UKPOL.CO.UK

Blog

  • Clinton Davis – 1978 Speech on Marine Oil Pollution

    Below is the text of the speech made by Clinton Davis, the then Under Secretary of State for Trade, in the House of Commons on 13 July 1978.

    The hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley), in a brief period, has raised a number of headline points, but I suspect that he has not done much research. He referred in the first place to the desirability of implementing the merchant shipping Bill. In his peroration, he said that he disagreed with the legislation and had doubts about it. The Government have every intention, as is exemplified by the fact that we introduced a White Paper to which the merchant shipping Bill was annexed, of implementing the Bill.

    It is to the discredit of the Opposition that their trade spokesman yesterday denounced the need for the Bill and said that a Conservative Government—if, by some mischance, they were elected—would not introduce that legislation. He was running completely counter to the wishes of the whole shipping industry—owners and trade unions alike—and counter to the interests of the countless people who have contributed to the working party reports on pilotage, discipline, the employment of Asian seafarers, and so on. That shows the degree of responsibility of the Opposition.
    This is not a satisfactory opportunity for discussing the pros and cons of the Government’s actions over the “Eleni V”. The matter is being considered by a Select Committee, to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and I have given evidence.

    I wish to rebut some of the hon. Gentleman’s general allegations. It is easy to throw out such allegations in an Adjournment debate—wholly irresponsibly, wholly disregarding the available evidence, and claiming that the Government are to blame. Others will be able to pass a more authoritative judgment than can the hon. Gentleman, whose judgments in the House can scarcely bear the scrutiny of being authoritative in general terms.

    Mr. Adley

    Will the Minister give way?

    Mr. Davis

    No. The hon. Gentleman has had his go. I cannot cover all the ground that he covered, and I do not propose to deal with matters affecting fisheries, but I or one of my colleagues will write to him on that.

    Although I have been given only short notice, I shall try to deal with the specific points that the hon. Gentleman raised at the end of his speech. I agree that the primary emphasis must be on the prevention of pollution, and my worry about the hon. Gentleman’s proposals is that, in practice, they would have little regard to that consideration. We are determined that the United Kingdom should continue to play a leading role in the search for effective measures to reduce oil pollution from ships, but we must recognise that our coast may be polluted by vessels of any nation, not just by those trading with ​ Europe or ourselves. The problem can therefore be dealt with only on an international basis. If we are to avoid the anarchy of conflicting national requirements, that is the route that we have to travel. We have therefore directed our main efforts to action in IMCO, but there are no easy solutions. We need more dedication to resolve these problems through the international community than has been evident for a number of years.

    There have been a number of important advances this year alone. In January, the 1969 amendments to the international convention on the prevention of pollution of the sea by oil, 1954 finally came into force internationally, and the amended convention lays down discharge standards which, if universally adopted, should substantially eliminate oil pollution as a result of routine ships’ operations. It is worth noting that the adoption of these standards was made possible by the development, largely at the initiative of our own oil industry, of the “load-on-top” system.

    In February, agreement was reached at the IMCO conference on tanker safety and pollution prevention requiring all tankers of 10,000 gross tons and above to have two separately operable remote steering gear systems. All such ships will also have to be fitted with at least two independent radars. In addition, more frequent inspection of the equipment of all tankers will be required. All this should significantly improve safety. Furthermore, important agreements were reached to deal with operational oil pollution by adopting requirements for segregated balance tanks and crude oil washing.

    Safety depends largely on the human factor. It is with that in mind that IMCO organised a conference in London on the training and certification of seafarers during June and this month. The conference led to the adoption of the first international convention on standards of training, certification and watchkeeping for seafarers. Following a proposal by the United Kingdom Government, the conference developed and incorporated in the convention regulations and recommendations dealing with the special training of masters, officers and ratings of oil, chemical and liquefied gas tankers, which we shall ratify at the earliest opportunity.

    We are also in the final stages of a joint study with France on a system of movements reporting by certain vessels carrying dangerous cargoes in bulk as they pass through traffic separation schemes in the Channel. That will have to be subject to international agreement through IMCO.

    Reaching agreements on conventions and protocols is one thing, but they have to be brought into effect. It is encouraging that IMCO has now agreed on establishing a number of target dates. That should expedite implementation.

    We have already ratified the 1974 safety of life at sea convention. Last month the Government published a White Paper to which the merchant shipping bill was annexed. We propose to see that implemented as soon as possible so that we can ratify international requirements much more speedily. The hon. Gentleman and his party do not want the Bill to see the light of day.

    The North Sea states memorandum of understanding is important, but the hon. Gentleman did not mention that. It is designed to exert control procedures over the standards of merchant ships visiting the ports of the countries concerned. It came into force on 1st July. It covers both safety conventions agreed under IMCO and a series of conventions dealing with crew matters agreed under the auspices of the ILO.

