UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Speeches

  • Philip Goodhart – 1985 Speech on the Televising of the Commons

    Below is the text of the speech made by Philip Goodhart, the then Conservative MP for Beckenham, in the House of Commons on 20 November 1985.

    My instinctive belief is that we should be cautious about letting the cameras into this debating Chamber. My view was powerfully reinforced on the evening before the House of Lords television experiment began when I watched a trailer for the next day’s debate. There were three scenes on the trailer.

    There was a picture of an American Congressman going mad. We moved from Washington to the Floor of the Bundestag in Bonn. We did not see a great speech by the German Chancellor. Instead, we saw a riot by the Green party. We moved from the Bundestag to the European Parliament. There was a picture of our own dear Les Huckfield, whose microphone had been cut off because he had breached a rule of European parliamentary etiquette—he had pulled out a loud hailer and was addressing Members of the European Parliament, who looked somewhat bemused. Clearly the television producer believed that those three scenes were good television, but they showed Parliaments at their worst.

    I fear that violence and bad behaviour will spread to this House if its proceedings are televised. My fears were not much assuaged when I watched the first serious debate from the House of Lords on the Second Reading of the Local Government Bill, whose purpose was to abolish the Greater London council and the metropolitan counties. I had reservations about that legislation, but my noble Friend Lord Elton made an admirable speech. When it came to televising the speech, the producers could not ​ allow a shot of longer than 30 seconds from one angle of a speaker at the Dispatch Box, so we had 30 seconds of Lord Elton’s left profile, 30 seconds of Lord Elton straight on, and 30 seconds of Lord Elton’s right profile. The television producers were clearly getting alarmed about how they would fill the next 30 minutes of his speech.

    Relief came in the shape of Lady Seear. The deputy leader of the Liberal party, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), claimed that the Liberals had only 40 seconds’ coverage in an important debate in the House of Lords. The Liberal party managed to get 40 seconds in the debate on the GLC because one of the straps of Lady Seear’s undergarments slipped over her left shoulder, and she spent the next 40 seconds or so trying to get it back by shrugging her shoulders. The television cameras zoomed in on her because that provided relief from going from one dull-looking Member to another.

    That underlines the fact that not only did the producers wish to trivialise the important debate that was taking place, but unfortunately that televising speeches from the Lords or the Commons will be very dull indeed, visually speaking. The producers and the audience will seek relief after a few seconds.

    If we must experiment—I am very doubtful whether we should, and I shall not vote for the motion—we would be well advised to follow the example of the United States Senate over the years. Although the cameras, under strict control, have gone into the House of Representatives in Washington, the Senate has always resisted having the cameras on its Floor. However, the Senate allows the cameras into the Senate Committees when the Chairman and Members of those Committees agree. Some of the televised hearings in the Committees have been historic. I was in Washington at the time of the hearings presided over by Senator Ervin, during the Watergate scandal. Undoubtedly those hearings helped to change the course of history.

    If we were to have cameras, we would be well advised to begin with the Select Committees rather than on the Floor of the House, because the cross-examination of witnesses, the courtroom scene in the Select Committee, is naturally good television. One does not have to fiddle around looking for odd gimmicks to make it real, attractive and interesting to the audience.
    If we pass the motion, I hope that the Select Committee will look with equal seriousness at the televising of Select Committees as at the televising of the House.

  • Gordon Wilson – 1985 Speech on the Televising of the Commons

    Below is the text of the speech made by Gordon Wilson, the then SNP MP for Dundee East, in the House of Commons on 20 November 1985.

    The hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Lawler) lives in cloud-cuckoo-land if he believes that the public will receive his speech or mine at great length and watch them unadulterated and unedited. My impression is that there is not much demand for the televising of Parliament. People ​ will probably want to see snippets on the “9 o’clock News” or “News at Ten”, and that will be the end of it. I am not against the televising of Parliament, but we must be realistic about the coverage that will be achieved.

    I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should not treat the Chamber as if it were a sacred institution, with the idea that it would be sacrilege to alter it. I am only too well aware of the inadequacy of our procedures. Hon. Members must be frustrated by the lack of financial power we have in the House compared with many Parliaments in western Europe and beyond.

    We are in danger of taking the debate out of context. I was prepared to vote against the motion because it seemed to me wrong that we should vote for a principle without knowing the practicalities. According to the motion, which the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) moved so well, we were apparently prepared to agree to an experiment in principle and then to have running sidesaddle with it, so to speak, a Select Committee charged with the job of implementing it but not with the consideration of whether it would be desirable.

    However, the Leader of the House has swayed some of my views, because, if we follow his advice and vote for the motion, we shall not be voting for what it describes. In other words, we shall have an opportunity to consider the principle and the detail when the Select Committee reports. It will then be possible to put the boot in to the proposal if it does not match up to what we expected.

    The House, through the Select Committee and the debate that we shall have in six months, can dictate to the broadcasters what it wants to put over. We could make many mistakes. We do not have to look far from sound broadcasting, which I think was one of the biggest gaffes the House has made for a long time. That is saying something considering some of the peculiar decisions that we have made.

    Broadcasters naturally look at the most entertaining and lively parts of our proceedings. That must of course mean Question Time. Question Time is entertainment. We should all stagger back in disbelief if we ever managed to obtain some information out of Question Time. It is there. It is prime time. The public desperately want tickets to get in and it is carried to its zenith—if I may use that description, probably incorrectly—at Prime Minister’s Question Time. We face each other in an adversarial, indeed gladiatorial, fashion and make a great deal of noise. If we want to get rid of the noise, we must alter the shape of the Chamber and call people to a rostrum to make speeches. We should soon all be preserved in aspic and the quality of many of our debates would decline.

