UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Speeches

  • Roger Moate – 1986 Speech on Seatbelts

    Below is the text of the speech made by Roger Moate, the then Conservative MP for Faversham, in the House of Commons on 13 January 1986.

    Like the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) I feel a sense of pride at having taken some small part in the legislation which we enacted some years ago. It was not achieved without a great deal of battling over many years. That is why many of us feel a great deal of pleasure at, in the words of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary when he introduced the measure, the public’s wholehearted and instant acceptance of the measure. In that we do not include my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), but that would have been rather too much to hope for.

    One of the most striking things has been, despite all the prognostications of the opponents, that the public have accepted the measure as a commonsense one that contributes greatly to road safety. That is in stark contrast to their forecasts at the time.

    It has been suggested that my hon. and learned Friend made the same speech that he made several years ago. That was not a fair accusation because he has completely shifted the grounds of his argument. It is significant to recall the forecasts made by the opponents of the measure. First, they forecast that it would be unenforceable by the police. That was a common cry. In fact there have been a dramatic increase to about 95 per cent. in the public wearing of seat belts. I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend is big enough to admit that there have been no problems over enforceability. We were told that there would be massive resentment by the public against this measure which would cause animosity towards the police. That, again, has not happened.

    My hon. and learned Friend significantly admitted that fewer people might be hurled through windscreens and that there would be fewer front seat deaths. The measures opponents were denying that some years ago. That was the point of their argument. They said that that would not happen. I am sure we can at least agree that there has been a significant reduction in front-seat passenger deaths. That is important proof of the sense of the legislation.

    I find extraordinary the ground onto which the opponents have moved. In effect they are saying that this safety device is so effective that it makes people complacent and that therefore other deaths result. That is a strange argument and I hope that we do not try to apply it too often in the sphere of safety. If one carried the argument to absurd lengths, one might do away with brakes, because brakes make drivers more careless. If they had no brakes they would drive so much more carefully and fewer injuries would be inflicted on pedestrians and cyclists. We might do away with fire extinguishers because they make people careless about fires. My hon. and learned Friend is admitting that this safety device works so well and drivers are so confident of it that it increases their carelessness.

    My hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) started by admitting that there had been an inexplicable increase in rear-seat accidents, and deaths of and injuries to pedestrians, cyclists and motor cyclists, and cited that as evidence that the wearing of seat belts causes injury to others. That is absolute nonsense. The facts remain as shown by a range of inquiries, including an independent assessment that at least 200 lives a year have been saved. My hon. Friend and others say, “We heard a figure of 1,000 a year”. That is true, but my hon. and learned Friend will remember that, in those debates, many of us said that even if only 100 lives a year were saved, it must be worth doing.

    My hon. and learned Friend’s arguments about civil liberties, which sound strange when applied to the rules of the road and are quite inapplicable in that area, subside into nothing when compared with a saving of life on the scale about which we are talking.

    Mr. Lawrence

    What assessment does my hon. Friend give to the success or otherwise of the drink-driving regulations?

    Mr. Moate

    My hon. and learned Friend must remember that we are talking about net figures, and about increases in some other figures that could equally be attributable in that way. The figures have been carefully analysed by independent assessors. My hon. and learned Friend will not accept them in a month of Sundays, but other independent assessors and a mass of evidence say that we have at least achieved that worthwhile and significant reduction in casualties on the road. After all these years, I should have thought that my hon. and learned Friend would start to see the sense of the argument. Even if he remains an almost lone and obstinate voice on this issue—[HON. MEMBERS: “He is not alone.”] I said “almost”.

    The point is that the majority of the British public accepts this as common sense. If my hon. and learned Friend fears that the legislation causes more injuries to rear-seat passengers, I hope that he will follow the logic ​ of his argument and accept compulsory restraints on rear-seat passengers to help to reduce casualties on the road. But even then, I fear that his phoney arguments about civil liberties in this instance will always be more important to him than reducing the carnage on our roads.

  • Roger Stott – 1986 Speech on Seatbelts

    Below is the text of the speech made by Roger Stott, the then Labour MP for Wigan, in the House of Commons on 13 January 1986.

    It would be impertinent if the Front-Bench speakers took more than the minimum time in this debate, because this is a House of Commons matter. Each hon. Member must make up his or her mind whether to agree with the proposition. I do not intend to spend a great deal of time advocating my support for the points made by the Under-Secretary of State. That is not to say that I do not believe implicitly or fervently in what he said, but I believe that I should give other hon Members time to deploy their arguments.

    I do not know what motivates hon. Members to walk down a particular Damascus road, but I note that the Under-Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Transport have decided that the evidence compiled by their Department has convinced them that the way in which they voted the last time this matter was discussed was wrong. I presume that they will reverse that decision and vote in favour of the continuation of the compulsory wearing of seat belts. I do not say that in a malevolent sense; I say it in a spirit of good will to them, because I believe that they have now had an opportunity to look objectively at the overwhelming evidence that has come forward since the experiment.

    I appreciate the efforts, work and commitment of the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) in all the road safety matters that we have discussed since she has been a member of the Government, especially since she has been concerned with transport. There are not many measures during the six years of the Conservative party’s term in office with which I am proud to be associated. There is little legislation that I would commend to anyone. I am, however, proud to be associated with the 1981 transport legislation. The hon. Member for Wallasey deserves credit for ensuring that it reached the statute book. She is right in claiming credit for the lives that have been saved and the accidents and fatal injuries that have been prevented as a result of the wearing of seat belts.

    It would be academic of me if I were to rebut the views of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) with a typewritten script from the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety on the virtues of compulsory seat belt wearing. I doubt that I would convince him of its arguments. Many important people concerned with road safety support the council’s claims, including the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Automobile Association, the British Medical Association, the Casualty Surgeons Association, the Child Accident Prevention Trust, the County Road Safety Officers Association, the County Surveyors Society, the Institute of Road Safety Officers, the Medical Commission on Accident Prevention, the Motor Conference, the Royal Society for ​ the Prevention of Accidents and the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. I concede that the Cyclists Association and Friends of the Earth might take a different view and might disagree with the overwhelming evidence on the compulsory wearing of seat belts which the House has received during the past three years. I accept that in a democracy they have an absolute right to do that, in the same way as I accept that Dr. Adams has a right to proffer his analysis. Unfortunately, my record shows that the hon. Member for Keighley did not vote in the last Division on this issue. I refer him to Hansard of 28 July 1981 where I took Dr. Adams to task for his assertions that the compulsory wearing of seat belts would not be beneficial. Dr. Adams tilts at conventional windmills. I do not disregard that. Long may he continue to do so, but I believe that on this occasion, as on the last, his evidence is seriously flawed. He has not satisfied me—

    Mr. Lawrence

    The hon. Gentleman is an ordinary Member of the House.

    Mr. Stott

    He must satisfy me as an hon. Member. The fact that I am propped up against the Dispatch Box gives me no more rights than the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). Dr. Adams has failed to convince me that what he is saying is correct. I do not believe that it is.

    There is abundant evidence to support our case. The compulsory wearing of seat belts has saved lives and has prevented injuries to and the disfigurement of many car drivers. If the House of Commons is about doing anything it is about doing that. I rest on what I said a little earlier: this is one piece of legislation with which I have been proud to be associated during the past six years. I shall vote for its renewal this evening.

  • Gary Waller – 1986 Speech on Seatbelts

    Below is the text of the speech made by Gary Waller, the then Conservative MP for Keighley, in the House of Commons on 13 January 1986.

    Some believe that there is no philosophical issue involved in this matter—in other words, if any measure such as this saves lives, it is justified. There are others for whom the matter is equally simple. They argue that it is entirely a matter of individual freedom, and that expediency cannot override principle. Finally there are those—among whom I count myself—who are perhaps the majority in the country, who accept that some element of freedom is compromised, but on the whole, are prepared to put up with such an impairment of their freedom if there is a clear safety benefit.

    It goes without saying that if one is involved in an accident when wearing a seat belt, one stands a better chance of avoiding death or serious injury than if one is unbelted. The statistics show clearly that following the introduction of compulsory front seat belt wearing, more drivers and front seat passengers are surviving than before. Those who are blind to argument would say, “End of story”, but those who are anxious to get at the truth will look at the position of other road users, because of the possibility that drivers will act differently if they feel more secure.

    Those who want to pour scorn on such a hypothesis may do so by appealing to subjective observation. At first sight, that seems reasonable. Most people say that they do not feel that they are taking a greater risk because they are wearing a belt, and nobody has been able to detect whether drivers wearing a seat belt drive faster or more dangerously than they would if they did not. To suggest that such a difference would or could be detected is to distort the theory that driving behaviour is altered by perception of risk.

    Unfortunately, fatal accidents happen every day, but every day many millions of miles are covered by motorists, and a fatality occurs once in every 1,000 million miles driven. The difference in behaviour only needs to be infinitesimal and, certainly, immeasurable to have an effect on the casualty rates.

    More people may see the point of the argument, if we reverse the process. Take away a seat belt from a rally driver, and who would deny that he would drive more cautiously? If he crashes the result may be more calamitous, but is it not more likely that he will take great care to ensure that he does not crash, and will he not take a fraction of a second more when he encounters a bend, and brake a fraction of a second early to increase his chances of reaching his destination? Enough of theory. Let us see what has happened in practice.

    Professors Durbin and Harvey, who were commissioned by the Department of Transport to carry out an analysis of the statistics, rely mainly on the figures for those killed and seriously injured, rather than on fatalities alone. Where the change in fatalities appears to support the risk-compensation hypothesis they fall back on the number of those killed and seriously injured. However, those figures are open to misunderstanding and misreporting.