    Much has been achieved, but I agree that much more remains to be done, especially in bringing agreements into operation and enforcing them. We shall play our full part in that process.

    I know that the hon. Gentleman has been much concerned about the mechanical recovery of oil. We have relied on the use of dispersants in dealing with pollution at sea because so far that has been seen to be the only method proven to be generally reliable and effective in the often turbulent waters around our coasts. There are other methods. There are booms and mechanical recovery systems. Warren Springs laboratory has been evaluating the more promising items of recovery equipment over the past two years. It is developing a system of its own design for use in the open sea. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is showing encouraging results. I shall not deal with ​ the specific recovery method that he has mentioned.

    I turn to the specific proposals that the hon. Gentleman made. I doubt whether I shall be able to complete my consideration of them this evening. He has taken the trouble to devise a charter. It is not my intention to pour cold water on the proposals. However, there is a danger of heightening expectations with ideas that in practice may be unworkable.

    The hon. Gentleman has suggested unilateral action. Prima facie, that is attractive, but in practice I do not believe that it will work. What is more important, unilateral action would diminish the authority of IMCO. It would thereby diminish the ability of the international community to devise and enforce international legislation, which I believe is the only effective way of doing something about the problems that concern the hon. Gentleman. Ships not visiting our ports or those of the EEC but using the waters of the North Sea, the Atlantic and the English Channel would be unaffected by the proposals that he has put forward.

    Mr. Adley

    No, they would not be unaffected.

    Mr. Davis

    Further, some of the hon. Gentleman’s proposals interfere with the right of innocent passage. Has he considered the repercussions? Has he considered what effect it might have on our own vessels, which provide a livelihood for a substantial number of British seamen? That is a factor that I, as a Minister, have to take into account.

    What would be the repercussions of the hon. Gentleman’s proposals on the rest of our industry? Surely we must gauge that too. His proposals ignore the situation of North Sea States that are not within the EEC.

    I suggest that the hon. Gentleman’s proposals ignore the degree of international co-operation already existing, as exemplified by the North Sea States memorandum of understanding. It ignores the work that has been done through IMCO which is continuing and has had particular stimulus this year. It ignores the degree of Anglo-French co-operation, following “Amoco Cadiz”, which introduced positive proposals. It ignores the Bonn agreement among a number of ​ nations in Europe, providing for assistance in time of emergency and for the exchange of information. It ignores the degree of anti-pollution work that has already been undertaken, in particular through IMCO and the certification of training of seafarers’ conference—a monumentally important conference. It ignores the compensation provisions that exist and that would be improved by the coming into effect of the 1971 fund convention, expected shortly to come into effect. It ignores the fact that accidents occur to vessels when crews are already thought to be competent and whose certificates of competence would undoubtedly satisfy the hon. Gentleman’s requirements as set out in paragraph 6.

    I submit that none of the proposals, save perhaps those in paragraph 6, which are indefinite in any event, has a direct bearing on accident avoidance. That is the factor that is uppermost in the minds of all responsible Governments and has been uppermost in their minds, as exemplified by the February, June and July conferences that have taken place through IMCO.

    I concede that we have a great deal to learn. That is why the Government are engaged in their own internal stocktaking at the moment. That is why many organisations are deeply concerned to learn lessons from “Amoco Cadiz” and “Eleni V”. That is absolutely right. We do not have, and I doubt whether we shall have, complete answers to these problems. There is always room for improvement. If the Government have made mistakes, they will not be afraid of admitting them, because improvement is essential.

    I believe that to reduce the authority of the organisation which, above all others, is able to introduce the international requirements, without which we ​ cannot take effective action and which would be the corollary of unilateral action, which the hon. Gentleman is at least in part advocating, would be a very dangerous step. It is one of the reasons why we urged the United States not to take unilateral action—a judgment which they accepted at the February conference of IMCO.

    I believe that it is dangerous simply to talk in general terms, as the hon. Gentleman has done, although no doubt with the best intentions in the world. It heightens people’s expectations that there are ready solutions available. There are not ready solutions available. We have to work and to research carefully. We have to do this assiduously and in co-operation with the oil companies, the shipping industry and the trade unions concerned, because they have a valuable contribution to make in all these matters. It is not good enough, in my judgment, to make generalisations and, indeed, condemnations as the hon. Gentleman has done, unfortunately without adequate research.

    The hon. Gentleman was right about insurance. I have a responsibility in that matter. I am concerned about the role of the oil companies in chartering ships. But I am not prepared to condemn them without giving them an opportunity to answer the allegations that are frequently and generally made. I said to the House not long ago that I was proposing to call the oil companies in for a discussion so that I could hear what they have to say—

    [sitting suspended at this point]

  • Robert Adley – 1978 Speech on Marine Oil Pollution

    Below is the text of the speech made by Robert Adley, the then Conservative MP for Christchurch and Leamington, in the House of Commons on 13 July 1978.