    One of the dangers of introducing television to the House without considering our procedures is that their shape may change in a way that we have not determined. Right from the start, we must take on board the fact that we are moving towards television because television is the principal medium of communication. It is the medium for election fighting. It is anachronistic to go around knocking on doors and speaking to our constituents. With one television appearance, we can reach more constituents during an election than we can with all our knocking on doors. Leaflets through the door are not a useful way of imparting ideas. Television is the medium.

    I suspect that one of the reasons why we are discussing this issue tonight is that we are in the gravitational pull of a general election. Some people have been looking at their sums and are beginning to say, “We should have coverage ​ on television during the run-up to an election because we may put over our case more effectively.” If we introduce this experiment, we should not do it in the run-up to a general election. It would be far more effective to introduce it immediately after the election of a new Parliament.

    I have some doubt about what the practical effects of television coverage might be. I take up some of the points made by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on the subject of Question Time. If Question Time gets the television slots, members of a minority party will want to be called, because Question Time receives the coverage. All hon. Members will have to change their priorities. It will not just be a matter for minority parties. There will be competition for a restricted time slot.

    Mr. Allen McKay (Barnsley, West and Penistone)

    Would it not be better, instead of coverage being slotted into programmes, to have a 24-hour channel so that people could switch on and off when they wished? That would prevent all the problems. It could cover the work of Select Committees and the Standing Committees which do most of the work.

    Mr. Wilson

    The hon. Gentleman has raised an interesting point. He must remember that the electorate might not want to watch a 24-hour channel. Heaven forbid that we move to a 24-hour day.

    My point is still valid; if we are talking of television we are talking of prime time. Prime Minister’s Question Time takes place at the right time of day for coverage in the news programmes. In general debates, if a Member is not called before 5 o’clock, his chances of being quoted in the television news have probably gone. The point has already been made about statements. We will have to re-adjust our individual, party and parliamentary priorities to meet the demand made by the new medium. Many of us may be disappointed and disillusioned by the experiment, and electors may reach a similar view.

    Practical problems must be considered. I want to make it clear on behalf of Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party that we would not be happy to be represented on the Select Committee by a member of the SDP or the Liberal party. [HON. MEMBERS: “Where are they?”] They have vanished to do their plethora of television interviews. At one time we could have trusted members of those parties, because they wanted to further the interests of smaller parties. They now have ambitions beyond their stature. They are imperialist in the sense that they want to aggrandise themselves to get media coverage. That is legitimate, but I should not like to trust our parties to their care on the Select Committee.

    The Leader of the House will not be able to answer other specific points, but I wish to put them on the record on behalf of Plaid Cymru and the SNP. What facilities will be made available to broadcasters in Scotland and Wales? Will adequate editing facilities be available? The experiment should not be done purely on a metropolitan basis. Many hon. Members will want their local television stations to have access to coverage of their own speeches as frequently as possible.

    Important debates on housing and local government in Scotland and Wales often take place after 10.30 pm. Will the television cameras cover those proceedings in the wee small hours of the night? Those debates will affect our constituents more perhaps than grand debates on foreign ​ affairs. If the cameramen will be there at that time, who will pay them? Will it be the House, the BBC. ITN or the local companies? The local companies would not want to take on that expense.

    There are the proceedings of Select Committees, and of Standing Committees too, although heaven forbid that anyone should want to watch what we get up to there. What about the Scottish and the Welsh Grand Committees’? The Scottish Grand Committee deals with some Bills that might otherwise be taken on the Floor of the House. Is the Scottish Grand Committee to be covered? If not, we should insist that all Scottish Bills are dealt with in the House because of the possibility of television coverage.

    If the Scottish Grand Committee is covered, will its proceedings be televised when it meets in the Scottish Assembly building in Edinburgh? As the Leader of the House is no doubt aware, it meets in Edinburgh four or five times a year to deal with legislation and other important matters. Who will take the cameras there for occasional visits? Yet it would be wrong if important visits by Scottish Members to the Scottish Grand Committee in their own country were not covered. The gallery is not large enough to accommodate many members of the public, although I must put it on record that my experience of meetings in Edinburgh is that the general public are not keen to inflict on themselves the same masochistic damage that we inflict on ourselves.

    I support in principle the televising of the House, but I have reservations about how it may be put into effect. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I will support the motion because of the assurance given by the Leader of the House that the principle of coverage will be married to a detailed report from the Select Committee and that we will have another bite at the apple.

  • Jack Ashley – 1985 Speech on the Televising of the Commons

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jack Ashley, the then Labour MP for Stoke on Trent South, in the House of Commons on 20 November 1985.

    The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame Jill Knight) was talking nonsense when she said that the televising of proceedings in another place was a crashing bore. One of the reasons why many of us want the proceedings in this place to be televised is the success of the televising of another place, which has aroused a certain jealousy in the House.

    I declare a personal interest, because my daughter produces the programme which shows the proceedings in another place. That is a special reason for me to support the motion. Having made that declaration, I believe that most Members watch the proceedings in another place on ​ television and wish that the proceedings in this place were televised. That is one of the reasons why the motion has been advanced.

    The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), in a typically intellectual and elegant speech, gave me the impression that he was talking to a bunch of masons, as if we were a private elite and had nothing to do with those outside. He could not be more wrong. This is a public assembly and we address ourselves to the public outside the House.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) came out with one of his typical and characteristic horror stories. He suggested that every bad thing that takes place in the House should be televised. He seemed to be saying that speeches should not be televised, but that everything that his fevered imagination could dredge up should be. He was talking as much nonsense as the hon. Member for Edgbaston.