    A serious injury may require the casualty to remain in hospital for only one night. The Transport and Road Research Laboratory says that 59 per cent. of serious injuries to cyclists are never reported to the police, and the British Medical Association claims that the figure is even higher. Therefore, the figures of those seriously injured are open to extreme doubt.

    What do Durbin and Harvey say when they find fatalities that are inconsistent with the view that seat belts bring about a safer environment? On page 51 of the Department’s report, they state

    “The fact remains that we find the large proportionate increase in rear seat passengers killed hard to understand … We are reluctant to accept changes in driving behaviour as an explanation since these would be expected to lead to a corresponding increase in numbers seriously injured and there is no evidence of such an increase. We must therefore leave the sharp rise in the number of rear seat passengers killed as an unexplained mystery, at least until more evidence is available.”

    Had the House had an opportunity to extend the experimental period, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) suggested, more such evidence could have become available. Regrettably, the House has not been granted that option.

    In the two years following the introduction of compulsion, the increase in deaths among rear seat passengers was 18 per cent. Durbin and Harvey were also at a loss to explain increases in casualties among cyclists and pedestrians. When we examine the figures more carefully, we find that the increases did not occur for cyclists and pedestrians killed because they came into contact with heavy goods vehicles, but, because they were hit by cars and light vans, most of whose drivers were wearing seat belts. On page 31 of their report, Durbin and Harvey accepted that the evidence was unmistakable. They said

    “There remains strong evidence of a substantial increase in numbers of cyclists killed in accidents with cars.”

    As they pointed to an increase of about 40 per cent., that conclusion was unavoidable.

    Even for those who accept all the arguments favouring compulsion, the fatality statistics for motorists must be a serious disappointment. In 1977 the then Labour Minister, Mr. William Rodgers, forecast that 1,000 lives a year would be saved. By 1982 the Department of Transport suggested a figure of 700 or fewer, and on this morning’s radio a spokesman for the BMA was talking about 200. The Lancet admitted

    “There will be regret that the evidence on deaths is not more one-sided and disappointment that the measure has fallen short of its promise.”

    The fact that the Department’s chosen statisticians, Durbin and Harvey, neglected to take into account was the concerted effort against drink-driving which also began in the first part of the same year, 1983, with the introduction of the evidential breath testing machine and the jump in prosecutions. There was a significant drop in the number of drivers killed who were found to be over the limit and ​ 160—curiously close to 200—fewer drunken drivers died in 1983 than in 1982. Most significant of all, the number killed between 10 pm and 4 am, often described as the drink-drive hours, fell by 23 per cent. compared with a drop of only 3 per cent. at all other times of day. The Department’s statisticians attributed all the savings to seat belts but the evidence points in a very different direction.

    The Lancet said, referring to Dr. Adams, that it was

    “unhelpful of the Department of Transport to have suppressed an evaluation supporting his doubts.”

    More charitably, I would say that the 1981 evaluation of the experience of compulsion in other countries was not intended for publication. Nevertheless, it accepted Adam’s finding of an increase in pedestrian injuries in every one of the eight countries which had introduced compulsion and described the statistical odds against achieving eight such positive results as one in 256. It also warned that the predominance of increased casualty rates for pedestrians was “alarming” and noted that

    “since pedestrians account for 20 per cent. of casualties in Britain and the law effect seems positive for them”

    in other words, casualties increased—

    “closer scrutiny is called for.”

    That seems to be a serious understatement.

    Given that the evidence points to a seriously increased risk for non-motorists, it is not surprising that alarm has been expressed by representatives of pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists. Motorcycle organisations noted that despite new safety legislation passed by the House and despite a proven reduction in drinking and riding, casualties among motorcyclists did not fall.

    The representative of the Pedestrians’ Association on the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety drew attention to the fact that the organisation had ignored some of Durbin and Harvey’s findings and the representatives of the Cyclists Touring Club and Friends of the Earth, who had originally favoured compulsion, also changed their minds when they saw the effects.

    Mr. Sheerman

    Does the hon. Gentleman admit that those three organisations did not change their stance to one of anti-compulsion but merely said that they would be neutral and that they are only three out of 48 members of PACTS?

    Mr. Waller

    The three representatives to whom I have referred are now decidely against compulsion, having previously supported it.

    One major motoring organisation quotes as fact figures for casualty savings which the most ardent pro-compulsion lobbyists would not dare to claim as proven. Another claims that at least the net effect is probably positive. In effect, an increase in casualties among pedestrians and two-wheelers is regarded as acceptable if there is a sufficient reduction in driver and passenger casualties. I hope that Ministers disagree with that attitude, but if some of the evidence produced by the Department itself is to be accepted the conclusion that in endorsing the regulations we accept a transfer of the burden of risk from the best protected to the most vulnerable is inescapable. If one examines the department’s own evidence fairly it points, regrettably, in that direction.

    My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, whom I, too, congratulate on her new appointment, said in defence of compulsion—and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) made the ​ same point—that she had received a number of letters of thanks from motorists saved by seat belts. The graves of those who died because some drivers took greater risks bear no distinguishing signs and my hon Friend the Minister will not be receiving any letters from them. Nevertheless, if one takes the fatality statistics as the only ones with which one cannot argue, if one considers the effects of drink-drive legislation which were ignored by the statisticians, and if one considers the international evidence, and if one asks why more pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists have died than one would have expected, only one conclusion is possible—that we should not approve the regulations today.

  • George Robertson – 1986 Speech on Seatbelts

    Below is the text of the speech made by George Robertson, the then Labour MP for Hamilton, in the House of Commons on 13 January 1986.

    At a social occasion last summer in my constituency a young man came up to me and said that he had started to wear a seat belt because the law said that he had to do so, but that he had resisted it until then because he believed many of the arguments advanced by some hon. Members. A notable example of those arguments has been reiterated by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). However, this young man said, “Last week I was in a road accident and there is no doubt in my mind that as a consequence of that road accident, had I not been wearing a seat belt, I should be dead or so severely injured that I would not be out and about tonight. So I suppose I have to thank you, and the likes of you, by persuading me, through the law, to wear a seat belt, for the very fact that I am here and able to speak to you this evening.” That spoke more eloquently to me than anything else that I have heard, certainly this evening, about what the general public believe has been the advantage of the law that Parliament passed three years ago.

    Reference has already been made to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) and I, too would congratulate her this evening on her apparent elevation to the Foreign Office, even if the consequence of that will be that she will suffer the attacks, not of my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), but of myself in another incarnation. We believe that it is being seen as promotion, and we wish her well because she has supervised this issue with great assiduousness.

    I have a slight interest to declare in this debate. As chairman of the seat belt survivors club, I have been in contact with a large number of people who have had their lives saved and who have been saved from serious injury because over the years they have worn a seat belt in accidents that would otherwise have rendered them dead or infirm.

    I admit that over the years I have become a zealot on this issue. I wore my seat belt for many years because I thought that it made common sense. Nine years ago this Sunday I was involved in a head-on collision with a Land Rover, and only as a consequence of wearing a seat belt was I saved from almost certain death. That certainly concentrated the mind and gave me an enthusiasm for the issue.

    I have always believed, and I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House who have supported the measure have believed, that this was a matter of common sense. We are reassured by the fact that over the three years since the law came in, what was a matter of great controversy, of almost endless debate in the House and repeated votes, with large majorities in favour, is now a matter of no controversy at all. The vast majority of motorists put on their seat belts now with no more thought than they give to making sure that the doors of the car are firmly closed behind them.

    Ninety four per cent. of motorists are now using seat belts. The statistics that the Minister gave are eloquent testimony to the success of the measure. The Minister is a brave man this evening to come to the Dispatch Box and admit that he was one who was not convinced but has now had conviction forced upon him. He is not alone in that. One of the most vivid speeches in all the debates on the subject that I can remember was that by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), who gave his personal testimony to his scepticism on the issue and the conviction that was imposed upon him by his experience as a Minister at the Department of Transport and the vivid recollections that he had of the casualty wards in hospitals and the sight of the road accident victims within them.

    This is without doubt the single most successful road safety measure that Britain has ever seen. It costs nothing in civil liberty and financial terms, and it has saved so much. It has saved the suffering and the pain that goes with the road casualty figures every day of this life. It has saved our nation at least £130 million. More than that, it has saved countless numbers of maimings, blindings and cripplings, which are the real human manifestation of the road accident statistics that are represented in the savings that have been put forward over the past three years.

    The hon. and learned Member for Burton made virtually the same speech tonight as we heard three years ago and in practically every other debate beforehand. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) says that the hon. and learned Member did not vote.

    Some have chosen to support Dr. John Adams’s theory of risk compensation, and this is an attractive and eloquent theory, put forward by somebody whose mastery of the statistics gives him a bogus authority. Is his theory worth anything? If it works in this case, why does it not work in every other case where preventative measures have been taken in road safety? Are we to abandon all safety measures for people on the roads and in their cars simply because a questionable, flimsy, tendentious theory suggests that those who are belted have more confidence and start knocking down pedestrians, cyclists and motor cyclists? I am sure that the vast majority of the population would reject that theory, and they have shown that they have done so by the act that they continue to wear their seat belts.

    Some have said that the numbers saved from death and serious injury are smaller than was suggested by the proponents of the measure when this issue was last debated in Parliament. That is so, but the estimates were never likely to be precise, any more than the statistics used this evening are precise. We know that if the usage rate were to go from 94 to 100 per cent., the chances are that the targets established on the guesses and best estimates would be met.