    I turn from the problems of the national financial scene to a problem that is worrying many people almost as much—that of oil pollution at sea.

    This is worry enough for those of us who represent coastal constituencies. It is a double worry when, off those coasts of our constituencies, oil has been discovered under the sea. In the case of south-east Dorset and south-west Hampshire we also have onshore oil as a potential threat.

    Worry turns to fear when one considers the events of the last two and a half years—the “Urquiola” affair in La Coruna; the Ekofisk blow-out in the North Sea; and, more recently, the “Amoco Cadiz” and “Eleni V” disasters, with their tragic consequences. There was also a less-heralded event in southern England when there was a leak in the pipeline from Southampton Water to London. Subsequently electronic testing showed that there were 90 faults in ​ that single pipeline. So it is not surprising that people are alarmed at what could happen if these disasters strike near at home.

    There has been widespread dissatisfaction with the way in which the Government handled the “Eleni V” affair. The Minister will know that there was widespread alarm at the implications of the “Amoco Cadiz” affair off the Brittany coast. We all know the phrase about Nero fiddling while Rome burned. It has looked to many people—the Select Committee on Science and Technology heard this yesterday from the county council representatives in East Anglia—that Her Majesty’s Government appeared to dither over the case of the “Eleni V”. While Governments dither, the oil industry relentlessly pursues its interests, sometimes with apparent disregard for the interests of the people whose livelihoods can be affected, particularly fishermen.

    One of the points that I wish to make in my case tonight is that so many Government Departments are involved that the oil industry seems willing and able to pursue its own interests in the knowledge that whilst the Departments decide amongst themselves which is responsible, the industry does what it wants to do. We had an example recently in the English Channel, where BP and Gulf have been carrying out a seismic survey. They have caused considerable damage to lobster pots and fishermen’s nets. The fishermen are ostensibly looked after by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, whilst the oil companies are responsible to the Department of Energy.

    I want to quote briefly from one or two letters that I have received from different Ministers, to illustrate the point that I am making. The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food wrote to me on 9th June as follows:

    “Although John Silkin has no formal statutory obligations or authority for dealing with such matters, the good offices of our Sea Fisheries Inspectorate have been used in order to bring the fishing and oil interests together. I am glad to say that by working quietly behind the scenes the Inspectorate has already achieved some measure of success in cooling the temperature.”

    It should not be necessary to have to work to bring the fishing and oil interests ​ together. The Minister of State went on to say:

    “Immediately the local Inspectorate had heard of BP’s activities they contacted my officials in London.”

    My contention is that if the oil companies had been observing the law, the fishing interests would have known beforehand what was going on, because the Petroleum (Production) Regulations 1976, schedule 5, paragraph 23, state:

    “The Licensee shall not carry out any operations authorised by this licence in or about the licensed area in such manner as to interfere unjustifiably with navigation or fishing in the waters of the licensed area or with the conservation of the living resources of the sea.”

    There is one of numerous examples that I could give where interdepartmental split responsibility has caused a great deal of unhappiness and discontent. Whilst the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Energy have been trying to find out what has been going on, BP and Gulf have been having a ball in the English Channel.

    The Under-Secretary himself wrote to me on 16th June. He always tells us—we accept this—that he and the Government have overall responsibility for oil pollution matters. But in correspondence concerned with the situation in the Channel, he said:

    “I am sorry that the Department of Trade’s limited powers in this area do not allow us to take account of the interests of the fishing industry, other than to safeguard the navigation of their vessels.”

    That is quite unsatisfactory.

    In the limited time available, I cannot possibly read out all the different ministerial responsibilities of Trade, Agriculture, Defence, Energy, Environment, Home Office and Industry which illustrate the point that I am trying to make. I take just one small item. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is responsible for licensing chemical dispersants, but the Department of Industry is responsible for providing research on these dispersants. There are numerous other similar examples that one could give.

    I have not taken an interest in this matter just recently, as the Minister will know. In fact, over two years ago I took a director of a company in my constituency to see one of the then Ministers at the Department of Industry because ​ he needed further assistance from that Department with his oil mop device, which is able to lift oil off water. In spite of persistent questioning, it has taken over two years for Warren Springs laboratory finally to get round to testing this oil mop device at sea. The oceangoing test has just taken place and I am delighted to say that it looks as though the device will be every bit as successful as we all believed it would be two years ago. This device, manufactured in my constituency, can have inestimable environmental advantages and can, I believe, bring tremendous economic advantages to the United Kingdom.

    But the pressures from outside this country to steal our technology are well known. In the case of the oil mop device, when I went with my constituent to La Coruna I was confronted by some fairly ruthless people, and it was quite clear to me that if this country does not develop its own technology and keep it for itself, others will snatch it from us.