    We know that television producers—I was one for eight years—are extremely responsible people. They lean over backwards to ensure justice for Members of this place and for those in another place. I believe that they bend over too far. They are too responsible and respectful. They should let things go a bit. The charge that they would take the mickey out of us is absurd. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw probably appears on television more frequently than any other Member. He appears every night—sometimes five times a night. He knows full well that television producers will not disregard the conventions of the House.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw mentioned the Prime Minister’s conversion. If it is true that the Prime Minister is now in favour of televising our proceedings because she thinks that it will lead to a political advantage for her, she has bought a boomerang. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and shadow Ministers are twice as good as the Prime Minister and her Ministers. The longer this Parliament continues, the more obvious that will become. I hope that my hon. Friend will take that point on board.

    One of the main objections is that the exhibitionists and buffoons—some of those who have spoken, but not those who are in favour of the motion—will take over the show. I am sure that Mr. Speaker will not stand for that. He will continue to call hon. Members to contribute to debates as he does now. Like other assemblies, we have our buffoons and exhibitionists. They have not taken over in the United States, Australia, Canada or western European assemblies, and there is no reason for arguing that they will take over here.
    It is said that television will trivialise our proceedings. I cannot believe that this legislature will be turned into a comic show merely because we have television cameras in the Chamber. To argue that way is to disregard the function of the House and to insult hon. Members and the public.

    We must come to terms with the modern world. We must move with the times. We must stop fighting the battle that our ancestors fought by keeping the press out. Television is the modern press—

    Mr. Beaumont-Dark indicated dissent.

    Mr. Ashley

    Yes, it is. Television is the modern means of communication. Without it, we shall continue to cut ourselves adrift from public opinion. We shall become an ​ offshore legislature. We shall legislate for a tribe about whom we know nothing—the British people. We need television because it is the most important medium of communication; we need television to restore our link with the electorate who sent us here; we need television to put us back in the centre of the stage to ensure that we again become the prime forum for public debate; and we need television to restore the lifeblood of public interest.

    Ultimately, we are speaking not simply of the convenience of the House. Parliament is not about parliamentarians. The British people have the right to know and see what goes on. We have a duty to them to expose our proceedings and allow them to be televised. The sooner we do that, the better for all concerned.

  • John Gummer – 1985 Speech on Heat Treated Milk

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Gummer, the then Minister of State at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in the House of Commons on 19 November 1985.

    I beg to move,

    That this House takes note of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food’s unnumbered explanatory memorandum dated 26th June 1985 on health and animal health problems affecting intra-community trade in heat-treated milk; endorses the view that trade in heat-treated milk should be subject to a Community regime in order to protect human and animal health; and therefore welcomes Council Directive No. 85/397/EEC of 5th August 1985 on health and animal health problems affecting intra-community trade in heat-treated milk.

    This evening’s debate is, in a sense, a repeat performance of the one that we had when heat-treated milk was discussed on 20 February 1975.
    It is the purpose of the United Kingdom to encourage the extension of the open market within the European Community so that we can compete with our products, not least agricultural products.

    In 1975, when we first discussed the issue, our agriculture was still adapting to the common agricultural policy—a process which is now complete. This has brought problems to the industry and, recently, to the dairy sector in particular, but there have also been opportunities for British agriculture and for the many people in Britain whose jobs depend on agriculture.

    When we entered the European Community, we looked forward—we accepted it at the time—to a long period in which we would be getting the technical arrangements right and so harmonise our agriculture that we could break down the technical barriers and be able to export to the rest of Europe. With milk, those changes have taken rather longer. As a result, national health and hygiene regimes have remained in force in the United Kingdom and in other member states. It is important that the health standards, which for so long have been a guarantee of the purity of British milk, should remain in force and that we should allow milk to be imported into this country only if its standard can be compared with out own.

    A number of legal proceedings were taken against member states, including Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands and the Republic of Ireland. The Commission took the United Kingdom to the European Court in 1981 on the subject of UHT milk. More recently, the Commission has initiated proceedings against the United Kingdom on pasteurised milk. In its UHT defence, and in correspondence relating to pasteurised milk, the United Kingdom argued that the problems posed by different national regimes should not be left to the courts, but should be solved by the establishment of Community-wide rules governing the production and processing of milk. This would ensure in particular that the trade did not threaten public or animal health in importing member states.

    We continue to believe that we should have the opportunity to compete with other nations in the European Community. However, that competition should be based on the same high standards for milk as we have pioneered in this country and of which we are proud. We want to have the opportunity to compete, but the competition must be within the health regulations that are so important to us.

    In 1983, therefore, the United Kingdom welcomed indications that work on a Community regime, which had ​ been in abeyance for five years, was to be resumed. Work proceeded under the Greek presidency, and subsequently under French, Irish and Italian chairmanship. Agreement was finally reached during the first month of the Luxembourg presidency, on 16 July 1985.
    Our objective throughout the negotiations was very simple. It was to ensure that imports under a Community regime would not undermine our high health and hygiene standards.

    Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

    The right hon. Gentleman is making a meal of it.

    Mr. Gummer

    It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to make jokes about the quality of milk in this country. He always reduces serious matters to jokes. I hope that his constituents will note that a joke of this kind about their health is part of his stock in trade. It was important, therefore, to ensure that the health of our population—

    Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)

    I follow precisely my right hon. Friend’s point that the health of the people of this country is vital and that milk makes a very significant contribution to that. Is it, or is it not, true that the people of Paris have to boil their milk, pasteurised or not, before they drink it?

