for the masses.

    For now, countless millions of Chinese are grateful for that economic improvement. But human nature suggests that as their individual wellbeing grows, they will demand greater personal liberty. If that happens, autocracy must yield – or repress. This choice lies ahead for many countries.

    At the heart of true democracy is liberty under the law. Democratic government must be freely elected for a fixed period in a universal franchise, untainted by coercion.

    There must be checks and balances to its authority. The rule of law must apply. The judiciary must be independent, and there must be a free media, an independent academia, and a functioning Opposition free to oppose without sanctions. Only then can freedom of speech and action be protected.

    But these attributes are merely the trappings of democracy. Democracy in action is more than satisfying the material demands of the majority, or honouring the promises of an election manifesto.

    Democratic government must govern for the future as well as the present. A Governing Party must govern for political opponents who did not vote for them – and may never do so.

    It must govern for the unborn, and the country they will inherit. For minorities. For the wider international community. And all Governments have a responsibility to themselves for the manner in which they govern.

    One has only to set out these responsibilities to see that no Government, perhaps ever, has met this ideal – Government by men and women, not saints, is an imperfect vehicle for perfection. But that does not mean their imperfections should be ignored or accepted.

    Yet, today, they often are, as a disillusioned, disinterested, preoccupied or – in some cases, a cowed or misled – electorate shrug their shoulders and turn away.

    In such a climate, democracy faces a threat from the rise of nationalism. This is not theoretical: in many countries that is a reality. In others, a clear and present danger.

    *******

    In the democratic West, we have come to believe that our liberal, social and economic model of democracy is unchallengeable. It is not. Last year – as the United Nations has reported – 67 countries suffered a decline in political and civil liberties while only 36 had gains. What has happened there can happen elsewhere.

    Over 20 democracies have collapsed during the last two decades, and there is widespread public dissatisfaction in many others.

    Across Europe, nationalism has gained more than a foothold. It begins with a populism that masquerades as patriotism, but morphs into something far less attractive.

    In many countries, nationalist parties have significant support. They can attract true patriots – but are also a political vehicle for those who flavour that patriotism with xenophobia.

    Nationalism is authoritarian. It turns easily towards autocracy or – at worst – outright dictatorship. Nationalists hide their threat under an exaggerated love of country, an unthinking patriotism: “my country, right or wrong”. Its leaders view other countries – and sometimes other races – as inferior.

    Nationalism is suspicious of foreigners. It accuses immigrants of “stealing jobs” or, in some other way, undermining the indigenous population. This has been so for hundreds of years: it is often wrong, and – let it be said in this House of God – un-Christian.

    There is a great difference between nationalism and patriotism. Patriotism is more than pride in country. A mature patriotism concerns itself with the condition of the People, as well as the prestige of the Country. Such a patriotism worries about deprivation, opportunity and incentive.

    It asks itself: how can we spread our wealth and opportunity more evenly around our country? And it is as concerned with the growth of food banks as it is with a shortage of aircraft carriers.

    I now fear for these broad, socially liberal attitudes.

    The financial crisis – less security, low or no growth, and rising taxes – has created public dissatisfaction with the old, albeit fallible, politics.

    Anger about its shortcomings replaces cool, dispassionate judgement. Despair gives a credibility to promises of easy solutions when – in truth – there are none.

    Our social and economic liberalism may be fallible but it is not some mish-mash of woolly headed do-gooders. It protects individual liberties and human rights. It promotes market freedoms, ownership of property, and freedom of movement.

    We dare not take these familiar values for granted. We need to celebrate them, protect them and practice them: Politics must not become a playground for demagogues.

    *******

    Capitalism and free trade are the bulwark of democracy. They have lifted millions of the poorest people in the world out of poverty. As trade has grown, wealth has grown, literacy has risen, and fatal diseases have been eradicated.

    But free trade is under attack.

    When growth was buoyant, all was well. But, after the financial crash of 2007/8, many workers see global trade as a threat. So do companies exposed to foreign competition.

    There are problems that must be dealt with. Globalisation has distributed its gains unevenly.

    Individuals have gained wealth that Croesus would have envied.

    Global companies have driven out competitors, and become mega-rich.

    But, to protect itself, capitalism must be ethical. If it is not, then opposition to it will grow. Business must confront malpractice and eliminate it.

    Capitalism must reform itself – or Government must make it do so.

    “Anything Goes” capitalism is not acceptable: it can only damage free trade and open markets, and encourage protectionism, less trade, slower growth and greater poverty. If that happens, everyone loses. But those with least will lose most.

    *******

    Our British democracy is seen as honest, not corrupt; and free, not repressive. Our legal system is widely admired and respected. Our elections are acknowledged as fair, not fixed; and Governments leave and enter Office without violence – and within a few days.

    Our Parliament has been a democratic model. As a nation, we can – and should – be proud of all this, and I am … but …I will come to the “buts” in a moment ….

    First, let me say, I’m not among that minority of Britons who disparage our country and side with our critics. I am, and always will be, proud to be British.

    However, having seen our democracy at work – over many years – from the inside, and for the past sixteen as a reasonably informed outsider, not all is as it could be – or should be. We can do better.

    Our present Parliament faces an extraordinary range of complex problems. Brexit – an historic blunder in my own view, although it is not my theme for this evening – will consume the time of this Parliament, and crowd out domestic issues that are crying out for action.

    It would be better were Parliament free to focus its attention on health, social care, housing, education and transport.

    But until Brexit has been resolved – which may take years – few, if any, of these subjects will get the attention they deserve.

    Nor will constitutional issues over Scotland and Northern Ireland; or the social problems of income disparity and the North/South divide – which surely cannot be permitted to continue as it is. All of these – each vital to the future wellbeing of our country – will be secondary to the fallout from last year’s Referendum.

    Let me now turn to that list of “buts”.

    *******

    To cynics, the words “service” and “duty” are old-fashioned, yet they are virtues that deserve praise, not scorn. Our Public Service embodies them.