    At least 200 more people a year are alive who would otherwise be dead, and at least 7,000 who would otherwise ​ be seriously injured are able to get around. We are told that there has been a 25 per cent. reduction in admissions to hospitals of front seat road accident victims, and a 30 per cent. reduction in hospital inpatients from road accidents. There has been a 40 per cent. reduction in major and minor brain injuries among those injured in car accidents. Are these not testimony enough to the valuable and life-preserving measure?

    Three years ago, thanks to the skill and opportunity of Lord Nugent, a former Conservative Transport Minister, in the other place, this House had a chance to embrace this life-saving legislation. As it always has done, the House gave the measure its support. The evidence has been clear. People have been saved, and we must therefore consolidate that success.

  • David Mitchell – 1986 Statement on Seatbelts

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Mitchell, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, in the House of Commons on 13 January 1986.

    I beg to move, That the continuance in force of the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts) Regulations 1982 (S.I., 1982, No. 1203) be approved.

    The purpose of this evening’s debate is to enable the House to consider whether it wishes to continue the decision taken by Parliament in 1981 that drivers and front seat passengers in cars and light vans should be required by law to wear their seat belts.

    The background, as the House will recall, is that the decision to make belt wearing compulsory was taken only after years of argument, both inside and outside Parliament, over the case for such a measure. As the controversy had raged so fiercely and had continued for so long, Parliament took the view that there should be one further opportunity to consider the entire issue again after an initial period and decide in the light of experience whether compulsory seat belt wearing should continue indefinitely. Hence the provision in the Transport Act 1981 that the regulations, under which compulsion took effect, would lapse automatically after three years unless this House and another place resolve that they remain in force. The three years expire at the end of this month and the time has therefore now come to take a decision. Just in case there is any misunderstanding, let me make it quite clear that the issue is simply whether to make the regulations permanent or allow them to lapse; there is no provision for modifying the regulations or renewing them only for a further limited period. I remind the House also that the law on the restraining of children in cars is not subject to the review procedure. It is not covered by tonight’s debate and will continue in any event.

    Although we are returning to an issue which has been discussed many times before in this House, there is, of course, one important difference between tonight’s proceedings and all the earlier debates. On those occasions we could look at the issue only in terms of what people thought would or would not happen in the event of seat belt wearing becoming law. Tonight we can consider what actually has happened. Instead of merely speculating, we have moved into the business of observing and recording. Rather than relying on endless hypotheses, we have real facts to work on.

    To ensure that all the relevant information is available to Parliament, the Government have conducted, as we promised, a comprehensive monitoring programme, ​ designed to study the practical effects of the belt legislation from every possible angle. The results are set out in our report published last October, which I trust all hon. Members will have studied. The report provides a full statistical analysis—carried out by departmental statisticians and the Transport and Road Research Laboratory—of seat belt wearing rates and the effect of seat belt wearing on casualty trends. It also includes detailed studies by hospitals and universities on the consequences of seat belt wearing in terms of the nature and severity of road accident injuries.

    As seat belt compulsion continues to arouse strong feelings in many quarters, with particular attention focusing on the interpretation of all the statistical evidence, the Government thought it right that, in addition to our own monitoring exercise, there should be an entirely independent analysis of all the statistics carried out by expert assessors from outside the Government. We are most grateful to Professors Durbin and Harvey of the London School of Economics for undertaking this task. Their report was published as a clearly separated annex to the Department’s own report.

    What does the evidence tell us? First, it tells us that there has been instant and wholehearted acceptance of the seat belt law on the part of motorists. Up to the end of 1982 the proportion of drivers and front-seat passengers wearing belts never exceeded 40 per cent. Immediately the law came in, the wearing rate rose to around 95 per cent. and has remained consistently at that level, with no sign whatever of any fall off. This is a remarkable achievement, especially when we consider that in no other country with a seat belt law has the overall wearing rate even begun to approach the sort of level that we have here. Our own observations have been confirmed by the police, who report that the law has been almost entirely self-enforcing.

    Why should the public adapt so readily to the seat belt law, when their previous attitude was no more than halfhearted? The most likely answer must surely be that the seat belt law came just at the right time to catch the tide of public opinion. The majority of people had, I believe, all but decided for themselves that wearing a seat belt was a sensible thing to do to reduce the risk of death or injury in the event of an accident. All the legislation did was clinch that decision for them. The law was accepted because it equated with what people judged to be in their own interests.

    The next question must be whether people’s faith in seat belt wearing has been justified in the light of experience. I will say straight out that in our view, the answer has to be an unequivocal yes. This is the opinion, not just of the Department of Transport, but of all those who have been directly involved in research on seat belt wearing. It is a view shared by virtually the entire medical profession, the police and all those working in road safety.

    The evidence to support this conclusion is set out for all to see in the Department’s report, backed up by the independent assessment of Professors Durbin and Harvey. The most striking facts are surely these: since the seat belt law took effect, there has been a substantial net reduction in road casualties—at the very minimum, an annual saving of 200 deaths and a further saving of 7,000 serious injuries. On a large sample of some 14 hospitals which are generally recognised as representative by the medical ​ profession, there has been a reduction of no less than 25 per cent. in the admission of car accident victims to wards, with a comparable fall in bed occupancy.

    The 200 deaths and 7,000 serious injuries prevented are net figures which take account of changes in the number of rear seat passengers and pedestrians involved in accidents. No one making a proper study of the evidence could seriously argue that trends as clear as these are merely a coincidence. They can only be a direct result of the massive increase in the use of seat belts.

    Some people, I know, are worried that there is a debit as well as a credit to seat belt wearing. The notion that seat belts encourage drivers to take risks they would not otherwise take has had a lot of attention from the media and from groups concerned with the safety of vulnerable road users, but, despite exhaustive analysis inside and outside the Government, there is no material evidence to support this allegation. The theory has been studied in this country—it has been studied throughout the world—but nowhere has it been in any way substantiated by the facts.

    In any case, let me make it quite clear that the annual saving of 200 deaths and 7,000 injuries to which I referred earlier are net figures, arrived at after allowing for every possible relevant factor, including increases in casualties among certain road users. Seat belt wearing has to be seen as an outstanding success in terms of reducing casualties. Experience since the law took effect has confirmed the results of the earlier research conducted here and abroad. Wearing a seat belt substantially reduces the chances of death or serious injury in the event of an accident.

    Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South)

    Will the Minister give way?

    Mr. Mitchell

    I was hoping to speak briefly, as I know that many hon. Members wish to speak. If there are questions to which I must reply, I shall ask leave of the House to do so.

    With the case for seat belt wearing demonstrated so emphatically, the Government’s view is that the right course must be to establish the law permanently. Given the evidence that we have, to abandon compulsion at this stage would make no sense from any angle.

    There is still, of course, the argument that, however strong the case for wearing a seat belt may be, the decision should remain a matter of individual choice, rather than be enforced by law. I do not lightly dismiss that point of view. This Government are, after all, fully committed to minimising the regulation of people’s lives, but I hope that even those for whom this argument had force earlier will be ready to reconsider their view in the light of experience over the past three years. I originally had considerable doubts about the principle of compulsion, but, in the light of the evidence that I have studied, I am persuaded that the law should be allowed to stand.

    The House needs no reminder from me of the possible consequences of road accidents for the victim, his family, his friends and colleagues and the community at large. Experience over the past three years has shown that one way of minimising the risk is by the simple act of putting on a seat belt. Ninety five per cent. of drivers and front seat passengers are taking advantage of that facility. I hope that their decision to do so will be endorsed by the House on our first sitting day in European Road Safety Year.

  • Richard Page – 1985 Speech on the Greenbelt in Hertfordshire

    Below is the text of the speech made by Richard Page, the then Conservative MP for Hertfordshire South-West, in the House of Commons on 19 December 1985.

    I thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for coming to answer an issue that has generated a great deal of enthusiasm, heat and anger in my constituency and in the other Hertfordshire constituencies. I would like my hon. Friend to imagine that I have beside me, as I know I have in spirit, all the other Hertfordshire Members. I am pleased to see a more physical manifestation in the shape of my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Murphy).

    The subject of the debate is of concern not only to hon. Members for Hertfordshire, as other hon. Members have approached me and offered their support. Councils from outside Hertfordshire have written to ask me to support their interests over the green belt.

    I do not intend to deal with the history and justifications behind the creation of the green belt. Regular consultations take place as part of that process, and in January 1985, the Hertfordshire structure plan review consultation document was published. The document was generally well received. There was strong opposition from the housing and construction industry, which believed that the review of the county structure plan needed to make provision for at least a further 12,500 to 22,000 units.

    For this and a variety of other reasons, it was felt that further consultation should take place, and that took place in April of this year, on the new development options. It concerned incremental and major growth, all of which involved taking considerable acres from the green belt for housing development. The people of Hertfordshire were asked for their views on the building of about 72,500 homes in the county before 1996, an increase of 20,000 on the figure that was put forward earlier in the year. There has been a high level of response to those consultations and to date replies have been received from 336 groups and 1,072 individuals. All but about 50 have been against the proposal. Of the 50 who have written in in support, most have expressed qualified support.

    In addition, the individual Hertfordshire Members have received representations directly themselves. I have been inundated by concerns and queries from my constituents, especially from those living in the village of Bovingdon, which is in the heart of my constituency. I understand from the consultation document that there is the possibility of about 700 homes being constructed there. If the proposal were implemented, it would destroy the environment and the character of the village. In the end, I had to beg my constituents to stop writing to me on the issue, especially from Bovingdon. I contacted the parish council and asked it to tell everybody that I had the message and that I would be supporting what they were saying, which was that 700 homes should not come into the area.