    Mr. Gummer

    My hon. Friend is not very keen on foreigners, but we have ensured by these provisions that milk will be allowed to be imported into this country only from those countries whose standards of health are similar to our own. That applies equally to imported meat. We have always been concerned about ensuring the health of the British people. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that I am the last person who would want to cause health difficulties for him or for his children over imported foods.

    Mr. Harry Ewing (Falkirk, East)

    The right hon. Gentleman has referred on a number of occasions to the health of the nation. As the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay), is sitting beside him, can he explain why the Scottish Office has introduced an amending regulation to remove two Scottish firms from the need to produce heat-treated milk? If the health of the nation is so important, including the health of the people of Scotland. why are they not being made to adhere to the heat-treated provisions which the Minister is seeking to introduce tonight?

    Mr. Gummer

    I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not like to be misinterpreted. He meant that the whole discussion was about cream. [HON. MEMBERS: “Oh!”] It is important to be accurate about these matters. The hon. Gentleman also knows that there is to be a debate on this issue. We are discussing a very serious matter, and it is odd that the Opposition should not be concerned about the health of the nation.

    Mr. Foulkes

    Get on with it.

    Mr. Gummer

    It has taken the Government a great deal of time to win this battle in the European Community and to get so satisfactory an answer. The least the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) can do is listen to us while we discuss the health of the people. It is interesting to note that he objects to the intervention of his colleague the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing), for it is that hon. Gentleman, not this side of the House, who has held us up.

    ​ I should like to deal in some detail with the provisions of the directive. Its purpose is to lay down detailed public health and animal health requirements for the production and processing of heat-treated milk and the procedures that must apply when it is traded between member states. Although some of those matters are dealt with in individual articles, the most important provisions are in the chapters of annex A. These are the conditions that must be met on the production holding. They are similar in effect to our milk and dairy regulations which govern conditions on the farms in this country. Indeed, some of the wording of this chapter was provided by my Department.
    Part C refers to a code of hygiene governing milk practice. This has still to be drawn up, and we shall be active in ensuring that its provisions are acceptable to the United Kingdom. Our purpose throughout has been to ensure that there is fair competition between countries meeting the same type of health regulations.

    Mr. Peter Hardy (Wentworth)

    I hope that I am not interrupting the Minister ungraciously, but he appears to be skipping article 3A. Under “Originating herd”, chapter VI of the directive states:

    “The untreated milk must come from cows …

    (e) yielding at least two litres of milk a day”.

    Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that our dairy industry was prosperous until the Conservative party came to office? We would not normally assume that a cow in Britain would produce only two litres a day, except at the end of her milking career.

    Mr. Gummer

    I am sure the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that that would not normally be the measurement. We have laid down provisions which, if they are properly followed, will protect the health of our people. That is what we are about. It is odd that the hon. Gentleman objects to circumstances when a cow produces a small number of litres a day. What is important is not the number of litres, but whether that milk is healthy. The hon. Gentleman should not make that kind of point. No doubt other hon. Members will observe that chapters V and VI—I am happy for the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) to make a speech in which he can cover those matters—

    Mr. Hardy

    No.

    Mr. Gummer

    include columns headed “Step 1” and “Step 2”. This is the important point about this proposal. These provisions make a significant change in what might previously have been thought to be the type of regulations that were to be laid down.

    During the negotiations it became clear that the high standards that the United Kingdom wanted to see in the directive could not be achieved by all member states, and this threatened to deadlock the attempt to have a Europe-wide decision. We have achieved a major breakthrough. There will be two successive stages—step 1, incorporating standards that all member states could achieve, and step 2, incorporating standards achieved by a minority of member states, including the United Kingdom.

    When the directive comes into effect on 1 January 1989, step 1 standards will apply to begin with, but the higher step 2 standards will be progressively introduced ​ —first, in respect of milk for direct human consumption, on 1 April 1990, and then in respect of all milk, on I January 1993 or possibly 1 January 1995. I hope that the House will note that point. It means that we shall be able to have trade within the Community among those countries which have the higher standards, from the point at which they have them. It is Britain’s influence within the Community that will have raised the health and milk standards.

    Mr. Colin Shepherd (Hereford)

    How near is the United Kingdom’s industry to achieving step 2 standards? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is to the advantage of the United Kingdom’s industry to go to step 2 standards sooner rather than later, and not wait until the starting dates set out in article 16?

    Mr. Gummer

    Step 2 standards have already been achieved by a few states, including ourselves. Our industry will not have to make changes to meet those standards, but other countries will because they are not yet universal within the Community. That is one of the achievements that we have sought to bring about by our membership of the Community. We have sought to raise the European standards where they are higher in this country, and to provide fair competition. We should not be defensive about that. We should be proud that that is what we have achieved in the negotiations.

    That provision recognises our higher standards and obliges others to meet them in due course, but it would have left the United Kingdom exposed to imports of lower quality milk during the transitional period. Our prime objective was to ensure that that could not happen.

    At the meeting of Agriculture Ministers on 16 July this year, our partners finally accepted that member states already applying step 2 microbiological standards to their domestic products should be entitled to apply those standards to imports without any transitional period. We can therefore apply our standards to imports, and ultimately they will become the Community’s standards.

    Mr. Robert Hicks (Cornwall, South-East)

    Will my right hon. Friend clarify the position on double pasteurisation? As I understand it, that is prevented in inter-Community trade. That process is forbidden in Scotland and Ulster, but is allowed in England and Wales. Will he clarify the Government’s intentions?