    I was disgusted when I found that a Mr. Wayment, who had been working for the Department of Industry and who had been most unhelpful, had subsequently gone off and worked for an American competitor of the company in my constituency and had taken with him all the technology which he acquired when he was working at the Department of Industry. This is the sort of international competition and tactics that we have to face.

    Having had a glimpse under the blanket of the tactics of the oil companies, I want to take a moment to examine the activities of Lloyd’s and the insurance side of the oil pollution business. Oil insurance is very big business, and the Minister, amongst his many responsibilities, is responsible for insurance. It is estimated that the “Amoco Cadiz” catastrophe will cost the French authorities about £60 million. In this country, if we have a problem like the problem of the “Amoco Cadiz” I have no doubt that Lloyd’s will very quickly pay out the money owing to the oil companies and tanker owners.

    In my inquisitiveness I wrote to the chairman of Lloyd’s on 4th April and asked him:

    “Can you tell me what, if any, checks you make on the proficiency, qualifications and behaviour of the crews on oil tankers before you ​ are willing to pay out insurance money? It is felt in some quarters that Liberian-registered tankers with a multinational crew are less likely to observe proper navigational rules than those observed by a British crew in a British ship and I would very much welcome your views on this point.”

    I was somewhat surprised to receive a reply from the deputy chairman of Lloyd’s telling me:

    “Underwriters have no control over the proficiency, qualifications, and behaviour of crews on oil tankers. This is the responsibility of the Classification Societies and the Governments of the Countries in which the vessels are registered.”

    That is not a satisfactory situation. If one drives one’s Mini along Whitehall and knocks into a bollard I have no doubt that the insurance company concerned will ask many searching questions about one’s licence, insurance, tax and test certificate. It seems to me that there is rather less concern on the part of Lloyd’s about paying out insurance premiums to the “drivers”—if I may refer to them thus—of 250,000-ton tankers than there is about Mini drivers driving up and down Whitehall.

    I know that the Minister is looking forward to presenting us at some stage with a merchant shipping Bill. Eighty per cent. of the accidents at sea are caused through human error, and I certainly hope that we shall be ratifying the IMCO convention, which was agreed last Friday, because the question of competence is of very great concern.

    Competence, however, is only one of the problems. The threat that our coastline faces is not just a threat of incompetence; it is a threat that is aggravated by the sometimes ruthless and aggressive and acquisitive actions of the oil companies themselves. I am not satisfied that the Government possess adequate machinery or powers to deal with the situation, so, in the few remaining minutes that I have I want to put to the Minister an eight-point plan.

    Oil pollution ruthlessly threatens the livelihood of people everywhere, and also the environment. Ruthless action is therefore needed. We cannot wait for world-wide agreement. The EEC should act, because it offers a clearly defined areas in which inter-governmental action is possible.

    In my eight-point “EEC Oil Charter” I want to ensure that the principle “The ​ polluter pays” becomes a reality. Failing speedy EEC agreement, Her Majesty’s Government should act alone, now.

    First, I want to see all oil companies world-wide registered in a special category before they can trade in the United Kingdom or the EEC. I call this the A list.

    Secondly, all oil-carrying ships and their owning companies should be registered in a special category, which I call the B list.

    Thirdly, the carriage of oil at sea within EEC territorial waters should be restricted to companies registered on the A list, in ships registered on the B list.

    Fourthly, all companies on the A list to indemnify Governments whose territorial waters they enter against all costs of environmental pollution caused by collision or other source of pollution, such as washing tanks at sea.

    Fifthly, an indemnity or oil fund to cover these anti-pollution costs should be financed by companies on the A list and held and administered by EEC sources. These funds should be available to Governments for research into anti-pollution devices, including the provision of standby tugs with anti-pollution devices aboard.

    Sixthly, all companies on the B list should notify Her Majesty’s Government of the competence of all senior crew who will be in charge of ships on the B list.

    Seventhly, no tanker insurance should be provided by companies trading in insurance in EEC, unless clause 6 is fulfilled.

    Eighthly, in the event of oil spillage at sea, the Government of the territorial waters concerned should have immediate call on the funds provided under clause 5 of my charter, such funds to be made available by the Government to local authorities or whoever is responsible for clearing oil from land or sea; and it shall be the responsibility of the relevant oil company immediately to refinance the oil fund after an accident involving its oil.

    At the moment we merely pay lip service to the principle “The polluter pays”. The ACOPS report, published in May this year, produced a whole series of interesting information. It said that all com​pensation depends on identifying the source of the pollution, but ACOPS states that in most instances the source of pollution cannot be traced. Thus, Government adherence to “The polluter pays” principle often carries little weight in practice. This seems to me to be a strong reason for suggesting that the strongest possible restriction should be placed on oil tankers entering our territorial waters.

    If only registered tankers were allowed, perhaps we could do something about recovering the costs from previously unidentified pollution—the unglamorous pollution about which we hear little, but which is a constant scourge.

