UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Speeches

  • Tony Blair – 1985 Speech on Lifting the Burden

    Below is the text of the speech made by Tony Blair, the then Labour MP for Sedgefield, in the House of Commons on 16 July 1985.

    It is obviously not possible to give a detailed response at this stage, but we hope that there will be a full debate on the White Paper in due course. In general terms, we would, of course, support the abolition of unnecessary bureaucracy in the interests of small businesses, but the test that will be ​ applied to the White Paper is whether it deals with the real problems of the economy and unemployment or whether it is just another Government gimmick designed to distract attention, and in particular whether we are talking about cutting unnecessary bureaucracy or about subordinating vital protections for the consumers and employees in the interests of ideological obsession with deregulation.

    Turning to the substance of the White Paper, why do the Government identify the one major problem of regulation and then proceed to deal only with the minor ones? Is it not the case that the only area of regulation mentioned by more than one in five of the Department’s own survey was value added tax? Is not that the main problem faced by small businesses? Is it not correct that the White Paper proposes no new action of any substance on that? Why, in particular, did the Government block Opposition amendments to the Finance Bill that would have eased the bad debt relief on small firms?

    Secondly, will the Minister undertake that there will be no less environmental protection from the changes in planning procedure? Will he tell us why they are given such prominence when only a minute percentage of his survey said that they were a major factor?

    Thirdly, any loss of standards—and I think there may be—in fire regulations or health and safety regulations would be a wholly unacceptable and wrong price to pay. How on earth can it be right for the Government to impose different rights and duties in regard to safety for the public and employees based on the size of the firm? Is the Minister saying that the risk of mishap is less with small businesses? If so, may I tell him that all the evidence indicates the contrary, and that small businesses give rise to the most safety risks?

    We shall oppose vigorously the suggestions about unfair dismissal law and wages councils. What philosophy is it that says that fair play and fair rights of employment are a constraint on proper business activity?

    Many of the proposals seem to have been derived not from business experience but from political doctrine. Why is it that the scrutiny which gave rise to the White Paper received views from the organisations representing employers but not from a single organisation representing employees? Why were the Institute of Directors and the Adam Smith Institute so closely involved with the proposal? Is it not the case, as the survey itself found, that

    “most small businesses see problems with finance and sales as more serious than problems with compliance costs”?

    The same survey said:

    “The main reasons for business being good are individual effort and good demand.”

    If those are the main problems, why have not the Government dealt with them? Why create an agency to cut red tape but not agencies for industrial development? Why do we end planning protections but cut back on local authority initiatives which would create more jobs? Why do we cut back on unfair dismissal but not give proper training in the face of skill shortage? Why do we worry about the cost of meeting health and safety regulations but decline to lower interest rates?

    At first blush, the White Paper is a shabby and irrelevant document from a Government whose ideology is unable to solve the real problems of our economy. Will a single job be created by the scheme? If not, of what use is it?

  • John Moore – 1985 Speech on Lifting the Burden

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Moore, the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in the House of Commons on 16 July 1985.

    I wish to make a statement on the White Paper “Lifting the Burden”.

    One of the major objectives of this Government is to make sure that the right conditions exist for enterprise to flourish. This is essential for the creation of jobs and wealth. The country needs more jobs and we need more wealth to pay for all the socially desirable things we expect to be provided—such as pensions, the Health Service and education.

    For far too long, successive Governments—albeit with good intentions—have tended to stifle much-needed enterprise with restriction and regulation. Today, we are publishing a White Paper called “Lifting the Burden”, which sets out to put that situation right.

    As the House will recall, in March of this year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry published a report entitled “Burdens on Business”. This showed that Government requirements constitute a major drain on business—particularly small business—in terms of direct cost and of management time.

    “Lifting the Burden” is the result of the Government’s consideration of the recommendations in that report and of looking more widely at the scope for change. It also reflects the widespread representations on the report which the Government have received.

    The White Paper is the first major step in a continuing programme of removing unnecessary regulations. It refers to about 80 measures covering a wide range of initiatives in a number of areas, including planning, tax and social security, employment protection, and trade and industry—some of which have already been undertaken and some of which are for the future. Each is designed to allow firms to divert scarce resources away from complying with bureaucratic requirements and towards developing and expanding their business.

    This is but the beginning of the process, for one of the most important elements in the White Paper is the setting up of a new system within Government to assess proposed and existing regulations from the point of view of the burden the may impose on business. The primary responsibility for this must be within the appropriate Department, but a Central Task Force is being set up, within the Enterprise Unit in the Cabinet Office, to assist Departments in their consideration of how the burden on business of regulations can be minimised.

    I should emphasise to the House that we are not seeking to remove all regulations. Essential protection for workers, consumers and the general public must be maintained. And we must protect our quality of life. The Government have sought to strike the right balance between liberty and licence. The White Paper adopts a balanced approach. It represents a major step forward in giving businesses the freedom to flourish and grow. I commend it to the attention of the House.

  • Charles Kennedy – 1985 Speech on NHS Pay

    Below is the text of the speech made by Charles Kennedy, the then SDP MP for Ross, Cromarty and Skye, in the House of Commons on 15 July 1985.

    From one argumentative Scot to another I beg to move,

    That this House believes that district health authorities and Scottish health boards should not be expected to find the extra resources in the current financial year that are now necessary to implement the Government’s decisions arising out of the recommendations of the pay review bodies; and further believes that if no extra money is provided from the Contingency Reserve there will be a damaging in and unacceptable reduction in real terms in standards of health care.

    Mr. Speaker

    I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister

    Mr. Kennedy

    In moving the motion, our task and objective is to highlight the disgraceful state of affairs into which the Government are plunging the National Health Service and important branches of it by rather inadequate and third-rate stealth, and to offer a constructive solution to the present financial paralysis facing many health authorities and the nation.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright), in a question to the Prime Minister, asked whether

    “any pay settlement for the nurses which is above 3 per cent. must be paid for by savings inside the National Health Service? … Is that not an appallingly unfair way to treat a dedicated profession?”—[Official Report, 4 June 1985; Vol. 80,c. 153.]

    If the Minister for Health speaks this afternoon, he may have to behave more in his capacity as a Queen’s Counsel than a Privy Councillor. The more one studies the Government’s financing of the NHS, the more one realises that the description applied to the former Chancellor of the Exchequer in the previous Tory Government could well be applied to the Minister for Health, who displays all the attributes of a barrister trying his best to defend his client without realising that his client has seen the light and changed his plea to guilty.
    The unfairness which my hon. Friend tried to highlight was that the lack of extra cash to fund the rewards would lead to job reductions. The complete lack of extra cash in the aftermath of the pay review body recommendations will, as an inevitable and direct consequence of ministerial decisions, lead to a lowering of health provision and a decline in the quality of patient care. That is why the alliance describes the Government’s NHS policy as cuts by stealth at the expense of patients. Today we seek to highlight the plight of the NHS, and to persuade the Government to make extra cash available from the contingency reserve.

    It is worth putting into context the role and position of nurses within both the NHS and the community as a whole. Who better to quote than the Minister? In a debate on the NHS, referring to the nursing profession’s pay increase, the Minister said:

    “The Government have made it available to them, because we recognise their abstention from industrial action and the fact that the country, the Government, and the patients in particular, owe them a great obligation. It is irrefutable that it is good news for nurses to have major pay increases, in the second instalment, particularly for the staff nurses and ward sisters. It is irrefutable ​ that it is a major advance for the nursing profession to have a lasting system.”—[Official Report, 2 July 1985; Vol. 82, c. 216.]

    Those are noble and honourable sentiments, which will command support from both sides of the House. It is sad that, characteristically, the Minister is not living up to his rhetoric at the Dispatch Box in his funding of the NHS.