    In addition, I consulted the two district councils, the borough of Dacorum, and Three Rivers district council. The Dacorum council resolved that it was not satisfied that the levels of dwelling provision contained in the new issue consultation document had been adequately justified and requested ​

    “the county council to make a thorough examination of the Department of the Environment and the SERplan household forecasts, taking into account the importance of maintaining inner city policies. That it would be opposed to further development in the green belt as currently defined and would seek to maintain a policy of containing developments within urban areas. Finally, to inform the county council that the location of any further development should be established by the borough council through the local planning process.”

    That was a clear-cut and unequivocal reply to the new consultation document.
    Three Rivers district council was concerned to resist the efforts to nibble at the green belt and was worried about pressures that might flow from circular 14/85, headed “The Green Belt”, and circular 15/84, headed “Land for Housing”. There are obvious conflicts in the advice that is given in the two circulars. Three Rivers council is concerned especially about paragraph 4 of circular 14/85. I shall not go into the paragraph in detail, but it seems to avoid the realities. It points the way to the development of the white line, which in turn will bring it hard up against the urban edge, which in turn will produce greater pressures to re-draw the green belt. The routeing of the M25 through my constituency will inevitably create the temptation to make it the natural limit of permissible development. That is of concern.

    I hope that the House will excuse the pun, but I do not believe that the green belt should be set in concrete for ever. There must be a little flexibility. Allowance should be made for building lines to be straightened and for sensible and regional density infillings, but not to the level suggested. It is possible that 2,000 of the 20,000 homes for Hertfordshire will be located in Dacorum. People chose to live in south-west Hertfordshire because of the environment. Many people say that more development should be permitted to allow local people the chance of getting a home. Unless there was a vast increase in planning permission, the cost of land would not decrease substantially to allow that wish to be fulfilled. I do not believe that I have been elected by my constituents to see my constituency covered in tarmac and concrete.

    I do not blame those in the housing and construction industry for seeking permission to build more houses. They have a business to run. Of course it is easier to build on a greenfield site. In the past few months, we have heard much about the state of our inner cities. We have had the panoply of the Church of England putting pressure on us to do something about the inner cities. In anything to do with development, it must be the duty of authorities to restore, renovate and rebuild the inner cities rather than develop the greenfield sites. I point as a hopeful sign to the redevelopments on the docklands. We can build on that example.

    I return to the question of flexibility and the idea that there can be some tolerance around the edge of the green belt. I have a suggestion. I know that it is not new and I put it forward without having consulted either of my two local councils, so I might be out of order with them. I suggest that there could be merit in considering the idea that, while housing development should be concentrated in the towns, the rate of housing development in rural areas should not be allowed to exceed the rate of 0·5 per cent. per annum of existing housing stock. This could be administered through and by local district councils. I know that this was not approved in 1979 by the Secretary of State ​ because of representations by district councils on that structure plan, but I believe that it would give flexibility to local councils and might merit reconsideration.

    I understand that the results of this consultation process will be considered on 13 January by the county planning committee, which will look at a draft structure plan to put to the Secretary of State. I sincerely hope that the county will firmly reject the idea of adding another 20,000 homes to the original January 1985 plan.

    I should like my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to confirm the Government’s support for the green belt, to enable me to reassure my constituents. I should like him also to reassure my constituents in Bovington that they will not see 700 houses springing up beside their homes. I should like to take back some reassurance to my two local councils, so that they know that the Government are firmly behind them when planning matters are considered and large inroads into the green belt are proposed.

  • Theresa May – 2019 Speech at Northwood

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, on 8 July 2019.

    After I became Prime Minister almost exactly three years ago, one of my very first acts – the first time I spoke in the House of Commons, in fact – was to open the debate on renewing our continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent.

    As I said in that debate, “There is no greater responsibility as Prime Minister than ensuring the safety and security of our people.”

    And doing so is not something any Prime Minister can achieve without you – the brave men and women of our armed forces.

    You are not just a part of British life – you are the guarantors of British life.

    The foundation of our freedom.

    The protectors of our democracy.

    And for that, we owe you a debt of gratitude.

    It is a debt that stretches back through the generations – as we were reminded last month when the wonderful veterans of D-Day returned to the beaches of Normandy 75 years after they liberated a continent.

    And it is a debt that continues to this day, as I have seen every day throughout my time in Government.

    I saw it in Salisbury, where specialists from the joint CBRN task force worked around the clock to decontaminate the city in the aftermath of Russia’s despicable and deadly nerve agent attack.

    I saw it in Iraq, where I met some of the British troops who have trained almost 90,000 local forces in weapons maintenance, counter IED, medical and engineering skills.

    I saw it in Kenya, where I witnessed British troops training their local counterparts in mine detection and bomb disposal

    I saw it in Akrotiri, where I met the brave men and women of Operation Shader – who have helped destroy the territorial caliphate of Daesh, and who continue the fight against the evil it stands for.

    In South Sudan, where British peacekeepers are bringing safety and stability to the world’s youngest nation.

    In civil emergencies across the UK, where the military have saved lives and property from rising water, raging fire and falling snow.

    In Gibraltar, where just last week the Royal Marines boarded and seized an oil tanker suspected of illegally supplying the Syrian regime.

    In Somalia, where more than 500 local soldiers have now graduated from the British Security Training Centre.

    In the skies above Europe, where our Typhoons scramble to see off Russian transgressors.

    In the Mediterranean, where our sailors rescued migrants sent to sea in the rickety boats of people traffickers.

    And on the streets of cities across the United Kingdom when, under Operation Temperer, troops from all three services kept us safe in the wake of the horrific terror attack in Manchester.

    At home and abroad, by day and by night, at sea, on land, in the air and even in cyberspace…

    You are always there, always ready, always serving – and all so that we in the UK might sleep safely in our beds.

    In doing so you face many threats, but you do not face them alone.

    It was Sir Winston Churchill who said that “There is at least one thing worse than fighting with allies – and that is to fight without them.”

    And at few places is that spirit of co-operation stronger than here at Northwood, home of the NATO Allied Maritime Command.

    In an age of increasing polarisation and division on the global stage, the hand-in-glove co-operation of NATO’s militaries provides a model for multinational organisations everywhere.

    We saw what that looks like just last month in the 47th annual Baltops exercise.

    One operation saw Royal Marines fast-roping onto a Lithuanian beach, joined by Spanish amphibious vehicles launched from an American landing ship and Romanian ground forces carried in a Polish assault craft.

    Across Baltops 50 surface ships, two submarines, almost 40 aircraft and well over 8,000 personnel from 18 nations came together to show the world that, while NATO may be in its 70th year, the alliance is as strong and united as it has ever been.

    While the threats we face may vary and evolve, the founding principles of NATO – that we are mightier together than alone and that an attack on one is an attack on all – remain every bit as important and relevant today as they were in 1945.

    Because the military and security challenges we face in 2019 are not confined to any one nation or continent.

    Terrorists, people traffickers, international criminals and state and non-state aggressors do not respect national boundaries, and nor should our response to the threats they pose.

    NATO has a crucial role to play in that response – and I am immensely proud of the role the UK plays in NATO.

    Proud that the UK continues to be a significant and active member of the alliance, including hosting the Maritime Command here at Northwood.

    Proud that, later this year, the UK will have the honour of hosting the special summit to mark NATO’s 70th anniversary.

    And proud that the UK continues to meet the NATO target of spending two per cent of GDP on defence – a pledge I fully expect the next Prime Minister to maintain, and one I would like to see many more member states meeting in the years ahead.

    Vital though NATO is, it is not our sole vehicle for international military co-operation.

    While the operational headquarters of the EU Naval Force may have recently left Northwood, our departure from the European Union will not mean the end of security and defence co-operation with our neighbours.

    For example, RAF Chinooks from 18(B) squadron have been supporting French operations in Mali for some time now.

    The mission-critical airlift capacity they provide allows French ground troops to conduct anti-terror operations that make the Sahel more stable and, ultimately, make both our nations safer.

    And this morning I am pleased to announce that the operation will be extended, so this vital partnership can continue.

    But of course, other militaries are not the only partners involved in the success of our armed forces.

    In fact the most important partners are not in uniform at all – rather, they are the children, friends and families of the wider forces community, who do so much to support their loved ones who serve.

    It is not easy being part of the forces family.

    Not easy for children to move from school to school.

    Not easy for partners to build new careers and new friendships every time their loved one is redeployed.

    I cannot imagine how it must feel to wave goodbye to someone you care deeply about, knowing you won’t see them again for many months – or even hear from them, if they are serving out of reach beneath the waves as part of our continuous at-sea deterrent.

    And none of us would wish to imagine how it feels to lose a loved one in the service of their country.

    Indeed, one of the hardest tasks of my premiership was finding the words to write to a young girl who would never know her father, after he was tragically killed in Iraq.

    So I want to take this opportunity to recognise the contribution that you make, and to thank each and every one of you for helping to make our armed forces the very best in the world.

    And because our armed forces are the best, they deserve the best.

    That is why I increased defence spending by £1.8 billion, continuing our investment in the future of warfare.

    By year’s end both Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers will be at sea.

    The first of the Dreadnought-class submarines is already under construction in Barrow-in-Furness.

    Cutting-edge Ajax armoured fighting vehicles are rolling off the production line in Merthyr Tydfil, with the first of almost 600 entering service later this year.

    RAF pilots are already patrolling the skies in state-of-the-art F-35 jets, with a total of 48 due to join the fleet by 2025.

    And we are funding research into military robotics on land and at sea.

    Because the United Kingdom is a top tier military nation, and a top tier military nation we will remain.

    But we are not only investing in equipment.

    We are also taking better care of our most important military assets – the men and women on the front line – increasing the amount we spend on specialist mental health care for armed forces personnel to £220 million over the next decade.

    Because any nation’s military can acquire expensive kit.