    I referred earlier to the French Senate. In The Guardian of 1st July there was a very interesting report on the French Senate committee which was looking into the “Amoco Cadiz” affair. The report said that

    “proper control of pollution in the Channel could only be done with an investment of about £600 million, according to the Senate, which recommended that the prefect should have a fleet of helicopters, tugs, anti-pollution vessels and new radar systems under his control. It suggested that other European countries and petrol companies should help finance an anti-pollution plan.”

    The next disaster may be tomorrow’s headline. The time to act is now. Prevention is better than cure. We cannot wait for the merchant shipping Bill, with which I am not satisfied anyway because the proportion of the Bill that deals with oil pollution is minimal. We have interdepartmental muddle and uncertainty characterised by the “Eleni V” affair. It is 11 long years since “Torrey Canyon”. I ask the Minister “When shall we ever learn?”

  • Nicholas Winterton – 1978 Speech on Voluntary Membership of Student Unions

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nicholas Winterton, the then Conservative MP for Macclesfield, in the House of Commons on 12 July 1978.

    I beg to move,

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the voluntary membership of student unions, student associations and student representative councils; to make consequential provisions with respect to the membership fees and charges of those bodies; and for connected purposes.

    The purpose of my Bill is to increase and enhance the image and stature of all students in the United Kingdom. Many hon. Members pay lip service to young people being given genuine responsibility and independence, but when it comes to a proposal to do something definite about this, they find themselves unable to honour their principles for all sorts of extraordinary and irrelevant reasons.

    At present all students at universities, polytechnics and most other institutions of higher education are compelled to join their local student unions. That is repugnant to anyone who believes in the genuine freedom of the individual. But the purpose of my Bill is not merely to moralise on the rights and wrongs of the closed shop as it affects students but to draw the attention of the House to the misuse of some of the £14 million of ratepayers’ and taxpayers’ money spent annually by a minority of students who manipulate and control Britain’s student unions.

    Every student at university must pay an annual fee of up to £50 to the university authority, which passes it on to the student union. The fees of most students who receive maintenance grants are paid by the local education authority where their parents reside. The purpose of these funds, theoretically, is to enable services, clubs and societies to provide for the students’ leisure, welfare, recreational and social activities. For example, if a student plays rugby football, the rugby club should be provided with a student union grant to provide facilities for the students to play the game.

    Let me examine the reality in a university with about 5,000 undergraduates. The student union receives indirectly from the taxpayer and the ratepayer 5,000 times, say, £40 a year. This money is ​ distributed to various clubs and societies by the vote of the student union general meeting. These meetings claim to decide what 5,000 students collectively desire, but they are usually attended, by political activists numbering no more than 150 to 200. Such student politicians rarely, in my experience, represent the silent majority of student opinion and, politically, they make certain hon. Members below the Gangway opposite appear like members of the landed gentry.

    I have examined in some detail the student union budget at the University of Reading, and I thank the undergraduates at that university for supplying me with figures which would make the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s eyebrows flutter with incredulity.

    Is the House and the country aware that at Reading University this year, £7,705 is being given to 64 clubs and societies? Let me tell the House about some of these societies. For example, £85 of ratepayers’ and taxpayers’ money is being given to a society to promote homosexuality. Are there so many homosexual students at Reading University that public funds must be spent to sustain such activities? Another £200 is being paid to a group of students to allow them to play war games with toy soldiers and a further £95 has been given to GAFIA. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you think, as I thought, that GAFIA is a society that promotes classical learning, but you would be wrong. It is the Get Away From It All society.

    Mr. Douglas Henderson (Aberdeenshire, East)

    Why does the hon. Gentleman not join?

    Mr. Winterton

    The activities of this society, unlike my own, remain a mystery, but there is no mystery about who pays the £85 for these students to get away from it all. The taxpayer and ratepayer cannot get away from this expenditure. In addition, £95 is given to a group of students to keep bees. It may be milk and honey for some of the students at Reading University, but it is the taxpayer and ratepayer who get stung for the bill.

    I have been in touch indirectly with the university authorities at Reading and they claim that they maintain a close control of the student union books and ​ say that they regard the union officers as highly responsible. The registrar said that he was satisfied with the system of student union finance at the university. That should be put on the record, because that is the view of the authorities, but I am not satisfied and nor are the taxpayers and many of the students at the university.

    Hon. Members may think that Reading is not typical of all universities, so let us go to Essex, as I did on 11th May to address a public meeting. When I arrived, I was confronted with my image plastered all over the campus. Across the posters that showed photographs of me was daubed in red the word “Eliminate”. That was not all. Underneath the photograph were words that I would not care to repeat, even in the House. This sort of material was provided by funds given to an organisation at the university by the National Union of Students and, therefore, came from the taxpayers and ratepayers of this country. While some are driven to do unpleasant things to prevent me from promoting my principles, I leave it to hon. Members to judge whether it is right for public funds to finance the poster that I am now holding and other similar activities.