    The Civil Service is a fundamental engine of our democracy. It has an historic memory, which protects against the errors of the past. It is politically independent. It brings balance to our system of government. And yet, in the last 20 years, it has been undermined by its own masters.

    When things have gone wrong, a small number of Ministers – against all past practice – have blamed the Civil Service for the failure – and not themselves. Political advisers have undermined civil servants and usurped their role. The Freedom of Information Act has hampered the dispassionate advice offered to Ministers.

    Ministers may decide policy, but the Civil Service must deliver it. To do so, it trawls for ideas; delves deep into potential pitfalls; advises; cautions; and prepares legislation.

    It is in our national interest that public service should remain a career that attracts some of the very best brains in our country. We should value it, not disparage it.

    I hope Government will rethink recent practice on special advisers.

    Ministers have a right to non-Civil Service advice. But, as advisers are paid from the public purse, they should be men and women of experience and ability. Many are – but not all. Their role needs redefining. Good special advisers, with expertise and political nous, can make for better government and better liaison with the civil service.

    But, over the years, a handful of advisers have acquired unjustified power that has been misused. At times they have driven wedges between Ministers and their civil servants. Some have been used as attack dogs – on both their political opponents and their colleagues. The culprits were often protected by their Ministers, when they should have been dismissed without ceremony.

    Some advisers – with intellect but little judgement – are easy prey for the media. They are flattered, wined and dined; and the naïve among them talk unguardedly, whilst the more unscrupulous leak stories that create feuds between senior Ministers, and complicate policy.

    Any special advisers that behave in this fashion should go: a “one leak and you’re out” policy would be a worthwhile discipline for the Prime Minister to institute across all Government departments.

    *******

    It is a strength of our democracy that debate on policy is fierce. That is as it should be: policy affects people’s lives. Passions can rise – and sometimes it is right for them to do so.

    But policy disagreement is not only across the floor of Parliament. Too often, members of the same Party are seen as opponents: not “one of us”, to echo an unfortunate phrase from the 1980s, and this leads to rival camps being formed.

    These factions – opposing wings of the same Party – fight one another more vigorously than they do their opponents. This is potentially destructive to the Party system, which is the main operating structure of our democracy. The old political adage: “My opponents are opposite – my enemies are behind”, is currently apt for both our main Parties.

    There is a reason for this. The anti-European Right wish to control the Conservative Party: the neo-Marxist Left wish to dominate Labour.

    Both are making headway in a battle for the soul of their respective Parties.

    These ideological battles have dangers for our democracy. The rebellious radicals of Right and Left argue for partisan policies that appeal to the extremes of their Party base. As they do so, political divisions widen, consensus shrinks, and a minority of the Party begins to manipulate the majority.

    This is dangerous territory. The malcontents should remember that, without some give-or-take, without some effort at consensus, our tolerant Party system can become ungovernable. In politics, as in life, consensus is wise, not weak; and tolerance is a virtue, not a failing.

    If fringes begin to dominate a political Party, the middle ground of their support will turn away in disgust, as the shrillest voices and the most extreme views begin to dominate debate.

    Where that risk arises, democrats should worry. Indeed, they should do more than worry: they should fight back.

    *******

    Politics has always been a tough trade. It arouses strong feelings, and plain speaking which – sometimes – can turn into abuse. The hard-boiled professional would say: “if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen”.

    Well, maybe …. but the language and tone of politics matters. It can enthuse or repel. Excite or deflate. Uplift or cast down. Clarify or confuse. Examine the truth … or ignore it.

    In the 1930s, Oswald Mosley used his oratory to stir up violence. During World War II, Churchill – in Ed Murrow’s memorable phrase – “mobilised the English language and sent it to war”.

    In the 1960s, the Conservative Enoch Powell inflamed opinion on immigration – and the Dockers marched in his support.

    Oratory can change public opinion – for good or ill.

    Today, we need it to explain complex policy in a way that is easily understood.

    It is decades since the popular press fully reported speeches in Parliament. The speeches may have been dry, often dull; but, perhaps by osmosis, policy was understood.

    Today’s media world is more complex. The written press can’t be a public service. It is losing readership and fighting for its very existence. In its struggle for survival, it favours sensation – because that’s what sells newspapers. This entertains – but may not inform.

    Many political stories are spiced up by “informed sources”. This is often self-interested malicious comment, and should be read with many a pinch of salt on the side. It may excite and intrigue, but leaves no-one any wiser.

    Television news is more informative, but not always so. Often, interviews are brief and confrontational, and focussed on securing a headline for the next news bulletin.

    Political news programmes have longer interviews and can be a better source of information but they, too, often slip into confrontation.

    In each of the above charades, the electorate is left confused and uninformed.

    We cannot only blame the media. “Spin” and “soundbite” replaced informed argument with meaningless phrases: Labour’s “Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime”; and the Conservatives’ “Take Back Control” serve as memorable examples of pitch-perfect absurdity.

    They convey nothing. They explain nothing. And they are worth nothing.

    And they can mislead. I once used the phrase “back to basics” and it was taken up to pervert a thoroughly worthwhile social policy.

    A low point was reached when politicians were offered a daily “form of words” to be trotted out in every interview. This is not only undignified, it is self-defeating. As voters hear our elected representatives uttering puerile slogans instead of explaining policy, it is no wonder if respect for them melts away.

    Slogans and soundbites are a deceit. Electors deserve the truth in plain English, not in fairy tales. When trust in our elected representatives falls, democracy fails.

    There are rare occasions when public interest demands “an economy of the truth”; but, in the main, clarity – and honesty – really is the best policy.

    And by honesty, I mean more than simply straight-talking. I mean honesty in facing up to challenges; honesty in acknowledging fears or dangers; honesty in action; and honesty in admitting the limitations of Government. Honesty can be politically inconvenient, but less so than concealing the truth.