    What makes ours so special is its people – and it is people that are the reason for my visit here today.

    Sadly there is only room for 100 or so of you in this hall.

    But across the country and around the world, almost 200,000 men and women are serving their country in any number of ways.

    Royal Navy, Army, and Royal Air Force.

    Regular and Reserve.

    Long-serving soldiers, sailors and airmen coming to the end of their forces careers…

    …and the rawest of recruits still finding their bunks at Catterick, Halton and HMS Raleigh.

    Then there are the veterans who have served their country with distinction and deserve our lasting respect.

    The civilian staff around the world who provide so much support for today’s men and women in uniform.

    And of course the friends and families who make this all possible.

    First as Home Secretary and now as Prime Minister, I have had the privilege of working with and getting to know a great many men and women from every branch of our armed forces.

    The toughest decisions I have had to make were the ones that would put you in harm’s way.

    But it has been an honour to work alongside you, and to do all I can to support you.

    And as I come to the end of my time in office, I am proud to finish the way I started three years ago– by standing up and thanking our fantastic armed forces for all that they do.

    You are the best in the world, and I wish you all the very best for the future.

    Thank you.

  • Jeremy Hanley – 1985 Speech on Copyright Infringement

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Hanley, the then Conservative MP for Richmond and Barnes, in the House of Commons on 18 December 1985.

    I welcome the presence of my hon. Friend the Minister for Information Technology. I apologise for causing him to rise from his slumbers at such an hour, but I know that his concern about the subject of the debate is such that he will not begrudge the hour. The title of the debate is “Copyright infringement”, which is a rather bland title for what is often regarded as an unexciting subject. There are many who have thought that a little piracy and a little copyright infringement does no harm. It has been thought that a little stealing from those who already have enough, who already earn enough and who are employed is all right. It is considered that they are greedy if they want to stop any form of copyright infringement and that they can afford to bear it. That is the sort of attitude that so often pervades our society.

    Recent events have changed all that. The public are now well aware of the depths to which the pirates can sink. With the recent cases of piracy involving the Live Aid concert, the title of the debate would perhaps be more appropriate if it were “Stealing from the Starving”.

    The piracy of intellectual property is a world-wide industry. It has been estimated that between £800 million and £1,000 million worth of sales of audiotape worldwide are affected. It is probable that sales of videotapes and films to the value of £2 billion are affected. Books are pirated to the tune of £300 million worldwide on the best current estimate, and there is also piracy worldwide of computer software, textiles and other designs, motor parts, industrial and commercial products, and even of brand-name pills and medicines which are pirated and manufactured out of salts and sugars. The pirated pills and medicines do no good but at worst they can cause death because of their substitution.

    I am sure that many hon. Members will have read and discussed the recent cynical attempt to cash in on the suffering of the starving millions in Africa by the Indonesian pirates, who have produced bootlegged tapes of the Live Aid concert which took place in July.

    The British people have a good record of providing bilateral and multilateral aid, both through Governments and through private individuals giving generously. No doubt the House will remember that the Live Aid concert galvanised the world. It produced an international inspiration to give, and an international recognition of the fact that so many people, through no fault of their own, were starving and in need of help. We recall that 140 artistes gave of their services for no fee and performed live. Mr. Bob Geldof, in his unique and abrasive manner, cut through the niceties and red tape, put the show on the road and tapped the hearts and consciences of millions.

    Perhaps I should explain the difference between bootlegged and pirated tapes. A pirated tape is when the manufacturer takes an existing tape, copies it, sells it—thus breaking copyright—and keeps the proceeds. A bootleg tape is when a manufacturer records something that does not exist on tape—perhaps a concert on television, or even a live concert. He manufactures and then sells the tape.

    There are no original tapes of the Live Aid concert. There has never been a genuine, original tape of that concert. Many people may have recorded it in their homes, ​ many people may even have recorded it on video machines, but there is not a single commercial tape that is legitimate. People may question why it was not recorded, and feel that an opportunity may have been lost. They may ask whether Mr. Geldof is causing piracy by creating an unfulfilled demand. The truth is that 140 artistes have 140 lawyers, and to get 140 lawyers to sanction recorded music for sale is a devil of a job. Mr. Geldof gave guarantees that there would be no tapes until such time as the lawyers reached agreement.

    After all, the concert was live and some of the performances were fairly instant and unrehearsed. Some of the artistes might not have wanted their contribution on a live platform preserved for posterity and sold on tape. Many of the performances were quite brilliant and inspired, yet they were not in any way performances designed to be recorded and sold to the world. They were an attempt to encourage people to give of their generosity as the artistes were giving of theirs.

    The tapes that are being pirated throughout the world are labelled, “Original”. The bootleg tapes of the Live Aid concert even state on them, “For African famine relief’ in an attempt to convince consumers that they are not only buying good music, but are contributing to a worthy cause. Not a penny of the proceeds of those tapes that are selling in vast quantities throughout the far and middle east, even in Italy—and, who knows, even here—reaches the Band Aid Trust. The proceeds are pocketed by the pirates as private gain.

    The International Federation of Phonogram and Videogram Producers has estimated that more than 1·5 million cassettes have now been sold. The figure might even be nearer 2 million. According to Kevin Jenden of the Band Aid Trust, those proceeds would be enough to feed 2 million people for a month. Who has benefited? It is a few Indonesian millionaires.

    The Live Aid recordings are currently on sale all over the middle east, especially in Saudi Arabia. As I said, they have even reached Italy. Boxed set LPs have been uncovered in italy, but they were also made in Indonesia. Those buying the cassettes are being led to believe that their money is going towards helping the starving in Africa, whereas in reality it is going into the pockets of the unscrupulous. At least four bootleg editions of the Live aid concert are on the market in the middle east, all manufactured in Indonesia. Some of the cassettes bear Indonesian Government sales tax stickers, which give a unique production number to each recording. The boxed sets of LPs found in Italy also carry those tax stickers.

    In Saudi Arabia there are reports that at least 1 million copies of the Live Aid cassettes have been sold directly to that country because of demand. There was a story yesterday of a new tape cassette factory being opened in Indonesia with a production line capability of 6 million cassettes a month. The tax stickers that appear on the Indonesian cassettes show that the Indonesian Government have taken 15 US cents every time one is sold or exported. That means that the Indonesian Government have collected US $300,000 in money which should have gone to Live Aid. That is just a fraction of the money that has been made by the manufacturers of those bootleg tapes. On the other hand, the starving in Africa have received nothing from this industry.

    Legal action can be taken in some countries. In Italy the industry is now carrying out nationwide raids on retailers of those bootleg tapes. To date 10,000 bootleg LPs ​ manufactured in Indonesia have been seized in Italy. Meanwhile, in Indonesia, virtually nothing happens. The copyright law protects only local recordings, and an estimated 30 million pirated cassettes are exported every year. The Indonesian Government claim that all exports of cassettes to Saudi Arabia are, according to a letter that I have, either recitals of the holy Koran or Indonesian Arabic music recordings. However, the facts speak for themselves. How can the Indonesian Government claim that the exports are only of the holy Koran w hen the stickers show that they know very well what they are collecting tax upon? The Live Aid bootleg is not a recital of holy works; it is a deliberate rip-off.

    The message of international anger at the Live Aid piracy is beginning to embarrass the Indonesians. Mr. Mochtar Kusamaatmandja, the Indonesian Foreign Minister, has announced that he has asked the Justice Ministry to take action against the pirates. That may sound fine, but the problem is how. In response to previous complaints by the record industry, the Indonesians have always replied that piracy is not illegal under Indonesian law as no foreign records are covered by Indonesian copyright, as I explained. Only yesterday it was announced in Indonesia that the bootleggers were donating £22,000 out of the kindness of their hearts to Lye Aid. That was meant to be compensation for the millions of profit that they have made. I do not believe that that is a generous gesture at this Christmas time. It is a penny in a bucket, and one of the most cynical Christmas presents that I have ever heard of.

    Live Aid is only one example, albeit perhaps the most despicable of late, of a much wider problem. The American charity record “We are the world” has been widely pirated, and many others, too. In fact, any successful record, whether for charity or not, is likely to be copied by the Indonesians and others within weeks of release.

    That is costing the legitimate industry over US $1 billion per year in lost sales. The British music industry alone is losing almost £100 million per year from only six countries—there is more from others. Those countries are Indonesia, Singapore, Taiwan, Korea, Nigeria and Malaysia. In Singapore, tape piracy accounts for 85 per cent. of the market. An estimated 10 million pirate cassettes will be sold on the local market and 50 million produced for export in 1985. However, I must give credit to Singapore. Although it has the worst record for copyright infringement of any country in the world, the Government have, as a result of pressure from the USA, announced their intention to enact a new copyright law before July next year. The level of piracy in Singapore is already declining, and if the legislation is enacted it should be down to under 10 per cent. by the end of next year. It is important that the pressure exerted upon Singapore by the USA should be maintained by foreign Governments until that happens.

    In Taiwan, tape piracy accounts for 55 per cent. of the market. In Korea, it accounts for 10 per cent. of LPs and 90 per cent. of cassettes. In Malaysia, 85 per cent. of all cassette sales are pirated. There is very little piracy of LPs in Malaysia. In Nigeria, piracy accounts for 27·5 per cent. of LP sales and 83 per cent. of cassette sales. In Saudi Arabia there is little piracy of LPs but 95 per cent. of all cassettes sold are pirated. The only legitimate product available tends to be educational material. It is estimated that in Saudi Arabia 50 million pre-recorded pirate ​ cassettes will be sold in 1985. In addition, an estimated 100 million blank tapes will be sold, 40 per cent. of which will be used by shops for in-store pirate taping. In Indonesia, virtually 100 per cent. of recordings of international repertoires sold are pirated. The lost sales to the United Kingdom music industry are estimated to be as follows: Singapore more than £51 million; Taiwan £1·5 million; Korea £1·5 million; Malaysia £9·3 million; Nigeria £8·8 million; and Indonesia £14·8 million.