    I have intentionally not given details of the NUS handouts of public money to guerrilla and terrorist organisations and liberation movements because that raises, perhaps, too many emotions. My Bill seeks to end the sort of abuses that I have outlined to the House, not by withdrawing or withholding funds but by adding the students’ union fee to the students’ maintenance grant. In this way, it will be possible for the individual student to decide how to spend the money on his or her leisure pursuits. The student will be free to join or not to join the NUS, the rugby club, the Conservative, Labour or Liberal clubs or the bee-keeping society, but no student will be compelled to pay for something that he opposes or does not support.

    The House can take heart from the lead given by the Prime Minister of Australia, Mr. Malcolm Fraser, who has written to all State governments instructing them to prepare legislation to make the membership of student unions voluntary. Many hon. Members have indicated to me that they share my views on this matter and I know there are some in other parties who may join me in the Division Lobby if necessary.

    It is not only the taxpayers and ratepayers who are looking to the House to take a stand on behalf of students—it is the students themselves. They are crying out for an end to the abuse of public money spent in their name. They want proper accountability and genuine democratic control. The undergraduate population of this country does not have the time or the inclination to keep a check on student unions. Undergraduates wish to pursue their studies and they have a lot of work to do. They are as anxious as we are to eliminate wastage, but they do not have the time to indulge in the intrigues of student politics which are dominated by lifelong students on sabbatical—and how sabbaticals have increased in recent years:

    If we cannot trust students, who, as adults, we deem capable of electing governments or fighting for their country, to spend their union fees as they, individually, would wish, there is little hope for the future of our country, which depends on these young people.

  • Frank Hooley – 1978 Speech on the Peak District National Park

    Below is the text of the speech made by Frank Hooley, the then Labour MP for Sheffield Heeley, in the House of Commons on 10 July 1978.

    I believe that one of the great Socialist achievements of the post-war Labour Government was the creation of the national parks. The Peak District national park is unique in two respects. First, it is like a nut in a nut cracker, the jaws of which are the great industrial conurbations of South Lancashire and South Yorkshire. Secondly, the Peak park planning board is both a national park authority and a planning authority. In this latter capacity it has recently produced a structure plan to determine ​ developments for the future of the park into the 1990s, after meticulous consultation with interested bodies and the general public.

    In this regard, I should like to quote a brief sentence from a recent Fabian pamphlet on national parks which records the view:

    “On all counts the park that comes out by far the best is the Peak District…Its success in provision for the public and care for the land under its remit and in the initiatives it has taken and is taking in recreation is by any yardstick remarkable.”

    The whole raison d’être of the national parks is to conserve and defend some part of our country from the kind of development that we are obliged to tolerate elsewhere as the price of an industrial society and to defend it also from the ravages caused by the indiscriminate pursuit of each and every form of recreation that ingenuity can devise and commerce profit from. The board endeavours to satisfy these two aims, but in no way ignores the reasonable demands for recreation, holiday caravans, homes, jobs and the national need for minerals.

    The response of the Secretary of State to the board’s recent proposals has alarmed and dismayed a great number of bodies and persons who are passionately concerned about the future of the park. These bodies include the Council for National Parks, the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, the National Trust, many private individuals and the National Farmers Union, which has made direct representations to me on this matter.

    There are three main areas of serious concern: first, the extraction of minerals; secondly, the problems of recreation; thirdly, houses and jobs.

    The question of mineral working is the crunch issue between the board and the Minister, and its eventual resolution will, in my view, determine just how far the Secretary of State is fully and truly committed to the concept of a national park.

    The board forthrightly says:

    “There will be a general presumption against new mineral workings or extensions of existing mineral working activities in the park.”

    It then goes on to apply two clear firm tests for the determination of any future applications for mineral extraction.

    First, is it vital to the public interest? Secondly, is it clear beyond doubt that there are no ​ practicable alternative sources of supply? Anyone who has seen the ghastly ravages of limestone quarrying already taking place in the park must endorse these two criteria.

    The report of the national parks policy review committee—the Sandford report —itself emphasised that:

    “a fundamental conflict exists between the purposes of national parks and large scale industrial development”.

    It goes on to say:

    “The presumption against development which would be out of accord with park purposes must be strong throughout the whole of the parks”.

    The Secretary of State appears to reject both criteria on the grounds that:

    “it would be impracticable to require applicants to prove that their proposals were vital in the public interest or that there were no practicable alternative sources of supply”.

    of the mineral concerned.

    I suggest that any competent geologist could give evidence on the second point and that it should not be such a very abstruse calculation to determine the economics of a particular application and the alternatives. As regards the public interest, the very creation and preservation of the national parks are themselves supremely acts in the public interest and ex hypothesi the onus should be placed on those who would tear it to pieces to prove that their proposals are no less vital to the public interest before being allowed to go ahead.