    Mr. Gummer

    I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that the fact that double pasteurisation is allowed in England and Wales, but not in the north of Ireland and Scotland, shows that there is some argument about its precise purpose. Because we want to meet the needs of the industry, we have agreed that before making the final regulations under the directive we shall further consult the industry to decide whether double pasteurisation should be banned in the rest of the United Kingdom, or whether we should continue to allow it. Double pasteurisation is important. It is linked to some of the health problems that have been mentioned by the Milk Marketing Board.

    Mr. Foulkes

    Read on.

    Mr. Gummer

    I shall read as much as is necessary to clarify this important matter. Given the health standards, it was obviously a major concession to the United Kingdom for the rest of the Community to accept that we had a standard which the Community wished ultimately to impose upon the whole of the Community. We explained ​ that in a letter to the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee. That is why my right hon. Friend decided that, in the national interest, he had to agree to the directive, notwithstanding the recommendation that the draft should be debated. I hope that hon. Members, whatever view they have, will agree that it was clearly a successful negotiation. It was right for us to agree rather than to allow the matter to continue in abeyance.

    The directive takes effect on 1 January 1989. It provides for trade to be strictly controlled. Exporting member states will be required to certify that individual consignments comply with all the provisions of the directive. Certificates will be carefully checked on arrival in this country. If there are grounds for suspicion, individual consignments will be held for testing, and milk may be turned back if necessary. In case of disagreement, reference may be made to the Commission.

    Mr. Foulkes

    I am grateful for the fact that the Minister is now on the main subject. Which ports will be designated as entry ports? Clearly not every port will have the right facilities or the people qualified to deal with the work that he has been describing.

    Mr. Gummer

    The hon. Gentleman was perhaps wrong to suggest that the standards of health are not as important as the point to which he refers. Milk will be able to come through all those ports which are open to milk delivery. It will not be as for the UHT arrangements. There will be an open opportunity for milk to come in. If the amount of milk that comes in corresponds with the amount that comes in under the UHT arrangements, I doubt whether many ports will make much money out of it.

    After all the worries that were expressed when we talked about UHT, the actual amount of milk that ultimately came in was small. [Interruption.] It really is a miserable life for members of the Opposition. First of all, they complained before we did it that it would be disastrous, ghastly and awful. Then we did it and UHT accounts for just 0·03 of the liquid milk market. Then they say, “Of course, it will get worse.” It is terrible being a member of the Labour party, because things are always going to get worse. Given the fact of its history and experience, I understand why Opposition Members feel that way.

    The industry is happy about the proposals we have put forward. Of course, people would prefer not to have competition: that is the nature of any of us. The industry is happy with the proposals and feel that we are protecting the health of the nation in a proper way. The proposals will enable us to have the kind of competition and opportunities that we expect from the European Community.

    I accept that hon. Members are concerned about the economic implications—a concern expressed by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley—of allowing imports of pasteurised milk, whether as a result of the directive or as a result of court proceedings. I recognise that there is special concern about doorstep deliveries. That is a service which is highly valued, both by the consumer and by the large number of people employed in it. No one is a greater supporter of that than I am. It is part of our national life and a system which we recognise. We feared or we were told we ought to fear that it would be undermined by the changes made earlier on. That has not been the case, and I do not believe it will be ​ the case. There is no question of undermining the doorstep delivery service. It will continue because the consumer likes it.

    It works because people want it and it will continue to work.

    I recall the fears expressed when arrangements were made some two years ago to allow the import of UHT and sterilised milk. Those fears have proved groundless. As I have mentioned, the total amount is 0·03 per cent. of the liquid market, and quite a lot of that is small catering packs of the kind that have nothing to do with doorstep deliveries. This is not going to be a worry. If that is not a worry with UHT one would not expect it to be a worry with pasteurised fresh milk which is liable to go off much more quickly than longlife milk.

    These factors will work in favour of the domestic product and will allow our industry to compete effectively against imports. Already we have had people requesting information about how they might use the opportunities to export to other members of the European Economic Community. We have consulted with great care the National Farmers Union, the Milk Marketing Board and the Dairy Trade Federation, and their opposite numbers in Scotland and Northern Ireland. They accepted that, faced with legal proceedings and with the position in the Community, our best course was to negotiate for a directive. In general, this directive has been widely accepted as meeting all the requirements. There is no major issue on which those bodies feel we have failed them in our negotiations.

    I hope that the House will feel that this motion is worth endorsing and that it is an opportunity rather than a threat for British trade. It is another example of how the European Economic Community can work for the benefit of us all.

  • Eddie Loyden – 1985 Speech on Liverpool

    Below is the text of the speech made by Eddie Loyden, the then Labour MP for Liverpool Garston, in the House of Commons  on 18 November 1985.

    A moment ago, I saw the Secretary of State for the Environment in the Chamber. I would have thought that he would have stayed to hear what I consider to be an important and urgent debate. I hope that he will return to hear it, because I wished to present my case to him. No doubt he will read with great interest much of what has been said today by my hon. Friends. I hope that, at the meeting tomorrow, he will begin to recognise the problems of Merseyside, and especially those of Liverpool.

    The problems of Liverpool in particular and Merseyside in general did not begin with the election of a Labour council in 1983. I was born in Liverpool in 1923 in the heart of the slums of that city. During all my life there I experienced, worked and lived with and went to school in abject poverty and misery. Throughout that period, Liverpool city council was in the hands of the Tories, and that remained the position until the late post-war period.