    In Indonesia alone, record pirates are costing British companies some 15 million unit sales a year. It is time that the Government made a strong call for justice. The copyright law in Indonesia covers only local works. No protection is given to foreign works, whether they be books, sound recordings or films. Throughout Indonesia, foreign sound recordings are pirated extensively and about 30 million international recordings, as well as an Arab repertoire, are exported to Saudi Arabia. The matter has been raised with the Indonesian Government, and the International Intellectual Property Alliance, representing all of the major copyright interests in the United States, recently submitted a report to the United States trade representative on piracy including Indonesia. The report is a staggering indictment of the pirates and a staggering record of the extent of the piracy worldwide.

    Like any other, the record business deserves a return on its investment. Only one record in 10 becomes successful and the profits from that 10 per cent. are needed to fund development and rising artistes and to pay for less profitable but culturally valuable recordings such as jazz and classical music. It is not generally known, though it is obvious with a little thought, that there is no other industry in Britain in which young people, perhaps with little education or hope of great success, can succeed in a manner which is beyond most people’s dreams. No other industry enables groups of young people to succeed financially and to rise to popular acclaim so quickly, knowing that their talents will be used for many years to come. The investment in new groups and new recording artistes is one of the most valuable contributions of the record business. It is the marginal profits which help to create extra investment. If the record industry gets the correct return for its services, more groups and more young people will be given a start to see whether the public approve of their musical tastes.

    The pirates put nothing into the industry. They discover no talents and take no risks. They copy only the top 10 per cent. and siphon off the money needed to invest in the future. Without that money, fewer artistes are recorded, fewer classical records appear and our culture is weakened. We have institutionalised piracy in the United Kingdom. How many people can honestly say that they do not record records or programmes from the radio or television? It is regrettable that the Government are no longer considering a royalty on blank cassette tapes. I believe that the public would prefer their taping of records and programmes to be legitimised. If, in exchange for that, a royalty of 10p or 20p per blank tape were paid, I am sure that everyone would understand the benefits which would flow from a better funded record business. I am told that that is not to be, and I have registered my regret.

    Records are not alone in being attacked. The copiers attack any successful industry—the book trade, software ​ houses and film producers. Counterfeiting strikes at well-known British trade marks, and often with dangerous results. We have all heard of the fake Ferodo brake linings sold in Africa which take six times as long to stop a vehicle as genuine linings and the useless drugs that are sold under well-known names. Fakers are costing the industry millions of pounds and thousands of jobs. When will it end?

    The Live Aid piracy puts not only the Government but all of us under a moral obligation to take a firm stand. British works are not protected in Indonesia, yet the Indonesians get the sixth highest amount of British foreign aid in the world. In 1984 we gave them £28 million in trade loans and aid. Is it not time that we imposed a few more conditions when we are so generous? I am not asking that we take money from the starving, or that we withdraw genuine money aid which will be used for those less fortunate than ourselves, but if we are lending money for industrial purposes and bilateral trade arrangements, the conditions should be much stronger.

    The old cautious arguments that we must do nothing to upset existing trade are not good enough. The Americans do not think so. Section 301 of their Trade Act allows them to impose sanctions in countries that do not protect United States copyrights, trade marks and patents. Moreover, they have shown that they are prepared to use it. There is even a danger that countries such as Indonesia will seek bilateral deals with the United States to protect only American products. That will allow the pirates to turn their full attention to copying the goods of more cautious countries that will not act to protect themselves.

    We know what can be achieved by a strong line. Secretary of State Shultz, during a recent visit to Singapore, laid down the law. When the public in Singapore discovered that they had not bought genuine Live Aid cassettes and that the money had not gone to the starving in Africa, they were livid. The Singapore Government asked the public to seek out the bootleggers. They were discovered within a few days, and are now serving 10 to 15 years imprisonment for what I regard as theft.

    Exactly five years ago there was an Adjournment debate about counterfeiting of United Kingdom trade marks in Taiwan, especially in the textile and motor industries. The then Minister for Trade, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson), made a robust reply. He said:

    “The hon. Member said that the way forward is for us to ban the import of products from Taiwan. I must tell the Taiwanese authorities that our patience is wearing extremely thin. We are considering the evidence at our disposal. They have the opportunity to avoid a major incident by taking the strong action that Hong Kong has taken. Unless they do, the Taiwanese authorities must be prepared to accept the consequences”.—[Official Report, 19 December 1980; Vol. 996, c. 730.]

    The result was not a trade war, as some timorous souls forecasted, but strong new Taiwanese legislation within months. It can have been no accident that a delegation from the European motor industry shortly afterwards saw that the Taiwanese Trade Minister had a copy of the relevant Hansard on his desk.

    In reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory), the Government have said that they will make representations to the Indonesian Government about Live Aid piracy. That is a start, but it is not enough. The Government should make it abundantly clear to the Indonesian Government that piracy of any ​ British work will no longer be tolerated, and that unless reciprocal copyright protection is granted to United Kingdom works they must face the consequences.

    In a letter of 30 November to the Confederation of Information Communication Industries, my hon. Friend the Minister said that we must have proof of the illegal act. I have proof, which he can see later today—bootlegged cassettes with Indonesian sales tax stamps and individual numbers on them. That is the extent to which the pirates will go.

    The anti-counterfeiting unit of the Department of Trade and Industry was doing valuable work which I should like to continue. I am pleased to announce that the copyright industries—the Publishers Association, the record industry, and video and software producers—are now coming together in a new coalition to present to the Government evidence of the damage caused to British companies, and to spell out the case for protection. At this time of Christmas, I call on the Government to heed their call.

  • Keith Best – 1985 Speech on Drunken Driving

    Below is the text of the speech made by Keith Best, the then Conservative MP for Ynys Môn, in the House of Commons on 18 December 1985.

    I am pleased that we are having this debate, albeit at this time of the morning. It is therefore incumbent upon me immediately to say to my hon. Friend the Minister of State and to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), who sits behind her so loyally, that I apologise for giving them such an early start. I hope that they will feel at the end of the debate that it has been fruitful and, indeed, necessary.

    There is a ritual about raising the subject of drinking and driving just before Christmas. I make no apology for having sought to do so again, although we had a debate about the same time last year on the same subject. With Mr. Speaker’s indulgence, I intend to continue to seek to raise the matter before Christmas every year, just as the Government feel that it is necessary to launch a campaign every year. It is sad and it should not be necessary to have a campaign every year or for an hon. Member to have to seek to raise the matter to give it greater prominence, but it is necessary because the weak, foolish, unwise and unwary and the ignorant still drink and drive.

    One clear message that should go from the Chamber is, “If you drive, don’t drink, and if you drink, don’t drive.” There can be no fetter on that simple message.

    The number of drink drive offences over the past decade has gone up dramatically. In 1975 there were 65,000 cases, but by 1980 the number had risen to 78,000. By 1983 the figure was 98,000 and by 1984 it had gone over the 100,000 mark, to 101,000. Nearly half of all injuries to and deaths of drivers, passengers and pedestrians are attributable in part to alcohol, and drink is involved in 45 per cent. of fatal road accidents to young people. Nearly 100,000 people are convicted for drink drive offences each year in England and Wales alone, and the numbers are rising rapidly.

    Many people think that there is a legal limit. There is no such thing. It is true that there are offences under section 6(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1972, amended by the Transport Act 1981—offences of driving or attempting to drive or being in charge of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit. Currently that limit is 35 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of breath, 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood or 107 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of urine. That should not be regarded as the entire law on the matter. That point will be well known to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury.

    There is still the old offence of driving or attempting to drive while unfit to drive through drink or drugs, or to be in charge while unfit. Any amount of alcohol impairs driving ability, and ability definitely deteriorates with more than 50 mg of alcohol. Unfit to drive in law means that the ability to drive is impaired for the time being. It does not mean incapable of driving. People concentrate far too often on the idea of a legal limit below which they are safe and not subject to any prosecution. That is wrong. It should be clear that people with alcohol concentrations far less than the prescribed limit can be prosecuted and convicted of being unfit to drive.

    The impairment depends on the concentration of alcohol in the body, not on the amount taken. A person with high natural alcohol concentration is vulnerable. An 11-stone male is put over the 50 mg limit by one and a half pints of ordinary beer or three single whiskies. Driving ​ ability will be impaired. Even at the so-called legal limit under section 6, a person is five times as likely to have an accident than if he had not had a drink. A person could be arrested, charged and convicted under section 5, which is concerned with unfitness to drive, when well below the limit set out in section 6.

    It is no good trying to do calculations. Indeed, it is extremely dangerous, because there are so many variables. The 1965 report of the British Medical Association’s special committee said:

    “It takes between 15 and 90 minutes for the peak concentration in blood to be reached following a drink of alcohol, and in most cases little more than 30 minutes … In fact, the rate of elimination of alcohol both between different individuals and in the same individuals at different times varies to some extent and an exercise of this kind cannot, in our opinion, be justified.”

    The mean elimination rate appears to be between 11 and 21 mg per hour, but numerous recent studies have confirmed the extreme variability of the blood clearance rate. Significant numbers of clearance rates exceed or trail the average by factors of two or four and, in extreme cases, eight.

    The law is much tougher after the Transport Act 1981. There is an automatic refusal to issue a driving licence to high-risk offenders or problem drinkers—that means drivers who are convicted twice in 10 years of drink driving offences when, in both cases, the blood alcohol level has been more than two and a half times the prescribed limit or a specimen has been refused, or a combination of the two.