    If the Secretary of State for the Environment is now going to throw all the weight and authority of his important office against the considered judgment of a unique national park planning board, which has a quarter of a century of experience in trying to cope with the vast economic power and vested interests of mining companies, the future outlook for national parks is bleak. The general presumption against, which is the planning board’s policy, should stand.

    However, with regard to minerals there are two particular problems. The board accepts the need for limestone working for chemical, steel, cement and some other industrial uses, but points out that these add up to only 47 per cent. of the rock extracted—chemical 22 per cent., steel, 10 per cent., cement and other uses, 15 per cent. The rest, more than half, is used as aggregate, especially for road building, ​ and the board objects to this, proposing to limit planning permission to the need to supply industries

    “requiring the unique properties of high purity limestone”.

    The use of this valuable material for road building has been a national scandal for some time, especially as there are in the United Kingdom vast spoil heaps which could be made to yield up material for this purpose.

    Various Government committees—the Stevens committee and the Verney committee—have looked into the question of sensible controlled mineral working and a national policy on aggregates supply. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State argues that it is not possible to regulate the end use of minerals by planning control. But he recently made a decision on mineral workings at Tunstead, near Buxton, which was entirely based on ICI’s need for high purity limestone for use in the chemical industry. The need for aggregates was not upheld.

    In these days, when conservation of raw materials, sources of supply, recycling and similar problems are coming more and more to the fore, the Secretary of State’s curious abdication of effective planning control over mineral extraction is alarming, and the more robust approach of the planning board is much to be preferred.

    The working of fluorspar is a more difficult problem than limestone, because 86 per cent. of United Kingdom deposits of this material are in the Peak park, and it is an important material for steel and aluminium production. It is also used in the petrol, chemical and ceramics industries.

    However, a significant proportion of current fluorspar production from the Peak is exported overseas. The board argues with some cogency that the nation’s interests might be better served by retaining known resources of this relatively rare mineral for future use rather than going for a short-term gain in export earnings, which have declined in each of the past three years, and amount to only about £1¼ million.

    The Secretary of State seems to fall back on a vague phrase about proposals for working fluorspar being considered on their merits. He rejects suggested controls by the planning board to enforce the least damaging methods of operation. In my view, this would constitute a green light to the mining companies to go ahead with their plans and ignore environmental considerations.

    I turn to the question of recreation. In any area designated as a national park there must of necessity arise some conflict between the almost infinite demands for recreation and the basic need to conserve the character of the park and its natural beauty. The planning board is not indifferent to the rising demand for recreation. The number of visitors over the past 10 years has trebled, to about 16 million each year, but the board takes the view that there must be some limits if the overriding duty to preserve and enhance the natural beauty of the park is to be discharged effectively.

    The Secretary of State appears to think that recreational use should be pushed to the maximum compatible with natural beauty, and suggests that the scale of provision be increased to a level of use without significant detriment to its character and environment. These phrases would seem to me to imply that the demand for recreation takes priority over the principle of conservation of the park, and if this argument is accepted it would over a period of time undermine the whole purpose of the creation of the national parks.

    The planning board makes a presumption against new sites for static caravans. The major objection to static caravans is that they constitute a permanent intrusion on the landscape even when not in use. Moreover, there is abundant scope for such sites outside the park but within easy access of it.

    As regards touring caravans, the board wants firm control and discussions with surrounding local authorities to secure sites outside but within easy reach of the park. As the owner of a small touring caravan myself, I would be quite happy to use a site near, but outside, the park. By definition, people with touring caravans have cars to travel within the park if they wish.

    The board stresses that the object of residential development, of new housing, will be to meet local need and safeguard the interests of local people, which seems sensible. The Secretary of State appears ​ to be more concerned to cater for commuters, ignoring the problems which have already been created by the pressure of external demand on the housing stock in the park, to the detriment of local people. This is not a problem peculiar to the Peak park. People in parts of Wales have complained bitterly that cottages and bungalows have been bought up as country residences at prices way beyond the pockets of Welsh people who would have liked to buy them. Providing housing for the commuter may be a normal feature of life in the south-east. It is not an appropriate policy for a national park. I referred earlier to the Fabian pamphlet on the subject of the parks. This stresses that

    “Local unemployment can only really be solved by the introduction of long-term smaller industries suited to the locality.”

    The board for its part makes it explicit that it is not opposed to industrial development but wishes to ensure that it is on a form and scale appropriate to the needs of particular parts of the park to offset the decline in jobs offered by mineral working and agriculture.

    The Secretary of State seems to me to delete the careful safeguards spelt out by the board and to substitute a dangerously loose phrase about employment opportunities that could be accommodated with significant detriment to the character of the locality. This could just be a matter of wording, but in that case I prefer the more precise phraseology of the board to the vaguer terms suggested by Whitehall.