    Honesty commands respect. Slogans do not. Soundbites do not. Spin does not. Honesty is essential in a functioning democracy. It is infuriating to listen to interviews where every question is side-stepped, or answered with obfuscation. Such conduct treats the electorate with contempt – and no-one should be surprised if they return the compliment.

    I don’t wish to be prissy about this by suggesting that there was some past, mythical age in which everything was perfect. There certainly wasn’t. I wasn’t. But politicians can do better to serve the electorate – and they must do so.

    *******

    The essence of our democracy is “One Man, One Vote”. But, except in the ballot box, no democracy offers equal influence to every citizen.
    Anthony Trollope, honoured here in Poets’ Corner, wrote in his biography of Cicero:

    “The power of voting was common to all citizens: but the power of influencing the electors had passed into the hands of the rich.”.

    That was, of course, two millennia ago in Ancient Rome, but the same “power of influencing” lingers on in modern democracies. The very rich, if they assert themselves, may be able to influence government.

    In America, big money perverts the system. The sheer cost of their elections – with most of it spent on advertisements attacking their opponents – is enormous.

    A Member of Congress seeking election every two years is perpetually fundraising. Even if donors ask nothing in return for their generosity, it is likely to be in the mind of the politician as he or she considers policy – and it ought not to be.

    In the UK, money is far less damaging to the system, but still manifests itself through Party funding.

    Party funding is an acute dilemma. All political parties must raise money to campaign, to run their organisations, to pay their staff – and none can hope to fund all this through membership subscriptions alone.

    There are only two ways to fund the balance, and neither is attractive.

    At present, the bulk of funding is by wealthy individuals, business, and the Trades Unions. This is bound to give rise to obligations – whether sought or not by the donor – and is intrinsically unhealthy.

    In my experience, many donors are altruistic and give money simply to support their Party; but others may seek to exact a price. Whether that price is a policy promise; an appointment; or an honour – it is undesirable.

    An alternative is more funding through the public purse. This would be deeply unpopular and I share the general distaste for it. Nonetheless, it may be the least bad option.

    A compromise might be more State funding than at present but, in return, a legal limit to donations from individuals or business or Trades Unions. This should be set at a level where no-one could reasonably argue that it influences policy.

    Such a scheme is not perfect. But, on balance, it would be beneficial for our democracy.

    Here tonight, in this magnificent and hallowed place, we are surrounded by the spirits of many historical figures who were elected to represent us.

    Over many centuries. Many generations. Through times of strife and turmoil. Of uncertainty and change. Through times of national crises. Times of celebration. They are commemorated here, for the service they gave to our nation.

    Whatever their political beliefs – they were all elected by the people to serve the people – and it was the people who had the power to dismiss them.

    As a boy, I read what Edmund Burke said:

    “To deliver an opinion, is the right of all men; that of constituents is a weighty and respectable opinion, which a representative ought always to rejoice to hear; and which he ought always most seriously to consider.

    But authoritative instructions; mandates issued, which the member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote, and to argue for, though contrary to the clearest conviction of his judgment and conscience, these are things utterly unknown to the laws of this land, and which arise from a fundamental mistake of the whole order and tenor of our constitution.”

    I agree with that implicitly.

    As that young boy across the river, I would never have believed that the weight of that responsibility would ever fall upon my own shoulders.

    It was a privilege, but a burden too – as it is for all those who bear it.

    All must ask themselves:

    – Did I do what I believed to be right?

    – Did I speak up – and not be afraid to speak the truth?

    We are blessed to live in this land. But each and every one of us has a responsibility to keep democracy alive and kicking and never stifle free speech or freedom of action if it is within the law.

    Earlier, I spoke of my soapbox in Brixton, and the tolerance that was shown to me in the salad days of my political life – by many who would have quite reasonably taken an opposite view.

    “I do not like what you say” said Voltaire, “but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.

    Indeed so. That is the responsibility of democracy.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at Consortium for Street Children – 15 November 2016

    Below is the text of Sir John Major’s speech at Consortium for Street Children on Tuesday 15 November 2016.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    It is hard to believe it is nearly a quarter of a century since I spoke at the launch of the Consortium. Today, it is a global network to protect children, and its growth and success is largely due to the dedication of many of the pioneers who are here this evening. They have taken us a long way.

    It is easy to see why they are so committed, and why I wished to be a part of their work 23 years ago. All children deserve care – not just some of them. They deserve a home, a family, security, education, adult guidance and – above all – love and affection. And yet – although we cannot be precise as to numbers – it is likely that, in 2016, 150 million children enjoy none of these benefits. They face the world alone, and can be found on every Continent. In every way, this is unacceptable.

    When children are not cared for – we have all let them down. By we – I mean governments and individuals. It is – to me – extraordinary that they have been left so far behind for so long. Extraordinary – and indefensible. It is as if they are invisible to the conscience of the world.

    Now – at last – we may be on the eve of a breakthrough that is long overdue. Next Spring, the United Nations will issue a General Comment – an unimaginative name for a vital advance. A General Comment is a legal framework that will offer guidance, and set out governments’ obligations to children and how our responsibilities to them should be met. This will provide – for the first time – an opportunity for civil society to hold policy-makers to account if they don’t take action: and for street children it could – and should – be Liberation Day.

    But, of course, the effect of this won’t be instant – for the children or anyone else. The scale of the task is immense, and what needs to be done will take a very long time. But, once begun – and with continued advocacy – it should develop its own momentum.

    On behalf of those street children everywhere who don’t know – and may never know – who their advocates have been, a heartfelt thank you to all those here this evening who have done so much to bring this about.

    However, important though this advance is, it’s not enough. Declarations don’t house the homeless or feed the hungry. But it most definitely marks the beginning of what we hope will bring about the end of this truly terrible – and unacceptable – human neglect.

    So we all need to make sure the General Comment is implemented fully. I say this because we have all seen how grudging the international response has been for refugee children – despite the horrors of Syria. This should make us realise that, although we may cheer this advance, we cannot yet celebrate a victory.