    It must be concluded that the public can feel safe only if such people are never allowed to drive again. That might be a hard judgment, especially if driving is necessary for employment or if employment depends on the ability to drive, but we must protect the innocent people who lose their lives or suffer terrible injuries as a result of others taking the risk of drinking and driving.

    My hon. Friend has now launched a new campaign. We can but hope that it will be more successful than the disastrous “stay low” campaign last Christmas. Statistics to which I shall refer show it to have been disastrous. I believe that in retrospect, and I say “in retrospect” because my hon. Friend the Minister could say that I welcomed the campaign in the debate on 21 December 1984, as, indeed, I did. She will recall, however, that I also entered some caveats then. “Stay low” was a dangerous slogan which was taken out of context. As I said in that debate, it was wrong to consider the slogan without considering the whole press release of the Department of Transport. I read it in full then and I shall do so again. It stated:

    “Don’t drink any alcohol at all if you are going to drive. That’s the only way to be sure you won’t be affected by drink and liable to be convicted of a drink-drive offence. And it’s the best safeguard you can give yourself that you won’t be involved in an accident. Although the ‘breathalyser law’ puts a limit of 35 microgrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres on drivers’ breath, you can still be prosecuted below that limit if a policeman thinks your driving ability is impaired by alcohol. So the only way to be certain is not to drink. That’s what the Department of Transport means by its advice to drivers this Christmas to stay low—very low.”

    If that press release had been reiterated, the campaign would not have been misunderstood. My hon. Friend the Minister, who is an experienced politician, knows only too well that politics is about slogans, and that many ​ comments made by hon. Members are often taken out of context. Indeed, our political history is riddled with slogans and statements taken out of context, which achieve a mythology of reality all of their own. I am thinking of cutting prices at a stroke and getting on bicycles. Many of them are entirely inaccurate as a representation of what was said, and are taken entirely out of context.

    My hon. Friend and the Department must realise that with such a campaign people will pick out one aspect as the slogan and refer to it. That is why the slogan “stay low” was dangerous. It conveyed the impression that people could drink and drive, notwithstanding the full press release which said clearly that people should not drink and drive.

    Why were there no consultations with the alcohol agencies before this present campaign was launched? Many organisations, particularly Alcohol Concern, feel that they can contribute to the formulation of these campaigns. Why was it felt inappropriate for those agencies to be consulted?

    I hope that my hon. Friend will again say unequivocally that there is no legal limit below which a person can be regarded as safe to drive. Under section 5, the test of impairment of driving ability is not linked to any limit. The “stay low” campaign created a misunderstanding of the law because of the slogan rather than the full explanation. I hope that my hon. Friend will say that the only message that must be fully comprehended is that if one drives, one must not drink. That must be stated unequivocally.

    The “stay low” campaign cost 1·5 million. How much will this year’s campaign cost? The cost to the nation of drink-drive accidents is estimated to be £100 million a year, so £1·5 million is a small contribution to make to a campaign to try to overcome that tremendous cost. Will my hon. Friend explain to whom the campaign is directed? She said when the campaign was launched that it was especially directed towards the young, but perhaps she would use this opportunity to amplify that statement.

    I greatly appreciate the excellent initiative that is taken by some organisations to try to increase public awareness of the dangers of drinking and driving. I am especially mindful of the new campaign by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, aimed at the licensed trade, employers, employees, young people, voluntary groups and operators of coaches, minibuses and taxis. I commend to the House and to the general public the excellent booklets that have been produced to increase public awareness, and especially to the various groups, to each of which is directed a separate booklet produced by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, which is a comprehensive and useful guide.

    I am also especially impressed with the society’s pamphlet, which is easily read and very short. It is entitled, “How to beat the Breath Test.” It is one of the interesting leaflets which invites someone to read more, just as the leaflet that was produced by Conservative central office, which stated that “Conservatives admit to cuts”, invited people to read more. That is shrewd advertising material, because it invites people to look more into the contents.
    The booklet from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents states:

    “Why shouldn’t I drive after I’ve been drinking”?

    The reply is: ​

    “Alcohol affects your own judgment of whether you are fit to drive or not—you may genuinely believe yourself to be driving better than you are. Alcohol is a depressant, not a stimulant. It lessens the co-ordination, lengthens reaction time, blurs vision and affects ability to judge speed and distance: all vital skills when it comes to driving. The ability to judge distance between moving objects is lessened when you are only one quarter of the way to the legal limit.”

    Another question asked is:

    “How quickly does it wear off?”

    The answer given is this:

    “Rates of absorption vary so much, the only sure way is to allow one hour per half pint of beer (or equivalent)—this can take several hours. Someone who has had a heavy drinking session the night before may still be over the limit going to work at 7 am the next morning!”

    All of us in the House know the sort of feeling of going to work at that time. Indeed, we have gone to work half an hour earlier than that this morning. The pamphlet continues:

    “There are no tricks for sobering up more quickly—coffee and fresh air may help you feel better, but they don’t reduce the alcohol level.”

    Another section asks,

    “But I won’t be stopped if I drive carefully, will I?”

    To that, the answer is:

    “The police can ask you to take a breath test if they suspect you of committing a moving traffic offence, or if you’re involved in an accident, but they can also stop you if they suspect you of having alcohol in your blood. If you’re stopped for any reason, like a broken rear light, and they think you’ve been drinking, they can ask you to take a breath test then as well. You might even be prosecuted if you’re not over the limit if you’re clearly unfit to drive. The ‘legal limit’ just means prosecution is automatic.”

    I welcome the hon. Members for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) and for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg). It is especially commendable that hon. Members should come to the House at this time of the morning, and it manifests their belief in the importance of this debate, especially before Christmas. I appreciate that the new campaign that has been launched by my hon. Friend is much tougher and that the get-tough policy of the police will be supported, as I understand it, strongly by my hon. Friend and her Department.

    I also appreciate the steps that my hon. Friend’s Department has taken over another matter that I have raised during the year—the sale of alcohol through petrol stations. The steps that my hon. Friend has taken in the past year have been welcome. The fact that her Department is collecting statistics to establish the number of petrol station licences in existence is a positive step. This has been reinforced by the fact that the Home Office will, from next year, record such licences as a separate entry on the official statistics. I thank my Friend for what she is doing.

    Stopping people from drinking and driving is not just a question of informing the public; there has to be an element of deterrence as well. I feel that still the message has not got across to people that if they drink and drive and are prosecuted and convicted for having an alcohol level beyond what is prescribed, they will lose their licence automatically. However persuasive, even as persuasive as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury, an advocate can do nothing in those circumstances to save a person’s licence. It does not matter whether his job depends on being able to drive—the licence will be lost for 12 months as a minimum. I hope and pray that that message gets across, because it is all part of the concept of deterrence.

    I believe, and I suspect and hope that all agree, that the only real deterrence is the certainty of being caught, and at the moment the likelihood of being caught in the United Kingdom is low. The Home Office has stated that only one in 250 drinking drivers has a risk of being caught. That is an appalling statistic, and it must be changed. I accept that I should not be addressing my remarks principally to my hon. Friend the Minister, but I hope that she will convey them to the appropriate quarters, because that needs to be looked at carefully.

    I know that my hon. Friend has heard this question before, not least from Mr. Don Steele, of Action on Alcohol Abuse, but I ask her to look again at this suggestion. Bearing in mind that those with provisional driving licences or those who have received their driving licences within the past two years are those most frequently involved in accidents, should there not be an even stronger requirement imposed on those drivers that come within those categories. Perhaps she will say something about that.

    I have already referred in parenthesis to the fact that on 21 December last year I initiated a debate similar to this one about drinking and driving. I shall remind the House of what I said on that occasion. Every year 1,200 people die as a result of road traffic accidents in which drink is a contributory factor. During that debate, I asked whether something could be done to include a statement to that effect in the highway code so that at least we could be satisfied that at one point in a driver’s lifetime the message would be brought home clearly in a manner in which he had to learn it before passing the driving test. I appreciate that that is not the answer, but to bring it home to somebody who is learning to drive and having to learn what drink and drive involves, as a matter of its being included in the highway code, would be a useful addition to that document.

    I know that my hon. Friend the Minister keeps several copies of the code at home, because she told me so in last year’s debate. She said:

    “My Department is reviewing the highway code, as it does from time to time and I shall see what entry in that might he useful in persuading people to do the sensible thing.”

    Perhaps she could give me an answer this year to the statement that she made so helpfully in replying to the debate that I initiated last year.

    My hon. Friend the Minister of State said something else that I should like her to look at again. At the beginning of her reply to me last year she said:

    “In due course my Department is planning to give even wider information than has already been given out in the facts leaflet on drinking and driving from the road research laboratory because it needs to be much more widely available and influential.”

    When she replies, I hope that my hon. Friend will say what has been done about that.

    I referred also in that debate to a fruit drink called “Alcaway.” It purports to speed up the absorption of alcohol by the body—in simple terms, an antidote. But it cannot be said strongly enough that there is no such thing as an antidote. I pointed out that on 19 November 1984 my hon. Friend, in answer to an inquiry from me, had said:

    “The rate at which alcohol is absorbed into the blood stream is affected by a variety of factors. While some products can slow down this process, I am not aware of any evidence which suggests that the elimination of alcohol from the body can be significantly speeded up. My general policy is to warn drivers of ​ the risk involved in driving after drinking under any circumstances”.—[Official Report, 21 December 1984; Vol. 70, c. 713, 716 and 717.]