    The wealth of the city was built on the ports—on commerce, shipbuilding and ship repairing—and the merchant princes and shipowners built massive monuments to the prosperity that accrued to them. Those monuments are still to be seen in the form of Liverpool pierhead, William Brown street, the Walker art gallery and George’s hall. There are many monuments to the prosperity that was brought about by the working classes of Liverpool. Those buildings and monuments, beautiful though some of them are, overlooked—as they still overlook—some of the worst slums in western Europe.

    The people lived in the slums, in rat-infested properties, in cellars and in basements. Anybody who wants to learn the history of Liverpool need only read the reports of the medical officers of health for those years, with details of the infantile mortality rates, at one time the highest in the nation. One reads of the number of deaths between birth and fifteen, of the disease-ridden areas where children who survived had to be strong indeed. The weak went under. The hearse was a daily visitor through the cobbled streets of Liverpool taking away children who died from malnutrition and the diseases that were rampant in the city at that time.

    They were the worst possible conditions that human beings ever suffered, yet that was at the heart of great prosperity in a great port. The working class of Merseyside and Liverpool did not benefit from that greatness. There were large armies of unskilled casual labour in the docks, with 20,000–plus men going out every day trying to earn a living, working one day and being unemployed the next. In shipbuilding and ship repairing, the same state of affairs existed, with men working part-time, trying to feed their families on the pittance that they were paid.

    I was part of that. My first job on leaving school was in a boot warehouse in Scotland road. I received the princely sum of 6s 6d a week, which went towards the budget of my family. I was one of the many thousands of kids in Liverpool who were in the same position. When I went to sea at the age of 14½, I found an even worse world among the seamen. They were living in absolutely dreadful conditions, yet many Liverpool people had to find their living by going to sea.

    That is the backcloth to the city of Liverpool. Remember, I am talking not of a thousand years ago or even of the Victorian era. The slums were there long after the war. I recall the misery of the courts, with 12 people to a court, with one tap and one lavatory at the end of each court for that number of people. That was the extent of disregard that the Tory council and Tory Government had for the working class of that and many other cities.

    After the war, Liverpool had high hopes for the future as the slums began to be cleared and industries came to Liverpool and Merseyside. A new dawn had broken, in the view of the people of the city. But over the years, running into the 1970s, we saw the role played by the Liberal party, with an era of hung councils, Tory-Liberal administrations and one financial cut after another, all against a backcloth of poverty, misery and rising unemployment. They, too, have a clear responsibility for the situation in Merseyside, especially in Liverpool. Their targets, pitched so low were at fault. Not a single public sector house was built in the four years when the Liberal party was in office. The Liberal council had no regard for the misery and poverty of the people. It was rightly kicked out, to bring in a council that was prepared to do something.

    I am not suggesting that the whole post-war housing development was the fault of the Liberals. There were faults long before then. People were condemned to live in the misery of high-rise flats and houses unfit for families to be reared in. The then Government contributed to those conditions. In the 1970s, the Liberals saw even more clearly than the Tories that it was a case of cutting the rates in a city that needed more public and private investment. They disregarded that, and they paid the penalty.

    In 1983, the Labour party came to power. It was prepared to tackle those problems, many of them for the first time. Labour councillors began to tackle the problems of the housing estates and high-rise flats. They began to put parks in working-class areas where they were needed and where they had not been before. They built sports centres in working class areas where people had never seen such centres. Those acts are now judged criminal. The retention in work of people who are not prepared to be added to the lengthening dole queues in Liverpool is regarded as a criminal act.

    The leader of Liverpool city council, who is a Quaker and who would not offend the law under any circumstances, has been pressed by the Government’s actions into a position where he is called a criminal in the technical sense of the word. It is a scandal and a shame that honest and decent men in Liverpool fighting against the ongoing decline of the city and trying to push back the barriers of poverty and misery are condemned as criminals by the Government.

    The final push that moved Liverpool to the brink was made by the Government. They have the main responsibility. This country is still wealthy. The 500,000 people who live in Liverpool are British citizens—they are not an alien force. They are part of the United Kingdom and are therefore the Government’s responsibility. The Secretary of State and the Government cannot stand aside and see Liverpool swinging in the air waiting for someone to cut the rope so that it can drop. Neither can Liverpool be seen in isolation.

    The city is a microcosm of what is happening in all our major cities, especially the old ​ industrial cities in the northern regions. If no immediate action is taken, this country will reap a whirlwind that we have not seen in this or in previous centuries.

    Recent statements have been made in the Stonefrost report and by the Secretary of State. Usually, the Secretary of State conducts his dialogue about 240 miles away from Liverpool. He has never attempted to meet councillors around the table to discuss the problems. He has not attempted to recognise the enormity and seriousness of the crisis in the city.

    No Government have the right to disregard the plight of a major city and its population as this Government are doing. Whatever the council does—if it fiddles around with its budget and increases rates by 15 per cent. or, in reality 24 per cent.— commerce and industry are threatening that they will fold up their tents and go if rents rise in Liverpool. On numerous occasions they have said that the margin upon which they work will become intolerable and they will go away.

    Do the Government want to conduct a vendetta against the people on Liverpool city council, the majority of whom are not members of Militant Tendency but Labour party members? They are youthful and dynamic and want to tackle the city’s problems. Are the Government waiting for the city to surrender to them and to the Secretary of State because they do not like the faces or the behaviour of some of the people? That is infantile behaviour, which is not expected of a Secretary of State—even a Tory Secretary of State.

    The Secretary of State must recognise that the problem will not go away. The crisis will be there tomorrow and the next day unless the Government intervene and say that they will have discussions with the Labour-controlled city council to enable the city to continue the good work that it has been doing to ease tension where tension has been growing. It has done everything it can to relieve those tensions. We all say that we are worried about inner cities and about what we have seen over the past two years or longer. Tension arises from the conditions in which people live.