    Over 23 years, and across 130 countries, hundreds of thousands of deprived children have been helped. But we have so much more to do. Sometimes their enemy is not disinterest – but the lack of Government action or the wrong action.

    As a child in Harare told us about the police: “They treat us as animals, they can raid us and lock us up in a cell for three weeks and they would only give us dry bread for food.”

    The General Comment can be used by Governments to eliminate police round-ups of children who are loitering, or sleeping in public places.

    And, from a Mexican child: “There are street children who die, while others survive, because they don’t have the money to pay for a hospital.”

    The General Comment spells out to governments their obligations to end discrimination so that, for example, specialised health services and education are made available – free of charge – to street children.

    I could go on.

    In the past, UN action has sometimes been ignored. We must make sure this one is not. These neglected children are in dire need and, having put so much effort into getting this far, we must understand that there is still so much more to be done.

    Uruguay has – or is about to – announce that she will be an “Early Adopter” of the General Comment – which is tremendous news, but we must plead with/encourage/persuade others to do the same.

    So we still need pledges – of help, of expertise, of cash – to increase the momentum of our campaign. As a wise man once said – “Money is the root of all progress”: and that is certainly true of our own work.

    To those of you who already feel overwhelmed by all your other responsibilities, I would only say this: Many – most – of us present have children – or, in my own case, children and grandchildren. How would we feel if any one of them was condemned to live the life of a street child? Cold; hungry; and certainly alone; with no-one to turn to, and no-one to rely on. Even worse, without the most basic human need of all: hope.

    Would we not think we had failed? Yes, we would.

    So, in a sense, we are all parents of these lost children. And when we think of it in that way, we know we must help.

    So, thank you for what you have done, are doing, and will be doing to help those who cannot help themselves.

    Let me close with the following thought:

    When you go home this evening, you – like millions of others around the world – will walk into a warm and welcoming place. You may pour yourself a glass of wine … or two. You may look inside a well-stocked fridge for a snack. You may pop something into the oven. Or flip on the kettle to make a hot drink. You will then climb into a soft and comfortable bed; warm, well-fed and – above all – safe and secure behind a locked door.

    As I say, like millions of others. But with one key difference: as you turn the lights out you will be the ones who – by being here tonight – have helped some of the youngest and most vulnerable people in our world clamber out of despair to – hopefully – experience the same degree of comfort and security.

    And that, I hope, will lead to a very peaceful night’s sleep indeed.

    Thank you for being here, and joining our crusade for fairness to children: it is a cause to warm the conscience.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at Peterborough Cathedral – 10 June 2016

    Below is the text of Sir John Major’s speech at Peterborough Cathedral on Friday 10 June 2016.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    It is extraordinary that this is the 900th Anniversary of this great Cathedral.

    Its foundations were laid over 50 years before the martyrdom of Thomas Beckett, and 100 years before Magna Carta opened a small chink towards democracy. In those days, one third of England was forest – and the Cathedral would have dominated the landscape.

    Today, it sits in the middle of a city, and the forest has long gone: although part of its wood survives in the great ceiling above us in this Nave.

    Nine hundred years ago our dinner – on a Friday – would, of course, have been fish: probably sole or eels. We would have shared a communal soup bowl and eaten from common plates of food, helping ourselves with – hopefully clean – fingers.

    We would have had knives but no forks. We would have been discouraged from licking our fingers clean (very bad table manners), or taking too much food, or using bread to mop up morsels from the communal plate. And if we were wise, we would not have drunk the water. We would certainly have never imagined the future.

    So much has happened since then and – today – events are moving faster than ever before. For many, it is a bewildering world, throwing up choices and decisions perhaps more complex than anything we have known in all our long history.

    The role of the Cathedral has evolved over the centuries. Faith is more liberal now, more user-friendly, more open to accept different cultures – and more tolerant of those who have no faith at all.

    Yet it remains massively important to its community. As part of the celebrations of this anniversary Peterborough 900 is raising funds for community purposes: a heritage and education centre, and a Music School, are projects that will benefit many people.

    So will re pitching the Organ to enable the Cathedral to function as a concert venue with a new sound system. Some may say – is this the purpose of a Cathedral?

    I would say, “Yes, it is”: in a secular – often too materialist – world, in a multi-cultural and multi-faith City, it must reach out and be seen as a relevant part of our way of living: if it were to become a mausoleum for only the committed to visit on Sunday it would surely wither.

    Our country was once a collection of small towns and cities and tiny villages, and the Church was the heart and soul of the community: today, when so many are elderly, some lonely, and others possibly a little frightened at the pace and change of modern life, this role is as important as it has ever been.

    For the sick at heart, it is a sanctuary: open to the good and the bad alike: a comfort zone for some when none other may exist. That is why in my view – though this is not shared by everyone in public life – it should use its pulpit to speak out more clearly on issues that affect the lives of everyday people.

    Today, around the world, intolerance of minorities is on the rise. In country after country we see them scape-goated. Extreme politicians reach for power. Even in our own backyard of Europe, intolerant voices influence opinion. Here, in this bastion of faith, I invite the Church, and all faith groups, to speak out whilst intolerance can still be beaten back. It is important that they do – without fear and without reservation.

    * * * * *

    Some problems are eternal. Twenty five years ago, at the door of Downing Street, I set out my ambition for “a nation at ease with itself”. At the heart of this was my wish to tackle inequality.

    That day I had the power, but the economy was failing and there was no money. By the time the economy was mended and I had the money, I lost the power. I made some progress – but not enough. Overall, I failed in my own objective.

    With age comes reflection and, these days, I am more and more concerned about inequality. Sixty-five years ago, my family’s circumstances were not easy. And for many – in a country now immensely more wealthy – life is still not easy.

    The global market is driving inequality – and the uncomfortable truth is that there is a gap between what our nation needs in social provision, and what the taxpayer is willing to pay.

    For a long time, civil society has bridged much of this gap – helped, in recent years, by tax reliefs to encourage giving, and State funding to carry out statutory social work. The National Lottery, too, has now disbursed over £33 billion to good causes – mostly to provide facilities the State could not afford. Indeed, this Cathedral has benefited from some of them.