    The Minister and the Secretary of State for Social Services have confirmed that the cost of the pay review body awards would be about £240 million in England in 1985–86. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay) who is responsible for health in Scotland, is present, and I shall deal with the Scottish position later. DHSS Ministers make great play of the fact that this year they are cash allocating an additional £500 million, which is equivalent to 5·5 per cent., to branches of the NHS. They refer in particular to the hospital and community health services, and rightly so. However, we must consider what the figure means when it is analysed carefully and beyond the rhetoric of Ministers.

    The January 1985 public expenditure White Paper notes that the hospital and community health services will account for more than 70 per cent. of the NHS budget. In 1985–86, current expenditure will increase by 5·8 per cent. over last year’s total. The inflation rate, which the Government estimate at 3·5 per cent. and which will produce a notional real terms increase of 2·3 per cent., reflects the Government’s general illustrative assumption of a 3 per cent. pay rise in the public sector and a 5 per cent. general price rise in the NHS sector. Those figures are taken directly from the Government’s White Paper.

    However, there is an important qualification and, for the purposes of the debate, a fundamental point to be made. The assumptions about wage and price increases are fundamental to the forecasts, because the 2·2 per cent. real growth figure has disappeared as a result of the 6 June doctors and nurses pay review body reports. The additional pay costs in 1985–86 for cash-limited NHS services will be 5·4 per cent. for doctors and 5·6 per cent. for nurses. The inflation rate or relative price effect estimate has been pushed up to nearly 6 per cent.—I shall return to that figure and quote the Minister shortly—according to the Social Services Select Committee’s sixth report, which was published on 22 June. That would mean a real terms decrease of about 0·3 per cent., which is 0·2 per cent. higher than what the DHSS now concedes was one tenth of a 1 per cent. decrease in 1984–85.

    Those detailed figures are based on a careful and serious analysis of the projections and on hard accurate statistics, which the Government have made available in their forecasting and White Paper. The figures are extremely damaging because they point the way to further reductions in patient care and health service facilities to fund the costs of legitimate and well-deserved pay increases for the professions allied to medicine—nursing, health visiting and midwifery.

    Mr. Richard Hickmet (Glanford and Scunthorpe) rose

    Mr. Richard Tracey (Surbiton) rose

    Mr. Kennedy

    I shall take my pick, but it is something of a Hobson’s choice.​

    Mr. Hickmet

    That is not a nice way to describe my hon. Friend and me.

    The hon. Gentleman talks about further cuts. Why does he expect further cuts when, since May 1979, the NHS budget has increased by 20 per cent., there are 55,000 more nurses, 6,000 more doctors and dentists, more outpatients and inpatients have been treated, and there are more day patients and home visits? Why does he speak of further cuts when that is manifestly not the case? Does the hon. Gentleman concede that the Government’s record on the NHS is the finest since the war?

    Mr. Kennedy

    I have been a Member of the House for only two years, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman, who entered at the same time as me, that the gullibility of Tory Back-Bench Members never ceases to amaze me. Let us consider the real world and leave the Thatcherite monetarist universe which the hon. Gentleman seems to occupy. Let us consider what those in the front line of the service say about the figures. The hon. Gentleman did not listen—[Interruption.] The public school boys on the Treasury Bench should keep quiet, because we are quoting their figures.

    The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet) did not listen to what I said. When he talks about last year’s figures, he should remember what I said about a 0·1 per cent. cut in real terms, which, on current predictions, will be trebled this year. That will be extremely damaging.

    I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the National Association of Health Authorities is aware of the difficulties and realities of providing health care. The Minister for Health visited Cardiff last month, and much good that did the Tory party when the voters were asked for their opinion—[HON. MEMBERS: “Cheap.”] It was not cheap. I was an expensive mistake for the Tory party to send the Minister to address the annual conference of the National Association of Health Authorities. To be fair to the Minister, we should argue on his terms this afternoon and use his words as the parameters within which the debate should be conducted. When the general manager of West Lancashire health authority asked him what the funding consequences would be for next year’s allocation, the Minister said:

    “I do not accept that the award poses any threat to standards of care.”

    Within the NHS, the Minister’s is a lone voice compared with what is being said in the authorities of England and Wales and in the Scottish boards. He continued:

    “I just hope we are not looking too far ahead”—

    it is good to know that the Health Service is being governed by ad hoc expediency

    “with the implications of this”—

    —[Interruption.] Those are the Minister’s words. Hon. Members should heckle him, not me. The Minister continued:

    “After all, we have until next February to fund the full award and I hope we will not hear about cutbacks, which I frankly regard as the routine small talk of NHS politics and not necessary in a well-managed and well-run health service.”

    That demonstration of arrogance and insensitivity to those who must make the painful choices that will be made necessary by having to fund the nurses’ pay award is extremely disturbing.

    We should examine what some of those who live in the real world said in response to the Minister’s comment. The ​ national association passed a motion calling on the Government fully to meet the costs of the award. The member of Salford health authority who moved the motion said that her authority had already used its efficiency savings—no doubt the Minister will try to tell us about those—and faced a burden of £1 million for wage claims during next year. The person who seconded the motion, who came from North Tees authority, said that patient care would suffer if authorities had to find the cash for awards. Simply to balance the budget, his authority would have to make a 2 per cent. cut, and he referred to this as “crisis management” leading to inefficiency. I ask the House to compare that statement with the Minister’s statement that the routine small talk of NHS politics is

    “not necessary in a well-managed and well-run health service.”

    We now know who realises the damage that will be caused by the Government’s decision in relation to the nurses’ pay award.
    However, the matter goes deeper and further than that. During a debate on nurses’ pay on 25 March this year, the Minister talked about the expected outcome of the pay review structure. Hon. Members should not let him off of that hook this afternoon. He said:

    “The result is that all we are doing is facing everybody—Government, health authorities, staff and review body—with the reality that there is a relationship between pay and service provision.”—[Official Report, 25 March 1985; Vol. 76, c. 195.]

    I am glad that we have established that reality, because the thrust of the argument by alliance Members today will be that, given that the Minister has signalled clearly that we cannot divorce the two elements of Health Service management and delivery of patient care, it is wrong for the Government to argue that, even if they do not provide additional funds to meet the pay increases, there will be no detrimental impact on patient care.

    Mr. Tracey rose——

    Mr. Kennedy

    We have had Tweedledum, so we had better have Tweedledee.

    Mr. Tracey

    Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give serious instead of frivolous consideration to my point. He talked about service provision. Has he heard about cost effectiveness in service provision? Will he say anything about putting ancillary services out to tender? Has he said a word to the officers of his local health authority about putting services out to tender? He must realise that many costs can be saved in that way.

    Mr. Kennedy

    Like the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe, the hon. Gentleman did not listen to what I said at the outset. I quoted from a representative of one authority at the NAHA conference, which the Minister addressed, who recognised immediately that the efficiency savings that the authority had achieved, and which I hope the Minister will confirm have been achieved in many cases, have already been swallowed up as a result of the Government’s decision. I was extremely interested to note that the Institute of Health Services Management said that it makes nonsense of Health Service management to try to encourage efficiency savings and then to tell managers that those savings cannot be ploughed back into providing better patient care.

  • Kenneth Hind – 1985 Speech on Teachers’ Pay

    Below is the text of the speech made by Kenneth Hind, the then Conservative MP for West Lancashire, in the House of Commons on 15 July 1985.

    I am glad to have the opportunity to discuss the current teachers’ pay dispute. I am a former polytechnic lecturer, married to a college lecturer who comes from a family of teachers, so the continuation of the pay dispute causes me concern. It must be in our interests to create the best education system possible. One of the ways to do that is to attract to the teaching profession the best qualified and most able teachers to teach our children.

    The profession must be presented as an attractive vocation. Little can be more important if we are to nurture and develop the seed corn of tomorrow’s Britain. The future is in our hands. We must have the best teachers available at our disposal.

    We must consider the problem in the light of the society that we want for the future. As information technology and technology generally advances we shall need to provide people with higher qualifications who can cope with the jobs created by that technology.

    We shall see a society in which there will be fewer hours of work, in which people will retire earlier, and in which they will stay at school longer. They will have to learn at school how to cope with the increased leisure that such a society will provide.