    The city has remained the same throughout two world wars. It has always had double the level of national unemployment. That is the story of Liverpool to which the Government and the Secretary of State must listen. No Government can disregard the need for intervention to put the city on its feet and enable the council to do its necessary job.

  • John Butcher – 1985 Speech on Public Telephone Boxes

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Butcher, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in the House of Commons on 15 November 1985.

    I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle), as I know the House will be, for raising this important topic on the Adjournment of the House. I am sure that everything he said reflects the opinion of many people who are bewildered by this apparently mindless phenomenon which goes on in our midst. He has raised a subject of considerable interest. I am aware that he has taken a great interest in public call box services for a long time. I congratulate him on his pursuit of his campaign and his single-minded and highly-motivated approach.

    My hon. Friend will be aware that British Telecom operates under a licence issued by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Under the terms of the Telecommunications Act 1984, the licence obliges BT, among many other things, to provide public call box services throughout the country. I should emphasise that monitoring and enforcement of BT’s compliance with the terms of its licence is a matter for the Director-General of Telecommunications. The 1984 Act gives him substantial independent powers in that regard. Enforcement of the licence is not a matter for Ministers, and any remarks that I make in this debate must be said with that clearly in mind.

    I know that the Director-General of Telecommunications is keenly interested in the question of public call box services and maintains a close watch on the level and adequacy of the service provided by BT. I shall ensure that what my hon. Friend has had to say in this debate is brought to the Director-General’s attention.

    There are about 76,000 public payphones in the country. Those telephones provide a vital public service. That service is not only for the 23 per cent. of households which do not have the use of a telephone of their own, but for all of us when out and about. We all depend on public payphones. When they are out of order, it is always a matter of inconvenience, but sometimes it can be a matter of life and death. That is why the issue is of great public interest.

    I know that British Telecom takes its obligations to provide public call box services seriously. The company faces two major problems. One will soon, I hope, be overcome; the other is being tackled vigorously, but is much more deep-seated. I shall return to my hon. Friend’s remarks about that later. The problems are first, old equipment, and secondly, vandalism; or, to put it more bluntly, crime. That, I regret to say, is the fundamental issue. For example, last year in London alone there were 5,000 cases a month of damage to public payphones, affecting almost half the capital’s 10,650 payphones.

    Those two problems are being tackled as part of a major investment programme by British Telecom to modernise its telephone services. That will, when complete, make British Telecom’s public payphone service the most modern of its kind in the world. I understand that by March 1987 all existing equipment will have been replaced by new, push-button electronic equipment.

    Such installations are already a familiar sight in many places. The new telephones are more reliable and much more versatile. For example, they will all have automatic fault reporting so that if there is any trouble, repairs can be done swiftly. They also take a wider range of coins. There will be no ​ more frustration if we cannot find a 10p piece. That will have a considerable impact on the quality of the service provided.

    A key feature of the modernisation programme is the aim to “design out” all those features in the old style boxes which are prone to criminal damage or which make attack by vandals easier. Considerable research has gone into that. As hon. Members will surely have noticed, as well as new telephone equipment, new booths are beginning to be installed. Gradually they will replace the old ones, except where conservation for environmental reasons is necessary. They have many new features designed to minimise their vulnerability to crime and make it harder to put them out of service.

    My hon. Friend dealt with some of those features and expressed understandable cynicism. No matter how robust the new installations may be, someone will find some way of attacking and damaging them. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that it is legitimate for British Telecom to seek to design out some of the more vulnerable features of the installations. However, if a vandal is prepared to apply a manic level of strength with the object of destroying something, of course damage can be done.

    The real deterrent to such acts is part and parcel of the wider issues to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has recently drawn attention so eloquently—the reaffirmation of the traditional values of family, school and church, which teach young people to behave in a civilised manner. We must get the message across that criminal damage to public payphones is thoughtless, stupid behaviour which, at the very least, causes inconvenience to others, and at the worst, real danger. I am sure that my hon. Friend and, indeed, all hon. Members will endorse that.

    My hon. Friend has been pursuing his campaign in the northern part of the west midlands, and he mentioned another campaign being pursued by BT. He will agree that the campaign must be for every individual, if we are to get to the root of the problem.

    In response to my hon. Friend’s remarks, I wish to make observations, which in part must be questions. Why is this particular form of vandalism apparently unique to Britain? To the best of my knowledge it does not happen on anything like the same scale in the rest of the Western world. Why are British vandals so mindless that they will attack a public facility which they themselves may need one day? Even the most woolly-minded behavioural scientist would not attempt to depict a phone box as a symbol of authority or as an affront to those who suffer from deprivation. This form of behaviour is beyond comprehension. It is as incomprehensible as the physical attacks on St. John Ambulance nurses while they attended injured fans during a soccer riot at Birmingham. City football ground at the end of last Session. People who wish to destroy a public facility, through no other motive than a wish to wreck something, are beneath contempt.

    BT and the Director-General of Telecommunications unfortunately have to deal with another symptom of the growth of the propensity for mindless destruction among a small proportion of the population. My hon. Friend and I are agreed that it is up to each individual member of society to accept his or her responsibilities in changing the attitudes and levels of behaviour. In the long run, that is the only way in which to deal with this symptom of a broader and worrying phenomenon.

    My hon. Friend has done the House a great service. He has articulated a problem which arouses great anxiety throughout the country. I have noted what he said about the efforts to liaise between post offices, BT, the police force and local authorities, and the advice that he would seek to have handed to magistrates to ensure that fines are levied in a way which reflects the cost of making good the ​ damage inflicted. I assure him that the record will be distributed to the appropriate opinion formers. I have pleasure in congratulating him again on the timeliness of his intervention today.