    But, inevitably, there are gaps: as a country, we are one of the richest in the world – and yet some of our communities are amongst the poorest in all Northern Europe.

    Even in areas that are recognised as wealthy, there are families or individuals who have fallen behind.

    In communities where traditional jobs have gone, too many are on low incomes – or no income at all. A minority move elsewhere to find work. But the majority can’t: not through disinclination, but because – even if they have sufficient savings to do so – it is tough to uproot to find a job and a home. For the penniless, or for those with families or who act as carers, it can – literally – be impossible. They are effectively trapped.

    And let us cast aside a common misconception. Everyone out of work is not an idler. Everyone in receipt of benefits is not a scrounger. Of course idlers and scroungers exist – and Governments are right to root out the cheats who rip off the taxpayer. But the focus must not only be on those who abuse the system; we need equal concentration on those who are failed by the system.

    We have made progress. We can raise living standards: we have been doing so for a long time. At the turn of the 20th Century, millions struggled to eat. In London, one in three lived below the poverty line; in York, one in four ate less well than the unfortunate wretches in the poor house.

    Over the decades, mass poverty has shrunk back. The quality of life has risen across all income groups – but much less evenly than is healthy. Politicians, and charities, and churches, and the free market, can all take a mini-bow for what has been achieved. But there is no cause for complacency: a hard core of relative poverty still remains.

    A nation at ease with itself requires fairness.  

    370 years ago, in the Putney Debates, Colonel Rainsborough observed: “… the poorest he that is in England has a life to live, as [has] the greatest he…”. So had he, or she, then, and so has he, or she, now. We may never achieve a perfect society, but we can surely create a fairer one.

    Of course we’re not all born equal: the raw ingredients of an impoverished life often start in childhood. As a boy, my family lived in two rooms in Brixton. Life was hard but for others it was worse. I saw poverty all around me – and have never forgotten that.

    There is no security. No peace of mind. The pain of every day is the fear of what might happen tomorrow. It is terrifying – and the memory of it never leaves you.

    We see poverty as a social evil – which, of course, it is: but it is far more than that. It is an economic evil. It wastes talent. It destroys ambition. It lowers national output. It cuts competitiveness. It creates dependency. It leaves families in despair and communities in decline.

    And inequality – poverty amid plenty – is corrosive. It alienates and breeds resentment. It undermines national cohesion. The human spirit can endure great hardship: but inequality gives it a bitter edge.

    Some think the solution is easy. Penalise the rich. Cut defence. End overseas aid to people who are far poorer than us – and living in conditions of squalor that we cannot even imagine. Then, borrow more and spend more. But this doesn’t work.

    The arguments against such an approach are so comprehensive, so compelling, I won’t waste any time on them, except to note they have failed before and would do so again. Easy promises, with no practical policy to bring them about, are simply posturing.

    And that is of no help to the poor. Good intentions don’t fill empty bellies, or provide shelter for the homeless, or jobs for the unemployed.

    What does help is national wealth accompanied by national conscience. The richer we are as a nation, the more we can do. If the Good Samaritan is in debt, he can be of no help to others. That is why the health of our national economy is an essential preliminary to a nation at ease with itself.

    * * * * * *

    And that brings me to my final point. Ahead of us in a few days is a pivotal choice – to stay in the European Union or leave it. This arouses strong emotions among some people – and no doubt both sides of the argument are represented here tonight. I am no starry-eyed European. I was, after all, the Prime Minister who kept us out of the Euro and declined to join the Schengen zone on free movement of people.

    But I am a realist. And unlike many in the present debate, I sat for seven years at Europe’s top table and saw it from the inside. I learned its intentions. I know its virtues, its faults and its frustrations at first hand, yet I have not a shred of doubt that it is in our present and long-term interest to remain in the EU. Inside we will be richer. We will be more influential. We can do more.

    Our world has changed. We Britons are 65 million people in a world of 7,000 million. And it is a world that is drawing together in trade, in politics, in travel, and in facing common threats. It would be an extraordinary moment to suddenly cut ourselves adrift from the largest and richest free market in history.

    I am a Briton, and an Englishman, and I believe our country is a benevolent influence in the world. I don’t want us to isolate ourselves. Overall, we are a force for good, for reason, for moderation. We have much to offer.

    I hope everyone will think of that – and of the future, and the next generation – before they make up their minds. The decision we take is, quite literally, more relevant to our future then any General Election has or will be.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at the Hope and Homes for Children Event – 3 September 2004

    The text of John Major’s speech at the Hope and Homes for Children Event held at Harewood House, in Yorkshire, on Friday 3rd September 2004.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    Most of us are parents or grandparents or both.

    Not only have children … brought them up.

    Seen their vulnerability – shared their small triumphs and disasters; hopes and fears.

    Even when they’re adults we still care for them – emotionally and, often, financially (against a Government that wishes to tax their inheritance out of its value).

    Even so – our children are lucky.

    But hundreds of millions are not … and it is children like these that Hope and Homes for Children cares for.

    What are we doing for these children now and what will be the legacy of this generation to the next.

    Before I turn directly to that, let me offer a sketch of the world as it is.

    In the 17th Century, the English poet, John Donne, wrote: “No man is an island, entire of itself”.

    Today, in the 21st Century, we are all inter-dependent. There is no hiding place from events – even from those in the farthest corners of the world.

    And our world is turbulent. We can foresee some of the changes to come. Others we cannot. But we can be certain the world of our future will be vastly different from our world of today.

    We now live in a world without economic boundaries: once crumbling they are now gone.

    As globalisation spreads, the command economy has all but disappeared. As the unfettered power of Government diminishes, the power of markets increase. As technology grows, markets never sleep.

    Nor does the march of politics.

    In the last few years, we have seen a political revolution that is reshaping the political map as surely as globalisation has transformed business and economies.

    The most significant event of the last fifty years was the collapse of Soviet Russia.