    The second function of the future education system will be to provide the necessary training for the skills that will be required for the jobs of the future. We are effectively facing a social revolution, and the main function of the education system will be to enable people to adjust to it. It is for that reason that many of us in this House are very concerned to get the best teachers that we possibly can.

    The main reason for the present teaching dispute is the reduction since 1979 by about 1 million of the number of children in our schools. It has had a number of important effects on the teaching profession. The number of posts available for promotion is becoming much more limited. A considerable number of teachers are now stuck on scales 1 and 2. There is no movement and very few senior teacher posts are being created.

    Would-be teachers are being required to stay at school for an extra two years to do A-levels, to take degree courses and B.Ed. courses. Many of the honours graduates go on to obtain teaching certificates. They do not go into a job until they are 21 or 22. Those extra years at school or university have to be rewarded by proper terms and conditions of service and a decent salary when they enter the teaching profession. This House should help towards the creation of attractive terms and conditions for the teachers who come into our schools.

    At the age of 21 or 22, on a salary of £8,500 at the top of scale 1, and with very little chance of promotion, the job of a teacher is not a very attractive proposition. A scale 1 or 2 teacher today is earning the average wage, not of an accountant, lawyer or bank manager; his wages are on a par with those of a gas fitter, deck hands on ships, crane drivers and machine minders. In some cases, people in those other occupations are doing financially better than our teachers.

    The top of the pay scale of a head teacher in a primary school is about £13,500. That teacher can be responsible ​ for upwards of 300 primary schoolchildren between the ages of five and 11. The pay scale is in no way commensurate with the responsibility that a head teacher carries.
    In secondary education, £22,500 is the maximum for head teachers with 2,000 pupils, including fairly large sixth forms. Their pay is not commensurate with that of industrial managers, senior officers in the Army and senior officials in local government and central government. Today on page 3 The Times pointed out that, over the past ten years, the wage levels of head teachers in secondary schools have been severely eroded compared with those other posts. Local education authorities have reduced staff levels as schools have shrunk.

    Morale is at an all-time record low. What can we do to deal with this? The symptoms have been the annual pay round and the inevitable arguments about pay levels, followed by industrial action and arbitration. I doubt whether many hon. Members agree with the teachers’ industrial action. I reject it. There can be no forgiveness for those teachers who put children’s education in danger. Many of us understand the frustration that leads teachers to take industrial action, but, if the teaching profession is to prove its dedication and professionalism, it will not be done by acting in this way. I and many of my colleagues have pointed out to teachers that, if they want to improve their terms and conditions, by acting in this way they are not impressing those whom they need to influence—the parents, Members of Parliament and the Government. They are going down the wrong road.

    We must see an end to the annual pay round and the disputes cycle. In an early-day motion I and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) urged all parties in the dispute to negotiate in a spirit of goodwill for a long-term solution.

    Some of those who represent the teachers at high levels, especially in certain unions, do not negotiate in a spirit of good will. This has been shown by offers by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to meet the union leaders. They refused to negotiate over the 1986–87 pay settlement, even though in October we shall be finalising the rate support grant for that financial year. Many Conservative Members must suspect that the leaders of certain trade unions, in the interests perhaps of the main Opposition party, are using the dispute to discredit the Government. They are interested, not in the profession as a whole, but in making political points. Perhaps Mr. Jarvis and some of the leaders of the NUT at national level have been reading Trotsky carefully and taking to heart his advice that demands should be made on the capitalist system which it is known it cannot meet. Teachers would do well to look at the motives of some of the union leadership.
    I and the majority of my colleagues do not believe that the teaching profession is full of Left-wing activists. Teachers as a whole are eminently sensible people who realise the position that they are in. They want to settle the matter. We should be giving them the opportunity to do so. We should be talking about teachers in the way that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and other Ministers talks about the police and the way that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services talks about nurses, to emphasise the value of the teaching profession to the nation and to make it clear that we support that attitude and value them as a section of the community.​

    It is important for Conservative Members and the Government to make teachers realise that we care about their future and the future of education. It may be worth mentioning that the Opposition Benches are empty, and that the 32 Labour Members who are members of the National Union of Teachers are conspicuous by their absence, together with alliance Members, who have constantly wooed teachers. Where are they tonight? Not one is present.
    In future we must look for a long-term solution. We must see an end to the annual pay round and its associated disputes because not only teachers and parents, but everyone, is fed up with it, and want it ended. To end it, our approach to the problem must be realistic. Teachers must realise that although they have a great deal of support and sympathy for their case in the House, the dispute must be settled in a climate of economic reality. They must realise that states are like individuals in that there are cash limits on what they can afford.

    I advocate that any settlement must include the assessment of teachers’ performance. I appreciate that that is disputed, but from my conversations with teachers I know that they are not afraid of assessment. They say, “We are good teachers. We are not afraid of it.” It will give excellent teachers an opportunity to shine, and it will resolve the problems relating to out-of-school activities, school lunch hour supervision periods, and the other parts of a teacher’s daily life.

    We should consider restructuring the pay scales. The teaching profession must recognise that unless we attract mathematics and science graduates and computer scientists into the profession we shall not be able to create the technologists and scientists of the future, who will be important to the development of Britain. We shall not attract them to teaching unless they are paid adequate wage levels, commensurate with industry. Clearly, British Telecom, Plessey and the big corporations can exceed some of the salaries at present offered to young scale 1 and 2 teachers.

    A complete restructuring is required. To return to Houghton in 1974 is a waste of time, because too much water has passed under the bridge since then. We must regard the appropriate levels of remuneration on the Clegg review of 1981 as a base from which to work. If we are to give teachers’ pay increases we should consider a long-term pay settlement, for example, spread over three years, including assessment and conditions of employment. We should guarantee them an inflation 13% proof rise over and above an equalisation rise to represent the erosion in their pay levels, which has clearly occurred between 1981 and 1984. We could begin to achieve that by repealing the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965, which set up the Burnham and CLEA/ST committees. It is a nonsense to negotiate on pay in one committee and on terms and conditions in another. We should merge the two committees. In 1981, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle), who was then Secretary of State for Education and Science, told the House that it was the Government’s intention to amend he Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965 to bring pay and conditions of service within the scope of

    “a single negotiating body.”

    That is sound sense, but there are still two committees. Instead of discussing pay in one committee and conditions of service in another, they should be discussed together.

    ​If we repeal that Act, there may be an alteration in the union representation on the newly constituted body, which will truly reflect the membership of the unions in the teaching profession. They have changed greatly, especially recently. Many teachers have left the large unions and joined smaller ones because they will not go on strike. In west Lancashire, teachers undertook some industrial action at the beginning, but they have now rejected it. They have been reasonable in all discussions about this matter, and they have consistently declared their desire to talk to the Government and move towards a long-term solution wherever possible. The spirit of west Lancashire teachers should prevail throughout the country.

    A settlement of the long-term problems must include assessment of teachers and—I am sure the general public would welcome—this-a no-strike agreement, so that parents can guarantee their children’s teaching.

    As matters stand, there will be no resolution of the problem. I urge my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to do everything that lie can to give the teachers a reasonable working wage and to undertake the restructuring of their contracts. I am aware of the Department’s desire to settle the matter. Perhaps my hon. Friend can persuade the Department to reach a settlement. which can be put to the Cabinet, so that resources can be made available for the future and so that there is an end to the constant rounds of negotiations.
    I await with interest the views of my hon. Friend the Minister, who should be aware that I speak not only for myself but for many Conservative Members who believe that we should put this problem behind us. The only way in which we can run our education system is to have vision and ideals as to the direction in which it should go. The moment we lose sight of our ideals, we shall lose our way. Let us develop the best education system that we can obtain. The best way to start doing that is to solve the teachers’ pay dispute on a long-term basis.

  • Stephen Ross – 1985 Speech on Unemployment on the Isle of Wight

    Below is the text of the speech made by Stephen Ross, the then Liberal MP for the Isle of Wight, in the House of Commons on 10 July 1985.