  • John Heddle – 1985 Speech on Public Telephone Boxes

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Heddle, the then Conservative MP for Mid Staffordshire, on 15 November 1985.

    I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a subject which affects the constituencies of all hon. Members. The Order Paper gives the title of the debate as “public call box services”, but really I wish to discuss the condition and unworkability of public phone boxes.

    I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for attending to hear what I have to say. He serves his west midlands constituency of Coventry, South-West as hard and effectively as I try to serve mine.

    Incidents of vandalism and unworkability of telephone boxes, even in rural Mid-Staffordshire, which encompasses a cathedral city and two small residential towns, are horrifyingly high. Between one in two and two in three public phone boxes on housing estates, in town centres and in villages do not work. The main causes are sheer, wanton vandalism and mindless, senseless hooliganism.

    Throughout the nation, there are 76,500 red telephone boxes. They are part of our national scene, yet, despite the fact that British Telecom provides a magnificent service to its customers and makes a welcome and healthy profit for its subscribers and shareholders, the public telephone service makes a loss of £77·4 million. Part of that loss must be attributable to the fact that the service is not adequately monitored.

    There are 10,600 public phone boxes in London. Last year, there were on average 5,000 acts of vandalism to public phone boxes each month and the cost of repairing phone boxes in London was £1 million. A survey carried out for the Daily Mail earlier this year showed that only 37 of 100 London phone boxes worked. In Newcastle, nine of 25 boxes worked, in Glasgow and Liverpool 10 of 25 boxes were in operation and even in Birmingham only 14 of the 25 phone boxes inspected—56 per cent.—were in operation.

    My anxiety is for people who live on housing estates and cannot afford private telephones. I think particularly of elderly people to whom the public phone box down the road may be a lifeline.

    When television came into our lives a few years ago, we used to see a picture of the mast at Sutton Coldfield round which we saw the sign:

    “Nation shall speak … unto nation.”

    For my elderly constituents, the public phone box enables family to speak unto family.

    How will an elderly person who wants to contact a doctor late at night be persuaded to go out and make an urgent call, perhaps even a 999 call? The chances are that such a person would not find a phone box that worked. Even if he or she did, the light would probably be smashed, the glass would probably be broken and the door would probably be off its hinges. If, by chance, the prospective caller does not know the number that he wants to dial, the chance of finding a directory in the phone box will be about one in a thousand.

    I know that British Telecom has done its best to encourage the public to take a responsible attitude. I shall quote from a magazine which Sir George Jefferson’s own ​ office sent me today. It sets out the initiative which British Telecom has introduced, which is known as “Watch a box”. One passage reads:

    “The Chairman, Sir George Jefferson, took the initiative when he decided to check out a payphone on his way to work each day—now everyone wants to join in. The entire management board in BTL North West has elected to watch a box, while in BTL South West staff at all levels are taking part in a scheme run in conjunction with their area newspaper Connection.

    Whether they are walking the dog or travelling to and from work, staff have been asked, through the newspaper, to drop in and check out a payphone.
    If the payphone is not working, has been damaged or the notices or lighting are defective, then they can ring in on a special number to report the problem.”

    I do not think that that goes to the heart of the problem. There must be a partnership between local offices of British Telecom, local councils and local police forces. The telephone boxes should be inspected regularly and monitored at irregular times of the day and night with a view to trying to catch the vandals red-handed in the red telephone boxes. When caught, they should be brought to account in the courts. The fines meted out to them by the justices should be realistic and should dissuade them from ever embarking on a career of vandalism which might lead to worse crime in future.

    I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to use his influence with his ministerial colleagues. I suggest that he urges his ministerial colleagues in the Home Office to issue a directive to magistrates to ensure that when the vandals are caught the fines meted out to them by the magistrate bear a direct relationship to the cost of making good the wanton damage. The fine should be two, four or five times the cost of making good the damage. That will go some way to reducing the horrendous deficit of £77·4 million which the public part of British Telecom has to bear.

    It is no good British Telecom saying, “We have the problem under control.” I shall quote from an article which appeared in British Business on 2 August. Part of it read:

    “British Telecom claim that their new telephone kiosks will improve the situation. They point out that during 1984 there were more than 5,000 cases of damage to payphones every month in London alone, affecting almost half of London’s 10,650 payphone boxes, costing £1 million a year to repair. The new payphones are apparently much less vulnerable to vandalism. The extra degree of lighting will be a deterrent to vandals who are discouraged by high visibility.”

    I do not believe that to be so. A vandal will vandalise light or dark, day or night.

    The article continues:

    “The open-plan design and robust materials—stainless steel or anodised aluminium—will be difficult to damage.”

    If he is so minded, a vandal will damage. Even if he does not damage the telephone system itself, he will inflict damage on the casing or the red boxes.

    There is the idea that we should do away with the red boxes, which are so much part of our national life. Instead, we shall see installed a sort of Cape Canaveral cone into which my elderly constituents, for example, can make their calls after struggling down the street at the dead of night or in the heart of winter. The cones will not provide the shelter that the red boxes afford.

    I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for being in his place to answer the debate. I hope that he will take on board some of my comments, which I hope also will be considered to be constructive. If he does, I believe that his constituents and mine will be eternally grateful.
    ​

  • Norman Buchan – 1985 Speech on the Arts Council

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Richard Luce – 1985 Speech on the Arts Council

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Terry Patchett – 1985 Speech on Darfield Main Colliery

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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