    At the time we all believed the world was safer. It was: the threat of a nuclear exchange between the superpowers had fallen. What we did not realise was that this global security came at a price: it unleashed far greater regional instability and foreshadowed a shifting map of the world.

    For example, if the Soviet Union had not collapsed – and Tito had not died – would we have had the bitter civil wars in Bosnia and Kosovo? Probably not.

    If the Soviet Union had not collapsed, would the EU be about to admit ten more Member States – many of them formerly Iron Curtain countries effectively under Russian domination? Certainly not.

    If the Soviet Union hadn’t collapsed, would a coalition of nations now be engaged in a War Against Terror knowing that – to win it -the coalition would have to force out the terrorist cells from their safe havens in countries that had been in the Soviet sphere of influence? I doubt it.

    We are also in a world in which economic growth is tilting from West to East and yet – India and South East Asia apart, – the new wealth may be bypassing much of the under-developed world. The tilt from East to West is certainly not mirrored by a tilt from North to South, where the disparities in wealth and living standards continue to grow with Africa falling further behind.

    If one looks around our world, what are the problems that stand out?

    IRAQ

    Of course. I don’t intend to delve into this contentious issue tonight, except to say that it may cast a long shadow for many years. Similarly, Palestine seems impossible to solve and sets Nation against Nation. These disputes unsettle relationships far beyond the Middle East. In particular, they divide Moslems around the world – Arab and non-Arab Moslems alike – from America and Britain and (to a lesser extent) other developed Nations too.

    But these are issues for another time and place. This evening, I want to touch upon two great social problems that are more costly in lives than Iraq or the Arab-Israeli dispute combined. They are both germane to the work of Hope and Homes: I refer to poverty and Aids.

    POVERTY

    Poverty is not only an evil in itself: it also fuels despair and can be a recruiting sergeant for terrorism. At minimum, it offers a ready ear for those who wish to foster hatred against richer and more developed nations.

    As we look forward, we should assess the political, social and economic long-term problems which will beset us if the rich developed nations continue to get richer, and the undeveloped nations fall yet further behind.

    In some parts of the world, corruption and poverty condemn untold millions to a life of misery and hardship. Some may say: “Well, that’s their problem. Bad Government, bad economic decisions, bad judgements made this problem.” Well, may be – but is it really just their problem? Hardly. Half the world’s population is under 24: can they be held responsible for the conditions in which they live? Of course not.

    And, in any event, the world as a whole is having to live with the resentment, bitterness and political hostility that poverty causes amongst those outside the circle of prosperity.

    Our world has six billion souls. Of these six billion, one-half live on less than US $2 per day, and one-fifth on less than US $1 per day. I daresay no-one here this evening would hesitate in spending that sum on a cup of coffee. It is hard to imagine the disparity of existence in the undeveloped world with the life of even someone on the lowest levels of social support in the developed nations.

    I saw it first forty years ago when I went to work in Nigeria during the Biafra war. The poverty and hardship was unimaginable as people lived in filth and squalor and without hope or help. I still see it in many parts of the world.

    The rich nations do much to help – but not enough: far more is needed. Collectively they spend US$ 50 billion on overseas aid – an enormous sum: but less generous than it seems when you realise that the EU and America also spend US$ 350 billion on subsidies for one industry alone.

    It seems to me that long-term self-interest combines with common humanity to suggest that – if we are right to wage war on terror – and we are – then it is right to wage war on poverty and hardship as well.

    In helping others, we help ourselves. In removing grievances, we cut away the resentment of the “have-nots” for the “haves”.

    Moreover, if we do nothing, the problem will worsen. In the next 25 years, world population will grow from 6 billion to 8 billion. Of the extra 2 billion, 97% will be in that part of the world that has an income below US $2 per day. This is not sustainable if we wish our children to inherit a world free of conflict. Nor is it moral.

    In the 1940s/50s – after a different sort of War – the US launched a plan to deliver aid and rescue Europe from the devastation of that conflict. It was, Winston Churchill said, “the most un-sordid act in history.”

    Not even the wealth of America could do that these days. But, in a world of growing global security – and wealth at a level undreamed of by earlier generations – the developed nations collectively must soon consider another such “un-sordid act”.

    It will come – for it cannot be ignored. The question is when? Too late – and much unnecessary suffering will have been endured. Too late – and there will be little political gain for grudging and delayed humanity.

    But act early, act out of conscience – and not only will we foreclose on misery and hardship to come, but we will undercut the breeding grounds of terror that, at present, are such a threat to international security and prosperity.

    I am conscious that many may say – but you (that is me) could have done more when you had the chance. I agree. I did a certain amount – especially in reducing third world debt – but not enough.

    There are pleas I can make in mitigation – I inherited a recession, there was no money to spare and it was difficult to make the advance we did, I was distracted by squabbles over Europe and squabbles in my Party – but none of these is a sufficient excuse.

    As I look back, I should have done more. I wish I had. But the chance is gone. Now I am an older and wiser man and I hope to persuade my successors to raise their game. The cause is good, the need is very great, and action is imperative. That is why the work of charities like Hope and Homes is so necessary.

    AIDS

    A related problem worsens the situation immeasurably – AIDs.

    There was a time when untutored opinion thought AIDS was a self-inflicted disease that could never affect them. It was, many thought, a problem for other people. How smug that was – and how wrong.

    We know better now. So tragically do millions of innocent people: adults, children and babies.

    To date, 20 million people have died of AIDS and around 40 million more may now have the disease. Of that 40 million, 6 million may be near-death without treatment, and the harsh reality is that the vast majority of them will never get that treatment. They will die without hope and, too often, without comfort or care.

    It is a worldwide epidemic. The Caribbean, India, Europe East and West, China, Latin America – everywhere – has the problem. No part of the world is untouched but the poorest bear the greatest burden and have the least resources to cope with it.

    The catalogue of catastrophe unfolds. In parts of the Commonwealth, the problem is acute. In Botswana, life expectancy is below 40 – but for poverty and AIDS it would be over 70.