    I feel that in some ways I could have continued the Third Reading of the Finance Bill, because, although I have crossed swords with the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) on many occasions, I agreed entirely with the remarks that he made. I intend to make somewhat similar remarks.

    I want to talk about the problems of the continuing rise in unemployment on the Isle of Wight. I welcome the fact that the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), who has suffered as I have until this late hour, is here to reply because, as is well known, he and his wife, the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley), know my constituency and its problems well.

    As the Minister will be aware, the Isle of Wight has consistently sought assisted area status. The local authorities helped by local businesses, made what they thought was an especially strong case only last autumn.

    As predicted then, unemployment has continued to rise and it reached a peak of 17·3 per cent. in February this year. Since 1980, over 3,000 jobs have been lost in manufacturing in my constituency, and at the same time the tourist trade upon which we rely has fallen by about 25 per cent.

    On the industrial front, the long-term trends have shown a continuing decline. More men and women were out of work in June this year than in 1984. That is when we are approaching the height of the season, when the rate decreases for about three months. It is currently — I know that this will be pushed back at me — running at 12·1 per cent. which is below the national average but still much higher than the average for the south-east as a whole. We have the highest unemployment in the south of England.

    Last winter, male unemployment in Ryde reached 26·7 per cent. and in Shanklin it was no less than 32·4 per cent. Those figures are reminiscent of Northern Ireland and no one should be complacent about them. Worse is about to descend upon us, because on or about 16 August 160 more jobs will go at Fibre Resin Developments in East Cowes when the firm closes its doors, despite a full order book, mostly from television manufacturers and the motor industry. I quote from the Portsmouth Evening News of 3 July last:

    “160 lose jobs as buy-out collapses. Hopes of a jobs lifeline for a doomed Isle of Wight factory have been dashed. The management of Fibre Resin Developments, of East Cowes, has confirmed that hopes of buying-out the plant have vanished and it will close next month with the loss of 160 jobs. While Fibre Resin had a healthy order book its parent company, the Unitech Group of Reading, claimed fierce competition ruled out profit in the production of moulded components, particularly for televisions.”

    I understand there is only one other manufacturer of these products in the United Kingdom. The article goes on:

    “Fibre Resin Managing Director, Mr. John Hand, and colleagues originally hoped they could find a way of turning the work into profits but now say there is only the possibility of a venture that would provide work for ‘a few’ employees. They ruled out the possibility of a management takeover for the same reasons that the parent company decided to pull out of the Island — high transport costs and less demand for some of the company’s TV products.”

    A company which is not Isle of Wight-based but which is a subsidiary of a larger company, either American or United Kingdom, and which operates on an offshore island, when it retracts, looks to see what plant it has in diverse areas of the country, particularly an offshore island, and we always suffer. To bring component parts or basic materials to the island and take them back again to the mainland costs a great deal of money. It costs something like £100 for each vehicle that comes across from the mainland.

    To add insult to injury, the Desmond Norman aeroplane company is moving its base from Sandown airport to Cardiff with the aid of loans totalling £2·3 million, including £500,000, subscribed in ordinary preference shares, from the Welsh Development Agency. I note from last Friday’s Financial Times that the agency is claiming that it has built a portfolio of around £27 million and by the end of this year it expects this will have risen to between £37 million and £40 million, invested in industrial concerns of one sort or another. Desmond Norman will, in the process, increase his current work force to about 134.

    I am sure the Minister must agree with me when I say that we could have done with such a boost. We cannot offer the Desmond Norman’s of this world attractive terms of that dimension. We wish him well. We are sorry to lose him, but we feel bitter about his departure, particularly as the skills are undoubtedly available to him on the Isle of Wight. The Firecracker, which we all know was one of the competitors for the replacement of the jet Provost, was designed and built on the Isle of Wight. Desmond Norman is well known as the designer, with John Britten, of the original Islander aircraft, the first 240 of which were built mostly by the British Hovercraft Corporation, but built on the island. On that self-same airfield, Mr. Richard Noble, the holder of the world land speed record, is also constructing a small plane and the county council, along with the Development Commission, have given him financial backing. But will it be enough? The aid that we have been able to provide pales into insignificance compared with the Welsh package for Desmond Norman. One can anticipate what Mr. Noble must be thinking as he sees his competitor on the other side of the airfield picking up such a large sum. It makes nonsense of the current assisted area designation.

    As a member of the Select Committee on Transport, I know that marine pilotage is also under review. Some 28 of such pilots live on the islands, and some of their jobs could be in jeopardy. I could go on. The future, despite our efforts, which I believe to be praiseworthy — the Minister may confirm that, and his colleague, the Minister for Information Technology, who was on the island only last Monday thought so — is not bright. We have tried our best through both local government and local businesses to improve the position, but nevertheless, we seem to be losing.

    I have only to finish by mentioning Westland, and its subsidiary, the British Hovercraft Corporation, to give an illustration of another firm that is causing us some concern. That company is our biggest industrial employer, and, as we know, is going through a difficult patch. I shall ​ not say more, because the subject was duly aired only last Monday, but the importance of BHC to the economy of the Isle of Wight cannot be over-emphasised.

    We long ago came to the conclusion that tourism and leisure are our natural growth areas, but to make this a reality, we desperately need a carrot to offer the specialist investors. Small grants from the English Tourist Board to hoteliers and others are greatly to be welcomed, but the seaside resorts of Ventnor, Shanklin, Sandown, Ryde and the sailing centre of Cowes need much more than that.

    I have to return to the Principality, because when we look at what is given to places such as Rhyl and Cardiff through the EEC, we are made envious. No completely new hotel has been built in my constituency since the war. While we now have some excellent leisure centres, one or more must become of national importance if our summer season is to be substantially extended.
    Cowes was again this year the home of the prestigious Admirals cup racing, but it particularly needs to upgrade its shore facilities. Representations on this subject have been made to me by senior officials in yachting, and I know that it is true. We must try to get developers with experience in leisure to take an interest in the island and invest there, but to do so we have to be able to offer them some encouragement. They will not come unless there is a carrot. Last year, our rate support grant settlement was the worst of any in the country, so local Government has even less room for manoeuvre than before.

    Some will say that I have said all this before and made little progress, so why do I go on about it? The answer is, “What else can I do?” Politics is the art of the possible, and it is perhaps true that if one says the same thing often enough and long enough—I have learnt that in politics one has to go on saying the same thing over and again, however boring it may be—it will eventually attract the attention of somebody who matters. I am putting down another marker on behalf of my constituents. I hope that the Under-Secretary will do all that he can to persuade his colleague of the urgency of our case, and the need for a more sympathetic approach to our economic well-being.

  • David Harris – 1985 Speech on the Isles of Scilly

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Harris, the then Conservative MP for St. Ives, in the House of Commons on 9 July 1985.

    Even at 3 o’clock in the morning I warmly welcome the opportunity of raising the problems facing one of the most beautiful parts of the country, the Isles of Scilly. In doing so, I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for agreeing to reply to this debate, because it has had a change of title. My original intention had been to raise the problem of electricity charges on the Isles of Scilly, but because of a pending court case it was thought that this might be sub judice. With the Minister’s agreement I have now brought forward the debate on the general problems of the Isles of Scilly.

    Those problems are deep-seated and long-standing. To many holidaymakers enjoying themselves in the Isles of Scilly these islands must seem like paradise, but they are a paradise with real problems. I hope to touch on some of those problems straight away, but before doing so perhaps I could call in aid no less a person than HRH Prince Charles the Duke of Cornwall, who last year wrote a foreword to a very comprehensive study carried out by Graham Moss Associates into the economy and the development of those isles. In his foreword Prince Charles pointed out that the islands have a unique environment which is enjoyed by many thousands of people each year. He went on to say:

    “However, in recent years, economic pressures have become more intense and the Islands’ economy has become more fragile.”