    It is grossly irresponsible, morally indefensible and commercial exploitation of the most obscene kind, resulting in death, injury and misery, to market any such substance. Those who do so should remember that the Christmas present that they will give to families is the death of a father, the mutilation of a mother and the bereavement of loved ones. It was therefore very distressing to me to learn, when listening a few days ago to that excellent radio programme “You and Yours”, of a new substance called “Stay Low”. It is the usual kind of unpleasant tasting, high calorific fruit drink that contains a large amount of glucose syrup.

    I learnt yesterday that 500 dozen bottles have been produced by a company in Nottingham. I spoke to a representative of that company on the telephone. I was given the name of the principal company, Stay Low Ltd., which has the manufacturing rights of this substance. I was given the name of a Mr. Hurley. Stay Low Ltd. is registered in Jersey. However, when I telephoned him I was told that he was busy. Furthermore, I was told that he would telephone me, but I received no call from him. The registered office is, I believe, a solicitors’ office. It is merely an address for the registration of that company.

    The trail of that company is interesting. Yesterday I tried to track down what this product purports to achieve. I understand that the first reference to it appeared in The Morning Advertiser on 18 December. The claim on behalf of this substance was that

    “anyone who drinks 10 whiskies can pass the breathalyser test after drinking two 85p bottles of ‘Stay Low.,”

    That claim cannot be attributed to anybody and it may be inaccurate, but it appeared in The Morning Advertiser.

    The office is registered in Jersey and is just a holding office, but I was able to contact a company called Crane Barnden that had been engaged by Stay Low Ltd. to produce promotional material. It is a firm of printers. I do not want any opprobrium that might attach to this product in general to attach to this company. It was very helpful to me over the telephone and explained what had been done.

    Crane Barnden had received instructions to produce promotional material, but it had been unable to secure detailed information about certain aspects of the product. The firm was told that it was not entitled to disclose the name of the client. It received its original instructions from an individual rather than from a company. The result was that the firm felt obliged to do no more than produce the initial amount of promotional material. That was interesting because the firm clearly believed that insufficient information was available for it to carry on doing any more work for that client.

    The firm produced only information. The bottling and mixing was done by a Nottingham company which confirmed to me over the telephone the constituent elements of the drink. It is lime-flavoured with large amounts of glucose and fructose syrups. The initial run was 500 dozen bottles which were marketed by a company called Innserve, a wholesaler to public houses in the south Devon area. The bottlers have no instructions to bottle any more.

    I hope that the Minister will use her Department’s resources to look into the product if it is anything like ​ Alcaway. It is extremely dangerous for such a product to be marketed if it purports even indirectly to enable people to drink and drive. That is a cruel deception.

    I make it clear now, as I did a year ago in respect of the other product which fortunately we stopped in its tracks, first, that no tests substantiate any claims for the new product. Secondly, increasing the rate at which alcohol is broken down by the body can cause poor judgment. Thirdly, fructose can cause painful side effects.

    I do not propose to go into the details of those side effects, but I have a sheet of papers containing medical opinions from learned journals which describe the inadequacy of fructose in speeding up the dissipation of alcohol in the blood, the side effects and the danger of the intake of fructose in such large quantities. Such a product might require a licence under the Medicines Act if it were designed to interfere with the normal operation of a physiological function.

    I understand that the label on the product states “Don’t drink and drive.” That is a small concession to it being marketed just before Christmas with the name “Stay Low”. Why is it being marketed now? It has all the hallmarks of a cynical, unprincipled exploitation of people’s fond but foolish desire to find a magic potion which will enable them to drink and drive. There is no such potion, nor can there be. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to investigate the product fully.

    If this debate has publicised the criminal negligence of drinking and driving; if it has brought home to people that the only safe way to drive is not to drink, or if one is drinking not to drive, however short the distance: if it has the effect of saving lives this Christmas, children will still have fathers and mothers and parents will still have children at the end of the festive season and we can say to the people whom we have the privilege to represent—as I say to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to my hon. Friend the Minister and my colleagues have a very happy Christmas, and a safe one, and we shall all meet again in the new year.

  • Vivian Bendall – 1985 Speech on Taxis at Heathrow

    Below is the text of the speech made by Vivian Bendall, the then Conservative MP for Ilford North, in the House of Commons on 17 December 1985.

    I declare an interest in the matter, in that I represent the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association. My interest is declared in the Register of Members’ Interests.

    Not long ago we had a meeting with the Minister, for which I thank him, when we said that members of the taxi trade have been extremely concerned about the 50p tariff proposed by the British Airports Authority for the feeder park at Heathrow. I have also been in correspondence with Sir Norman Payne of the British Airports Authority to ask him to reconsider his decision about a charge for entrance to the feeder park. Unfortunately, when I wrote to him several weeks ago, he was not prepared to do so.

    I should give the House a little background to how this unfortunate situation arose. Some time ago it was realised by the airport authority that there were problems with the taxi ranks at the airport, and taxis were using airport roads and getting in the way of the normal flow of traffic. Perhaps with more forward planning, taking into account the increase of the number of passengers going through the airport, that could have been realised some years ago and adequate provision made for it. However, that was not so and adequate provision was not made.

    The airport authority rightly, to try to resolve the problem, suggested that taxis should be put through a feeder park. Some years ago, in conjunction with the licensed trade, talks took place on having a feeder park. General agreement was reached and certain aspects of it were contained in the 1983 byelaws. However, at the outset there was no mention of any charge to be made at that time or in the near future. Now drivers are being penalised by being charged 50p to enter the feeder park.

    On the average Heathrow to central London run, depending on what part of London it is, on the present tariff, the taxi driver is likely to get £17 or £18. The problem arises when a cab from the feeder park has to go on a more local call such as in Isleworth or Hounslow, which are quite close to the airport. If the fare is fairly low, 50p for entering the feeder park is a considerable sum. The taxi can come back to the front of the feeder rank after a short journey only after it has been to some specific hotels adjacent to the airport. There will be confusion in the feeder park as cab drivers who have been waiting there for a considerable time will not be too happy about other taxis coming in front of them, even if they have been on a short journey.

    The LTDA has informed me that the likely cost to the taxi trade of a feeder park charge of 50p is about £40,000 a month. There have been problems at Heathrow. There has been a boycott of the airport by a number of taxi drivers. The LTDA has supported that boycott. In such a situation, it is the public who are liable to be the losers.

    The Minister should be made aware that since the boycott began several anomalies have arisen. Mini-cabs have been exploiting the situation to great effect. Cases have been reported to the LTDA and, in turn, to me of mini-cabs which have in the last few weeks charged tourists and visitors as much as £97 to come to central London from Heathrow. In one case a trip to the Hilton ​ hotel cost £60. Some mini-cab drivers have suggested that if they take more than one passenger to central London the charge will be £20 for each passenger.

    The English tourist board has taken an interest in the matter and it wrote to Mr. Feigen of the LTDA on 12 December. That letter pointed out that its infrastructure committee was extremely concerned about the 50p parking charge that was to be levied at the airport. It believed and hoped that it would not result in the deterioration of the taxi service and asked for the LTDA ‘s advice on that. A copy of that letter was forwarded to Mr. Bell of the British Airports Authority.

    Although the trade is boycotting Heathrow, it has acted in a proper and responsible manner. In other countries when such a situation has arisen there has been, quite wrongly, the blocking of airports—a ridiculous attitude towards the problem. The LTDA wishes it to be made clear that it would have nothing to do with such action because it would have serious consequences for emergency services in the event of an unfortunate accident.

    There have been meetings today between the British Airports Authority and the members of the taxi trade interested in the problem. However, I am afraid that no agreement has been reached. The British Airports Authority’s suggestion was that perhaps charges should be held until the end of January.

    That would only put off the situation for a few weeks. I can understand the British Airports Authority’s concern with Christmas coming given the number of passengers going through Heathrow. Naturally it is concerned about the passengers and how they can disperse from the airport and get to it.

    Another suggestion is to hold charges until May and in the meantime a committee could be set up to try to find ways of passing the charges on in a combined commercial venture. I do not understand whether that involves the trade because I have not yet had an opportunity to consider the finer points.

    A member of the LTDA has asked for a judicial review, and I understand that that has been granted. I should have thought that it would have been prudent and sensible of the British Airports Authority to have held or withdrawn its charges pending the judicial review. That would stop the boycott immediately and would give time for the judicial review to be heard and for a decision to be reached.

    I understand that in future legislation the British Airports Authority is liable to be privatised. I support the Minister in that. But what is liable to happen to charges on feeder parks once privatisation takes place? Will there be any control of increases? To some degree that trade has been let down.

    Some years ago British Rail tried to introduce charges on taxi ranks outside stations. It decided that it was not practical and withdrew the proposition. Now that the BAA has introduced charges, I can envisage British Rail reconsidering its position. If it introduced charges, that would increase costs to the general public.

    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is responsible for the tariffs charged to the public by taxi drivers. It is rather unfair that their tariffs are controlled in one area, but in another area they must face this increase. The Minister was asked to consider an increase in the tariff. I can understand his problem, because how can we separate taxis coming from Heathrow from taxis in London?

    The BAA should reconsider the matter. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will intervene and will discuss the issue with the BAA. I understand that the original direction may have come from his Department, which is interested in increasing revenue from airports. I do not understand why that increase should be to the detriment of the taxi trade.

    The taxi trade in London is an integral part of the transport system of Greater London. It is important because it is properly controlled and properly licensed and its drivers have to pass a knowledge test, unlike many parts of the private car hire system. In those circumstances, it is not fair to penalise those who are running a good service as an integral part of London’s transport system. I hope that the matter will be reconsidered. I believe that it can be resolved—and, I hope, resolved before the continuing boycott at Heathrow really begins to affect the public.