    In Uganda, one million live with AIDS, and one million have died because of it.

    In South Africa, one in eight has the virus. Many innocent children are infected in the womb or through breastfeeding and are born only to die young; others are orphans having lost both parents to the disease. It is a truly desperate situation.

    The horror statistics roll on. AIDS is the bubonic plague of our Age.

    It has many nightmarish qualities, but one in particular that bodes ill for the future. The virus is cunning: the time-lag between infection and full AIDS can be as long as a decade. As a result, nine out of ten sub-Saharan Africans who carry the disease are unaware of it: many with the virus can therefore – unwittingly – infect others and often those they care for most. The implications of that are horrific: imagine how a man or woman must feel knowing they have imposed a slow death sentence on their partner. It beggars understanding: no-one who understands that could fail to be moved by it.

    What can be done? Much is in hand through the WHO, individual Governments, and charitable organisations and it would help if the disputes between some of these bodies could be resolved – particularly over the efficacy of generic drugs as opposed to patented drugs.

    This squabble reminds me of the legend of Buridan’s Ass. An Ass, faced with two equally desirable bales of hay, starves to death because he cannot find a reason for preferring one to the other – yet either bale would have saved him.

    We must solve these disputes speedily and decide whether generics are effective. For while the squabble continues, the sick suffer and the sick die.

    Money is the root of all progress but is insufficient. Education on preventative care, medical treatment, and support, is vital but so is a comprehensive approach.

    I have run these two problems – poverty and aids – together because they afflict the same people: especially they afflict children.
    Governments can’t cope alone. They need help. They need the commitment of charities.

    Hope and Homes is one of them. It is why they deserve all the help we can give them.

  • Mr Major’s Parliamentary Answer on Child Poverty – 25 October 1990

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s response on Child Poverty made on 25th October 1990 in the House of Commons.

    Mr. Leadbitter To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met representatives of the Child Poverty Action Group to discuss the effects of the Government’s policies on child poverty.

    Mr. Ted Garrett To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met representatives of the Child Poverty Action Group to discuss the effects of the Government’s policies on child poverty.

    Mr. Major I have not myself recently met representatives of the CPAG, although I am aware of their representations to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary.

    Mr. Leadbitter Will the Chancellor consider that between 1979 and 1987, 1.5 million more children were living in families on half the average income; and that from 1987 child benefit was frozen, so its value in real terms this year had fallen by £1.35? Has he got his priorities right, taking into account the fact that people earning £70,000 a year have had tax cuts 200 times greater than families living on £5,000 a year?

    Mr. Major There are two points in the hon. Gentleman’s remarks to which I want to refer. It is relevant that the total amount of money now available for child benefit has risen from something under £2 billion 10 years ago to something over £4½ billion this year – a substantial amount.

    Of course, the missing element in the hon. Gentleman’s equation about average income is important: the extent to which average incomes generally have risen dramatically and to which the impact of direct taxation has fallen correspondingly. On the greater level – this is what lies behind the hon. Gentleman’s question about family benefits in total – expenditure has risen from well under £2 billion when we took office to well over £5 billion today.

    Mr. Ralph Howell Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is no longer acceptable to take tax from people who earn less than a third of the national average wage to give child benefit to the richest people in the country? How much money would be saved if only those earning under £20,000 a year received child benefit?

    Mr. Major I cannot immediately give my hon. Friend an answer. It would certainly be a substantial amount, but child benefit is recognised as a universal benefit paid to the mother, and we have no intention of changing that arrangement.

    Mr. Boateng Will the Chancellor explain how it is that a Government who purport to put the family at the heart of their policies have presided over an increase by more than a half of families living on or below the poverty line, who now number 6.2 million? How does that square with the party of the family? How does he explain a situation in which targeting the first-born is seen as some sort of a substitute for coherent family policy? There may be an historical precedent for that, but it did not do Pharaoh any good and it will not do the Prime Minister any either.

    Mr. Major We return to the definitional point with which we commenced Question Time. What the hon. Gentleman refers to as the poverty line is the level at which social security benefits start. Because we have extended them much more dramatically than the previous Government, more people automatically fall within the statistics.

    Miss Emma Nicholson Does my right hon. Friend agree that under the Conservatives payments to the family have risen by more than a quarter while under the previous Labour Government they fell by 8 per cent?

    Mr. Major I certainly agree with my hon. Friend, except that the figures are, I think, a little more favourable to the present Government than she said.

  • Mr Major’s Commons Response to the Poverty Debate – 30 January 1986

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Commons response to the Poverty Debate, held on 30th January 1986.

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

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

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

    One might ask, where is the evidence? I believe it to be the frightening catalogue of social concern, which is the most distressing that I have ever come across in my time. One in five people in Barnsley is now without a job. In January this year 16,897 people were on the dole, and there was a 20 per cent. rate of unemployment, approximately 6 per cent. higher than the national average and 9.2 per cent. higher than in 1981.

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

    In November, 16,739 people were claiming unemployment benefit in the Barnsley travel-to-work area. Most disturbing was the rise in the number of long-term unemployed. Although most people believe them to be in the older age brackets, that is just not true in my town. Of the registered claimants between 19 and 24 years of age, there were 1,087 people unemployed over the year. That is 45.4 per cent. of all the registered unemployed in that age category. What a damning indictment of the Government it is that so many young people in one small town in Britain should be condemned to the dole for so long with no hope on the horizon. What, then, of their poverty?

    Since the beginning of 1981, 11,420 redundancies in Barnsley have been notified to the Department of Employment. Barnsley council is on a fast-moving treadmill, struggling to fight this surge of job losses. The Regional Manpower Intelligence Unit in January 1985 compared the vacancy levels in travel-to-work areas throughout England. Barnsley was ranked as having the second highest number of unemployed per vacancy in England, with 128 registered unemployed for every vacancy.