    These islands, five of which are inhabited with a population of just under 2,000, are some 30 miles west of Land’s End and they rejoice, perhaps quite rightly to an extent, in the title “the fortunate islands”. But, as I have said, there are real and long-standing problems. The cost of living on the islands is appreciably higher than on the mainland in many regards. It was calculated last year, in the Graham Moss report to which I have referred, that probably the cost of living on Scilly is 10 per cent. to 35 per cent. Higher than on the mainland. Even if one excludes housing costs, which are exceptionally high, the cost of living is probably 8 per cent. to 12 per cent. higher than on the mainland. This extra cost springs in part from the difficulties of transportation. Practically everything consumed on the island has to be brought, normally on the ferry, from Penzance, some 40 miles away, or by helicopter; and there is now a Skyvan service to the islands.

    Similarly, all the produce grown, the flowers and the early potatoes, has to be transported to the mainland. The difficulties are compounded if one happens to live on one of the four off-islands, because normally there is that extra leg of a journey from the main island, St. Mary’s, to the off islands. It is not a question only of freight. It is also a question of passengers. This is a considerable burden on holiday trade because fares are a very big component of any holiday on the Isles of Scilly and also for islanders themselves when they go to the mainland.

    Perhaps I should point out that the Government’s recent changes in student travel grant arrangements particularly hit the islanders and, whereas a £100 grant might be quite reasonable for somebody living on the mainland fairly near ​ to his university, for someone who has to travel from the Isles of Scilly that initial leg of the journey before he gets to the mainland is very expensive.
    I must not stray too deeply into the vexed question of electricity. However, the islanders have had a 14 per cent. increase in electricity charges this year, whereas the other consumers of the South-West electricity board, on the mainland, have had an increase of under 7 per cent. The charges for electricity on the islands are 37 per cent. higher than on the mainland.

    Housing is another very big item of expenditure, and it is difficult to build houses on the islands. The sites and the water and other services are not available, and any properties that become vacant are immediately snapped up for holiday homes or, in some cases, for people coming from the mainland to live. We all know that a distinguished former Member and former Prime Minister lives for part of his time on the island, and is welcome there. He has on many occasions spoken up for the islanders.

    Water is a big problem on the island, as is refuse disposal, which has been a major headache over several years. The difficulties continually impinge on the two main industries that sustain the economy of Scilly — tourism and horticulture. I would hate to give the impression that all is gloom. When some two years ago I had the honour to become the Member for St. Ives—my constituency includes these islands — I was worried about their economy. There has been a general upturn in the tourist trade. This year, as well, growers have done reasonably well with their daffodils and potatoes. The islands have considerable strengths. They have a versatile and talented population. I am always struck by the amount of talent — particularly among the young people who have come back to Scilly after a spell on the mainland — by their enterprise, and the way in which they are tackling the problems of the economy.

    The Island Council has recently been restructured and an environmental trust has been set up, partly due to Prince Charles’s interest in the matter, and there is the project for the extension of electricity to the off-islands, which is being carried out now. That is perhaps one of the biggest developments in the history of Scilly. It has given some uplift to the morale of the islanders.
    However, the problems have been there for many years. It would be wrong to say that everything is all right with Scilly, and we need do nothing more. That is rather the traditional approach of successive Governments. They have rather waited for a crisis to hit the islands—be it replacement of the Scillonian, the ferry that linked the mainland to the islands or, quite recently, the threat of the possible closure, for financial reasons, of the islands’ airport.

    When these crises have arisen, the Government have normally responded, although they may have taken some time to do it. The time has come to try to get away from this rather piecemeal approach to dealing with these deep-seated problems.

    What really rankles among my constituents on the islands is the difference between the policy that is handed out to them and that for their counterparts in the Scottish islands. For example, the ferry services to the Scottish islands are heavily subsidised from Government funds.

    On electricity charges, the Scottish islanders are in the happy position of paying the same tariff as the consumers on the mainland. Here is the big difference between the ​ treatment given to the Scottish islanders and the treatment which the islanders of Scilly receive. That is grossly unfair to the islanders I represent. I have just been refreshing my memory by looking back through Hansard while we were discussing this year’s Finance Bill. In the 1953 Finance Bill the Conservative Government in which Mr. Rab Butler was Chancellor decided that in future income tax should be paid by the islanders. They had escaped it up to that point. The islanders were subsequently made to pay excise licence duty and road fund licence duty.

    In recent years the Government have argued that the islanders must be treated in the same way as everyone else in the United Kingdom. My complaint is that in the matters of transport and electricity they are not being treated in exactly the same way as the rest of us who live in the United Kingdom. That is unfair and I hope the Government will direct their attention to those problems.

    I can understand the reluctance of the Government to give operating subsidies, be they for a ferry service or for electricity. At the moment there is a subsidy towards electricity, although it is paid for by consumers in the area of the south western electricity board on the mainland. I can understand the Government’s reluctance to go down the path of operating subsidies, but if they are not going to go down that path, then they should give some other compensating payments to the islanders. To a certain extent they do, and I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Minister will say something about rate support grant. I would be the first to acknowledge that the islanders have been treated quite well in that respect. But there is a case for doing more.
    One imaginative idea which has been put forward is that the islands should be made a duty-free zone. That would certainly help the tourist trade, but there are other ways of helping the islands. For example, the very energetic branch of the National Farmers’ Union on the island put forward and pressed for a long time a shopping list of measures which would give the island’s growers some real benefit from their recently won status as a less favoured area under European Community policies. I hope the Agriculture Ministers will look at that in detail.

    A programme has been drawn up with the European Community in connection with capital and other development projects using largely European funds. The trouble here is that the Government have shown a marked reluctance—I must say this—to provide their share of the finance needed to carry out integrated development operations. I hope that the Government will have a serious look at this matter because from my past experience as a Euro MP for Cornwall and Plymouth, when I was deeply involved in this matter in the early stages, I know that the Commission is eager to do something along those lines for the islands.

    Some years ago, I arranged to take the director for regional policy from the Commission in Brussels to the islands. He saw the problems for himself, and the Commission is very receptive to the idea of a development programme for the islands for which the Commission of the European Community would probably provide over 50 per cent. of the necessary finance.

    A considerable amount of work needs to be done, particularly on water supplies and the quays for the off-islands to allow inter-island launches to get to the off-islands much more easily than at present. A range of imaginative proposals were included in the report to which I referred earlier.
    ​

    My plea is that the Government should take a hard look at Scilly and not wait for the next crisis, which could come any day. We must try to get the economy of the islands on a much sounder basis. Prince Charles said in the foreward that I mentioned earlier that he hoped that it would be possible for the islands to move towards a more secure and prosperous future. That is certainly my wish.

  • Paddy Ashdown – 1985 Speech on Westland

    Below is the text of the speech made by Paddy Ashdown, the then Liberal MP for Yeovil, in the House of Commons on 8 July 1985.

    The subject of this Adjournment debate is the future of Westland, but first the House may want to know of another future, which was established not many hours ago. I am told that at 10.20 this evening the wife of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) gave birth to a daughter, Helen Grace. I am sure that the House will wish to assure the hon. Member, his wife and Helen Grace of its best wishes.

    I am grateful for the opportunity of this debate. I am also grateful to the Minister for Information Technology for his attendance, particularly in view of his past contact with Westland as Minister for Defence Procurement, and to other hon. Members who have agreed to take part in the debate and join me in supporting Westland. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) may seek to catch your eye later on, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from the Government Benches, as may the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) from the Labour Front Bench and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross).

    It must be very nearly unprecedented to have so many hon. Members take part in an Adjournment debate. I hope that the Minister will recognise the cross-party support for Westland that this indicates. What is also, I suspect, practically unprecedented is to have such a degree of outside interest taken in such a debate at such a late hour. Nearly 40 of the Westland work force travelled up especially from Yeovil and elsewhere after work today to attend this half hour debate and to show their support for their company and their belief and pride in the work that they do.

    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)

    Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he should not refer to strangers in the Gallery.

    Mr. Ashdown

    I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for referring to anybody who may or may not be in the Strangers Gallery. I merely wanted to show that there is support for Westland outside the House. I am sure the Minister recognises that their effort demonstrates the kind of commitment that is one of the greatest strengths of Westland.

    This is at once the most difficult speech that I have made in the House and perhaps the most important. Westland is not only the pride of my community, and of others in the west of England; it is also the source of much of our prosperity. But more than that, Westland has served Her Majesty’s forces as one of the nation’s principal defence industries, with exceptional distinction, most recently in the Falklands, where our helicopters were recognised by all, from the Secretary of State for Defence to the ordinary Royal Marine in the field, to have been one of the principal causes of our victory.

    Westland is our only national helicopter manufacturer and our only hope for major participation in the European collaborative helicopter projects of the 1990s. Westland is one of the key components of Britain’s aerospace industry. It is one of our nation’s first centres of the new technology. Its work force, from specialised design teams to those ​ using the newest technologies on the production line, is loyal, skilled, committed, proud of its work and confident that, as a team, it can keep Britain at the forward edge of world skills in the future.

    In short, Westland is not just vital to Yeovil. It is vital to Britain. The first thing, the chief thing, that I want the Minister to do tonight is to say just that: to say to those listening outside that the Government believe that Westland is an important national asset and that they are committed to playing their role in maintaining the overall integrity of the company.

    I know, as the Minister knows, that the Government have a confidential report confirming the importance of Westland. I know also that the Minister’s Department has shown its confidence in the company by investing in the development of the W30. I know that, whatever the Ministry of Defence does, his Department will want to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that that investment is not lost.

    Why is it, then, that throughout the recent crisis we heard not one word from the Government to strengthen the company’s position? Why is it that the Government stayed silent and allowed those in City boardrooms a free hand to play fast and loose with a great company’s reputation and the livelihood of thousands of workers? Let the Minister tonight make good that deficiency. He knows the company’s underlying strength. He knows that its long-term prospects are excellent. He knows that we have a new chairman in Sir John Cuckney. He knows that there is now, throughout Westland, a grim determination to do all that is necessary to ensure the company’s future. Let the Government make their contribution tonight by committing themselves, in terms that cannot be misunderstood, to playing their part with the work force and the management to ensure that future.

    Let the Minister recognise that one of the chief ways in which the Government can show that commitment is to make a decision soon about the AST404. Is it not the case that Westland has put in the most effective bid for this order? Did not its submission for an uprated W30 meet that specification in detail and in full? Is it not the case that Westland was the only British participant in the competition, and that in purchase price and running costs it was cheaper than the others by up to 30 per cent.? Is not the W30 300 series the best aircraft of its sort in the world, with considerable foreign sales potential? Is it not the case, for example, that Spain, Scandinavia and Australia are almost certainly ready to buy the Westland aircraft as soon as the British Government make up their mind?

    The Minister knows that these facts are true. Why, then, just at the moment when Westland was about to put the ball in the net, have the Government allowed the Army and the Ministry of Defence to move the goal posts? Is that an appropriate way to treat a great company which has served Britain so well? I ask the Minister to give us an assurance that he will use his best endeavours to ensure that the AST404 decision is taken soon and in favour of Westland.

    He should realise that his answer can make a great contribution to a great company, can help sustain prosperity and jobs in the west of England, can support one of our nation’s key sectors and can strengthen Britain’s defence.
    Westland is not seeking charity, nor special treatment — it needs neither. We are asking for a fair chance to ​ do what we do best—make the best helicopters in the world for Britain’s defence. All the ingredients are there to ensure the company’s future: the product is excellent; the work force is dedicated; the management has a new look; and the determination is evident. All that is missing is a clear commitment from the Government to join us to secure that future. I ask the Minister to provide that tonight.

  • Gwyneth Dunwoody – 1985 Speech on the Roads Programme

    Below is the text of the speech made by Gwyneth Dunwoody, the then Labour MP for Crewe and Nantwich, in the House of Commons on 4 July 1985.

    I listened with great care to the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), because I lived for many years in his constituency. Not only were two of my children born in Devon, but I lived in the hospital at Newton Abbot. The information that he gave to the House earlier was completely inaccurate. I know the area extremely well.

    I am not sure what the object of the hon. Gentleman’s speech was. The amount of money spent by the Government on roads is markedly different from the amount that they have spent in other areas of transport. For example, the Government said that, this year, their priority would be to move increasingly towards the provision of bypasses. They would be welcome in Devon and Cornwall, as well as in Cheshire. It is unfortunate that the Government’s sense of priority has meant that our motorways are becoming subject to a series of major reorganisations and resurfacing programmes at this time of the year. It would have been better if the Government had been prepared to undertake a sensibly spaced programme of road renewal at the same time as a programme of new major roads.

    I do not argue with the hon. Gentleman’s statement that the Government have spent much money on roads. However, they have not organised the programme correctly. Indeed, we may have considerable difficulty, not just this year but in the future, in getting a properly planned and organised road programme.

    My objection to the Government’s plans is different. At a time when the British Rail workshops at Swindon will be closed, with the loss of about 2,800 jobs, Government money is being spent not on providing new manufacturing and new work in the workshops but on a road programme that is still not properly organised or planned.

    The Minister of State’s efforts this week have shown some of the difficulties involved. She drove up the M1 to show that there would be some difficulties, but said that ​ her planning had ensured that the difficulties would be absorbed by the travelling public. There would have been more admiration for the Department’s planning had it provided some evidence over a longer period that the Government have balanced our need for a motorways renewal programme and the needs of our urban communities.

    The major roads in my area desperately need updating. There are many problems on the roads between Shropshire —especially the constituency represented by the Leader of the House—my constituency and north Staffordshire, because the roads programme, as it is presently envisaged, will not allow us to spend enough money on updating A-class roads to take the ever-increasing freight traffic. The provision of motorways in the area precludes that. It shows the difficulty of planning in advance for increasing freight traffic.

    The hon. Gentleman said that he is worried by the fact that traffic management is becoming too professional. His slightly derogatory tone when he said that reflects the attitude of the Secretary of State for Transport who, during the passage of the Transport Bill, showed only too clearly that he regards anyone who has a qualification in traffic planning as having slightly doubtful judgment and as being an unacceptable adviser in the planning of a transport system. That is stupid and reprehensible. For modern traffic management it is important to have the input of those who understand how traffic flows effect the areas through which they pass.

    The hon. Gentleman fears that the problem is being dealt with, not by local councillors but by others—an abstract set of advisers hidden away far from his constituency who take decisions over which he has no sway.

    One of the problems in Devon is that for many years one political party has believed that it is firmly in the saddle. Its response to his constituents is often conditioned, not by the needs of the area but by the way in which that party envisages its political advantage. There might be problems in the Newton Abbot area. I suspect that they are not unconnected with the complexion of the political party which has been in control for many years. It was in control when I arrived in the county and has only just relinquished that control at county council level.

    The time has come for the Government to accept that roads must be part of an integrated transport system. Their relationship with the movement of passengers must be calculated, not only on the basis of the numbers of heavy lorries or of road trains, but on the basis of how they can best be integrated with the rail system the aeroplane system and overall transport planning for the future. Britain can no longer afford simply to think in terms of a road system without recognising the Government’s responsibility for planning their commitment to transport spending over a wider area.

    Unfortunately, an effective and vocal roads lobby has emerged. It has advocated changing basic and important forms of transport. The Secretary of State for Transport is straightforward and honest and has made it clear that the only kind of transport planning that makes sense to him is to remove the bus system that operates for the benefit of its passengers and to replace it with a system of anarchy under which any sharp pirate who can make a penny out of the system will be allowed to benefit. The Secretary of ​ State believes that the train and inland domestic airways systems should be regarded less favourably in terms of planning than the motorway system.

    The Minister of State is not only highly intelligent but committed to intelligent road planning. At long last this year she has succeeded in achieving some acceptance in her Department of the fact that many communities want roads developed which are useful to them. People want more bypasses and more A roads. They want the motorway system to be updated so that it does not constitute a hazard to the environment.