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

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

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

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

    Some 50 per cent. of all Barnsley households are in receipt of housing benefit. Earlier this year the housing department undertook a review of the waiting list. The review revealed that there are now more than 4,700 people on the council’s waiting list. That means that over the past two years the waiting list has grown by 16 per cent. and in some cases in the borough the list has grown by more than 20 per cent. Of particular concern is the increased number of old-age pensioners on the list and the increasing demand for single person accommodation, which has increased by 22 per cent. over the past two years. During that time the number of single persons sharing households has increased from 200 to 286, an increase of 43 per cent. That is another tragic story of social distress for which the Government must accept responsibility.

    The ratio of new house building has declined markedly in the council sector due almost entirely to Government restrictions. The rate of council house building has declined from an average of 330 units per annum in the mid-1970s to 128 in 1981-82; 15 units in 1982-83; 19 units in 1983-84; and 33 units in 1984-85.

    With regard to housing benefits, I quote the case study of a miner’s widow on a widow’s pension of £38.38 and an NCB pension of £8.43. She receives a total housing benefit of £11.53. Under the new scheme her total housing benefit will be £9.01, a weekly loss of £2.52. That sum will be taken away from a miner’s widow. Bearing in mind that 50 per cent. of all Barnsley householders are in receipt of housing benefit, thousands more people will be driven into deeper poverty because of the effects of the Social Security Bill now going through the House.

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

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

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

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

    The emergence of loan sharks during the recent miners’ strike was a new and worrying social phenomenon. Mrs. Catherine Allan, the Barnsley citizens advice bureau organiser, wrote to me and said: During 1984-85 the bureau dealt with 1,751 social security inquiries – a 63 per cent. increase in one year. In December 1985 the Barnsley CAB dealt with 731 inquiries compared with 569 in December 1984. Indicators of the increasing poverty of clients are the large numbers of debt problems. I received a letter from the Soldiers’, Sailors’ and Airmen’s Families Association. Mr. J. R. Foster. secretary of the Barnsley division, said: 1985 saw an increase of 25 per cent. in the number of applicants, a 33 per cent. increase in the Funds disbursed, and of the total number of cases, 41 per cent. were for assistance with. fuel, light, water rates and funeral expenses.

    I have one case of a pensioner whose gas supply was cut off two years ago, one of a pensioner who has had no water supply since October 85 and some others who are or have been subject of court orders. Some of these are elderly ladies and the thought of court action frightens them a great deal so they cut out other things to pay these bills. I may add that being the widow of ex servicemen or the men themselves, they are very uptight at having suffered the privations of wartime service they have to call on SSAFA and like organisations in their last years. Fiona Moss, the secretary of Age Concern in Barnsley, wrote to me saying: I am perturbed by the increasing number of enquiries related to the standard of living of this area. In fact some are individuals who through pride have deliberately avoided what they believe to be the acceptance of charity. Many tears have been shed in my office.

    We have miners widows with approximately £7 a week extra pension. Their claim for housing benefits are reduced by the same amount. She goes on to say: Can we afford to die? The £30 state grant is soon to be abolished. What will replace it? Our local paper states that elderly people worry about a ‘Pauper’s Grave’, and figures show that a Barnsley family paid almost £600 for a funeral in 1985 compared to £90 in 1972. I should know – it was my own mother’s funeral. In the past with fuller employment many elderly people were cared for by their own families. These families are also now in the poverty trap. I get many more of these families coming for advice about their parents’ problems – they themselves are at their wits end struggling to survive on low incomes. What a tale of woe and distress and more and more poverty.

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

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

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

    The financial and housing restraints on the under-25 age group, forcing young people to stay in sometimes intolerable family situations, will lead to increased family stress and breakdown in Barnsley. I received a report from one welfare rights worker at the Barnsley centre against unemployment, which says: One of the most serious problems faced by the young unemployed is their inability to find accommodation. Shortage of rented property has forced up rents and many landlords refuse to let their property to unemployed people. Consequently, many young unemployed people find themselves having to move into board and lodging accommodation, the disadvantages of which have recently been exacerbated by the new board and lodging regulations, resulting mainly from landlords charging exorbitant rates for their accommodation in the knowledge of DHSS payments.

    Although landlords have been largely to blame for the abuse of the system it is the young unemployed who have been penalised by reduction in benefits and time limits on their receipt of payment. Within two days of each other two young men, aged 16 and 17, attempted suicide, one by an overdose of valium and the other by slashing his wrists with broken glass. They were both lodgers in the same boarding house and both faced penalisation under the four week rule. In the same week, the week beginning 13 January, an 18 year old girl also overdosed. It is a nonsense to say that the under 25s should, if they have no employment, remain at home. The girl mentioned desperately needed her own accommodation due to her father’s violence towards her. Also unemployed families have their benefits reduced by having adult children at home leading often to domestic tension and violence. It is all so sickening to me and I hope that it is to the Minister.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The right hon. Gentleman talked about housing and some of the related problems. To help Barnsley overcome its difficulties, some £6.7 million has been allocated under the housing investment programme, and there is a further allocation of up to £1 million to meet obligations under the Housing Defects Act 1984. Despite those and other initiatives with which I shall not bore the House, Barnsley faces great problems, many of which spill over into social security requirements.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The new family credit scheme will cost substantially more than family income supplement – about twice as much. It should reach more than 400,000 families – double the present number on family income supplement. Almost all those families will be better off than they are with family income supplement. On the basis of the illustrative rates in the technical annex to the White Paper, a couple with two children on gross earnings of £100 could receive £27.40 in family credit compared with £5.50 on family income supplement.

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

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

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

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

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

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Poverty (Definition) – 9 December 1985

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Poverty (Definition) on 9th December 1985.

    Mr. Soames Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what definition of poverty he uses in the context of those policies and programmes for which he is responsible.

    Mr. Major There is no single agreed definition of poverty. I would, however, draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the discussion of measures of poverty and their relevance to social security contained in the Green Paper “Reform of Social Security” (Cmnd. 9517) volume 1, paragraph 4.7.