    Only the other day I was told by a member of the police force in my constituency that, apart from the speed at which vehicles travel, the hazard caused by the closeness and the number of vehicles on the M1 and M6 is the equivalent of that caused by road trains and major freight movement. That cannot be the only efficient way to transport goods. No proper planning has been done. Public transport should comprise a wider and more intelligently grouped system of services. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider seriously what he has said and will not seek to give the House the impression that transport planners are some obscure and removed breed of men and women who have no understanding or appreciation of the needs of local communities. The Secretary of State for Transport neither understands nor accepts the role of transport planners. In fact, these planners have made their life’s work the extension of the interests and needs of local communities so as to integrate them with the national interest.

    Mr. Nicholls

    Surely the hon. Lady must realise that she is trying to have her cake and eat it. She is suggesting that all the transport sins of the world have been caused by the fact that in the past Devon county council was Conservative controlled. Secondly, she suggests that I am being unkind to traffic managers. Does she not realise, even from her brief acquaintance with my constituency, that the road patterns in the area have been devised at the behest of professional traffic managers? I said clearly—I am surprised that the hon. Lady was not able to grasp the argument — that it is too easy to criticise traffic planners. I said as clearly as I could that there should be another input. The expertise of the user should be taken into account as well as that of the professionals.

    Mrs. Dunwoody

    The hon. Gentleman has confirmed the argument that I was advancing. He seems to believe that transport planners operate in a vacuum. If he has not noticed that local councillors are consulted, that county councillors are consulted and that many people throughout the region are consulted, he has confirmed my view of the Conservative party. It is clear that it is so disinterested in the views of others that it does not take account of the occasions when it takes decisions which should be based on the informed views of transport planners. If the decisions on traffic planning in Devon have been taken entirely by council officers until this stage, I am not surprised that a different set of people is in charge of the county hall.

    I am interested that the hon. Gentleman feels that 15 years is a short acquaintance with his constituency. If we take account of some of the recent political results, he might consider that if he is not careful my acquaintance with his constituency may turn out to be rather longer than his own. However, I would not want to be unkind.

    In one sense the views of the Secretary of State for Transport are unique. They bear a strong resemblance to the views that prevailed in 1802—I do not suppose that there was a Secretary of State for Transport in those days —on the part of the member of the Cabinet who was responsible for deciding how many ruts, for example, a stagecoach should have to deal with in travelling from one inn to another. I am sure that the views of that Minister were similar to those of the Secretary of State.

    The Government are prepared to spend a great deal of money on roads, but their spending has been directed almost exclusively at motorways. I note that the Minister of State shakes her head in dissent, but motorways have, almost exclusively, been the Government’s spending target. Very rarely has Government spending been spread across our road transport system in such a way that local communities have benefited by the building of bypasses, for example. I am glad to note that the hon. Lady’s common sense is now reasserting itself. This year there has been the announcement of a change in planning for the coming years. I hope that she will be able to carry out that programme for the remaining two or perhaps two and a half years in which she and her colleagues occupy the Department of Transport. It is probably the team of Ministers whose policies will be least in need of total change when the time comes for the Government to leave office.

    I ask the Minister of State to explain to the hon. Member for Teignbridge that transport planning must be based on informed and expert advice. There is nothing wrong with being a transport expert. I know that such experts upset the Secretary of State, but their expertise is useful and should be valued. The fact that the advice of the planners is frequently disregarded in the present climate is no criticism of the experts. Instead, it is a plain and open criticism of Ministers and their way of running the Department.

  • Patrick Nicholls – 1985 Speech on the Roads Programme

    Below is the text of the speech made by Patrick Nicholls, the then Conservative MP for Teignbridge, in the House of Commons on 4 July 1985.

    I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about the roads programme, although many other subjects might be more popular. High rhetoric and declaratory speeches about road transport and motorways do not trip neatly off the tongue.

    An inferior road system has an effect on local communities and on the quality of people’s lives. To make my central point, I do not need to discuss the Government’s road programme at length. The importance that the Government attach to the subject has been clearly shown in the White Papers that they have published, in particular that of 1983. In that White Paper, the Government set out their national and local priorities. There is no doubt that the Government know what they are doing. If one considers the progress that has been made since 1979, the details given in the White Paper on Government expenditure and in my hon. Friend the Minister of State’s announcement as recently as 25 June about 51 further projects at a cost of about £300 million. one begins to see that those priorities are being fulfilled. However, when one studies those matters, I believe that one finds that one ingredient has not received the degree of prominence that it merits.
    In 1977, the present Secretary of State for Social Services produced what might be described as a seminal document setting out the attitude that a Conservative Administration would take to transport. The paper stressed that a Government implementing such a programme should seek to ensure that decisions were taken by and for the users rather than the providers of transport. In matters concerning local communities it is vital to ensure that local people’s views are properly taken into account. That problem certainly arises in the context of planning legislation, and I have raised it in the House more than once.

    The procedures adopted must pay more than lip service to local people’s views and ensure that local opinion has a real effect on the policy adopted. When one considers the way in which road traffic policy is implemented at the local level it is clear that, despite our rhetoric before we came to power, local communities do not always feel that they have the input that they want.

    The specific problem that I have in mind concerns the road traffic system in Newton Abbot, a substantial market town in my constituency. Devon is the third largest shire in England, with more than 8,200 miles of road—more than twice the total for any other county. There is no doubt that Devon and the west country generally have seen substantial improvements in terms of major capital projects. For instance, there has been the dualling of the Plymouth-Exeter road. There is now dual carriageway virtually from the end of the motorway to the Tamar bridge. In terms of major projects, the west country has benefited greatly and it was well entitled to do so.

    Improving motorways and dual carriageways, however, may simply move the bottleneck further down the track. It thus becomes even more important to ensure that the traffic is dealt with properly when it leaves those main arterial highways and comes into market towns.

    It would be all too easy for me to say that those responsible for planning the traffic system in Newton Abbot do not know what they are doing. I could make a ​ splendid speech. The Gallery would become packed and reporters would be hanging on my every word. I do not go so far as that, but there is no doubt that the people of Newton Abbot feel that the needs of their town are not properly reflected in the traffic system provided for them.

    These days everything has become a speciality. Even politics, which in our British tradition should be the province of the true amateur, has become professional. Traffic management, too, has become a speciality. There is certainly a feeling among my constituents, especially those living in Newton Abbot, that the specialists have designed a traffic system which is all very well for them but which simply does not work.

    A specific example is the Penn Inn roundabout where priorities were altered in such a way that traffic arriving at the roundabout found that it had precedence over traffic already on the roundabout. By any stretch of the imagination, it was an extraordinary decision. Public protest was such that eventually the highway authority, to its credit, while not actually admitting that it was wrong, did the next best thing and changed back to the old system.

    The system in Newton Abbot has not been completed yet, and those of us who are optimists are wondering whether, when the t’s are crossed and the i’s are dotted, the system will work. For the time being, the local people are faced with a system of one-way streets and mini-roundabouts, by which the authorities seek to control traffic. A person trying to get through Newton Abbot in a hurry on a weekday had better take a deep breath, because it takes some time to do so. On one occasion—this was not during the high season or at a particularly busy time of day—it took me 20 minutes to get across the Penn Inn roundabout.

    Clearly, if local people are asked to design a traffic system, they will have many ideas. The fact that they may not be able to achieve a consensus does not detract from the basic proposition that, at times, traffic in this market town is being brought to a standstill and the common-sense views of local people on what should be done are not being properly reflected.

    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich)

    I have the advantage of knowing the hon. Gentleman’s constituency extremely well, having lived there for many years. I am following his argument carefully. What exactly is his point? Is he suggesting that the previous Conservative-controlled county council, which presumably channelled the views of the inhabitants to the traffic planners, failed in its duty? Is he suggesting that that is why those Conservative councillors were deposed in the shire county elections?

    Mr. Nicholls

    The hon. Lady makes a particular political point. If she casts her mind back, she will recall that her stay in the west country was brief as, having succeeded in being re-elected in one parliamentary election, she was promptly deposed at another. I do not think that her reflections on how we act in the west country are especially helpful.

    I come to the point that I would have made if the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) had been able to contain her exuberance. One cannot be certain whether the traffic planners in a town such as Newton Abbot have got it right. The present structure makes it impossible for local people to ensure that their views are taken into account. A planning analogy is the best analogy ​ that I can offer the hon. Lady. What happens if the local community does not have the right to appeal once a planning application has been granted? It is too simplistic to say, “That means that it must be the fault of the local councillors.” Of course it is not necessarily their fault. Whatever their political persuasion, local councillors properly give a great deal of weight to the advice that they receive from professional officers. The planners in Newton Abbot may be getting it right, but their views cannot be put to the test. Those living in areas where the traffic does not flow freely face considerable hardship. Their hardship may be exaggerated, but one must emphasise the stress faced by the travelling public in using a complex traffic system that is not working properly.

    We can note the Government’s priorities and the spending on major projects and can compare the record of this Administration with that of their predecessor. This Government are getting it right.

    In the end, one must come down to local level and ask oneself: “Can we be sure that there is proper control, so that those who are responsible for road planning are providing transport systems that are there for the benefit of the people, dictated by the people and created in the light of their experience, or is it a case of transport systems being thrust upon them from on high?” That is the point that I wished to make to my hon. Friend.

  • Richard Needham – 1985 Speech on Schizophrenics

    Below is the text of the speech made by Richard Needham, the then Conservative MP for North Wiltshire, in the House of Commons on 3 July 1985.

    It is not very often, I suspect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you find two unrelated Pattens sitting on the same Bench at half past 4 in the morning. I welcome the arrival of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) to reply to this short debate. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), who suggested over a year ago that I should instigate the debate. I owe much of the information and knowledge that I have gained about the problems of schizophrenia and the problems of parents who have to look after schizophrenic children to a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Bath, Mrs. Baker, who is the secretary of the Bath schizophrenia group.

    I have been in correspondence with the Department of Health and Social Security on the issue on behalf of one of my constituents for a considerable time. In August 1983 Lord Glenarthur wrote to me, making the following points:

    “In the light of comments received on that document”—

    he was referring to a document entitled “Care in the Community”—

    “we are pressing ahead with a programme aimed at getting out of hospital and into community care as many as possible of those patients who do not specifically require hospital care … As you know, the needs of people who are, or have been mentally ill vary greatly. Both local health and social services authorities are obliged to provide care and after-care for these clients. A community psychiatric nursing service is an important component of health service provision in the community. This aims to provide help outside the hospital and so prevent unnecessary admission to hospital and to provide a nursing aftercare service following discharge from hospital.”

    It is that paragraph that I want to bring to the Minister’s attention in relation to a case in my constituency. I have an elderly couple in my constituency. The husband is 77 years old. His wife is half a year younger than he is and is bedridden. They are not badly off financially, but the last few years of their lives have in many ways been a living hell as they have struggled to look after their chronically schizophrenic daughter. Two and a half years ago she discharged herself from a mental institution. She then squatted in an abandoned farmhouse, but was finally persuaded to move to a MIND hostel, where she set fire to her bedclothes. It was then agreed mutually that she should return home. Since then she has been living at home. I should say that she had also been living at home on and off before that.

    As I have explained, the parents are old and infirm, and what assistance do they get for her care? Once a fortnight they are visited by the community psychiatric nurse, who gives the daughter an injection. The nurse is extremely busy and does not have much time to talk to the parents. That is understandable, and I make no criticism of it. Once every three or so months the head social worker from the local mental hospital comes to visit them. The daughter receives invalidity benefit of £30 to £40 a week and the bedridden mother gets home help five days a week.

    Therefore, the sum total of the assistance referred to in the noble Lord’s letter is a visit once a fortnight from the CPN — the community psychiatric nurse — who, as I have said does not have much time, and who is changed ​ quite regularly, and that is it. There has been no respite for the parents, according to them, to enable them to get away while their daughter is cared for.
    The point that I want to bring to the attention of the House is that chronic schizophrenia is a young person’s disease. It strikes between the ages of 15 and 30 and makes no distinction between rich and poor, clever and stupid. One third of those who suffer have a reasonable chance of total remission, one third do not recover, and one third continue to have attacks with varying degrees of intensity.

    That most of the patients are better treated outside the confines of long-stay mental institutions is not in doubt. What is in doubt is whether in certain cases the policy of returning to the community is being properly and adequately organised and financed, or whether an increasing and intolerable burden is being placed on the very often aging parents.

    What provisions are being made for cases such as the one that I have quoted? I see in his place my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), who also has a great understanding of these problems and whose views are similar to mine on this matter. When will there be individual care plans? When will there be places to which patients can go with their parents to have care dispensed and where the different organisations responsible for patient care can come together to discuss care, provision and future needs so that parent substitutes can be built up, so that general practitioners can feature much more in looking after the problems of the chronically disabled — general practitioners play a vital part in emergencies, but it is often felt by elderly parents that it would be much more useful to have them involved in a more permanent way—and also so that the chances of any likely increase in the suicide rate can be resisted? Parents may feel that without a place which is specifically set aside for them to discuss these matters, the care that their children get and that they can look for is disjointed.

    Chronic schizophrenia is a dreadful disease. It is dreadful for the sufferer, as he or she withdraws from the family circle, suffers hallucinations and delusions, hears voices, loses the will to work and suffers acute stress and worry. Physically robust the sufferers may be, but they become mentally wrecked. It is dreadful for the parents as they see the love of their children wither and change. It is dreadful for the parents as their hopes for their children are dashed and as their responsibility for the care of their children increases and the prospect of a peaceful old age recedes.

    When one parent was told that his child had chronic schizophrenia, he was advised, “React normally. Try to treat your child as normally as you can, and try to be as normal as you can.” After years of care for his child, he said to me, “You have to become abnormal yourself if you are to survive.” The point that I make follows on from the report of the Select Committee on Social Services. It does not seem to be right that in the care of chronic schizophrenics the parents should be other than a bonus in the provision of those services that patients require. They should not be the centre around which the various bodies which are responsible for patients hover uncertainly.

    The report of the Select Committee, which was published in January, covers the ground very adequately and puts forward recommendations and solutions. When the Government respond to it, I hope that they will follow the recommendations of the Committee and do so with ​ urgency. I trust that they will do nothing to close down existing provisions until adequate community provision is demonstrably in place. It cannot be right that very elderly people have their last years ruined by stress and worry because their children, whose love they find fading and withering away, cannot adequately look after themselves and they, the parents, cannot adequately look after them.

    Mr. Patrick Thompson (Norwich, North) rose—

    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)

    Order. Does the hon. Gentleman have his hon. Friend’s agreement to intervene?

    Mr. Needham

    Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

    Mr. Patrick Thompson (Norwich, North)

    I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene briefly in this short debate in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham). In my short time as a Member of Parliament, I have already come across cases in my constituency identical to those which my hon. Friend described. The matter has also come closely within my experience and knowledge. Therefore, I can reinforce my hon. Friend’s description of the great distress and catastrophic effects of this disease on the families of sufferers.

    It is right to emphasise that schizophrenia is remarkably common although, for obvious reasons, not widely publicised. The National Schizophrenia Fellowship was formed to support families who face this difficulty and who are not receiving the necessary support. It started with a letter in The Times by the founder, and the flood of response to it reflects how common the problem is, yet how little the general public know about it.

    My hon. Friend referred to the effects of recent Mental Health Acts, the fact that treatment cannot always be completed and the fact, therefore, that the burden falls back on the family. Therefore, I do not need to deal with that.
    Relatives cannot easily cope with the problem, especially elderly relatives. Families find it difficult to put up with the emotional stress and the violence. In supporting my hon. Friend, I encourage the Government to provide understanding and support, and to encourage society also to provide understanding and support for people facing this serious problem. I hope the that the Minister will respond in that spirit.