    The strength of the structure plan as drawn up by the planning board is that it seeks to build firm, strong defences against developments that, may be blatantly, may be insidiously, erode the character and beauty of the park For this reason, the board is against additional static caravans, against the maximum exploitation of the park for recreation, opposed to new mineral working, and concerned to keep very tight control on industrial and residential development. The Secretary of State appears to want no hard lines, vague criteria and everything considered on its merits. In my judgment, since we are dealing with so unique and irreplaceable an entity as the Peak District national park, a great national asset, the planning board’s approach is right and the Secretary of State’s attitude, as evidenced so far in his comments on the plan, is dangerous and unsound.

  • Frank Judd – 1978 Speech on Rudolf Hess

    Below is the text of the speech made by Frank Judd, the then Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in the House of Commons on 7 July 1978.

    I, too, am grateful to the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend), with his very special first-hand experience and his deeply genuine concern, reflected in the speeches by other hon. Members who have spoken this afternoon, for drawing attention to the subject of Rudolf Hess. This matter is not a subject of controversy on party lines. I believe there is a wide consensus in the House that the continued imprisonment of Rudolf Hess is hard to justify. For well over 10 years now, successive British Governments have believed that Hess should be released from Spandau gaol in Berlin. That view remains as firm as ever.

    I must make it clear that our motives for this strongly held view are exclusively humanitarian. They are not based on any judgment of Hess’s personality or character, or of the crimes with which he was associated, or of the nihilistic philosophy of which he was a symbol during the Nazi era. It must be stated clearly, without qualification, that the barbarism, horror and inhumanity of Nazi, Fascist tyranny can in no way be diminished by the passage of time. Nazi Fascism will remain for centuries a blot on the history of Western civilisation, a fearful reminder of the savagery and irrationalism into which human beings can so easily relapse.

    The sacrifice made by the millions who died or who suffered unspeakable brutality at the hands of the Nazi regime cannot be measured; nor can the debt which is owed to the millions who gave their lives in combating this evil ever be repaid, still less forgotten. Nazi Germany and everything it stood for have been totally and utterly condemned, and there can be no doubt that Rudolph Hess played a crucial and leading part in the ​ construction of the apparatus of Nazi terror and that he bore a grave responsibility, along with the other prominent Nazis, for the crimes of this monstrous system.

    These facts are plain, but there are also many enigmas in the story of Hess. The reasons which led him to fly to the United Kingdom on 10th May 1941 may never be clear. It is possible that, even at that time, his motives were confused. It may be that he believed that a personal peace mission on his part could end the war, or it may be that he had some dark premonition of the fate that awaited his country. In any event, the results of his mission was that he was imprisoned in the United Kingdom until the end of the war.

    At the end of the war Hess was sent to Nuremberg, where he stood trial before the international military tribunal. With him in the dock were many of the worst criminals of the Nazi era, who had inflicted disaster and cruelty of unprecedented proportions on Europe. As the House knows, many of these criminals were sentenced to death and subsequently executed.

    But Hess’s life was spared, and he received a sentence of life imprisonment, not for the capital charge of war crimes but for the less serious offence of crimes against peace. Like six other criminals sentenced by the Nuremberg tribunal to long terms of imprisonment, he was sent to Spandau prison in Berlin to serve his sentence under the guard and supervision of the four powers which had established that tribunal. For well over 10 years now he has been the sole prisoner, although he was not originally sentenced to solitary confinement.

    Hess is now 84 years old and has been a prisoner continuously for 37 years. I have made it clear that he is a criminal who unquestionably deserved meaningful punishment for his crimes. But I think the House will agree that this punishment has been by any standard severe. His punishment now has what can only be described as a malicious and almost absurd character about it. As the House knows, in western societies a sentence of life imprisonment frequently means very much less than its literal implication that the prisoner should never again see the light of day as a free man.

    If Hess were ​released tomorrow, he could be said to have paid a high price for his misdeeds.

    Despite his ordeal, Hess’s health is good for a man of his age and he could well live for several years yet. But if his sentence is carried out in full, if the last drop of revenge is taken on him as a symbol for the crimes of a generation, he will spend these years in Spandau. This is a prospect which it is difficult to contemplate with equanimity.

    As I have said, responsibility for the imprisonment of Hess rests jointly with the four victorious powers which established the Nuremberg tribunal. Three of those powers—Britain, France and the United States—have long been in favour of Hess’s immediate and unconditional release on humanitarian grounds. The British Government on their own, and the three powers jointly, have on numerous occasions urged the Soviet Government to show clemency to Hess, thereby reaffirming that the values of our societies are the demonstrable antithesis of the unmitigated bestiality of the Nazis.

    My own most recent attempt to persuade the Russians was on 12th of last month, June, when I summoned the Soviet ambassador. I told the ambassador of the concern among various sections of British public opinion about the continuing imprisonment of Hess. I made it clear that if the Soviet Government were to reconsider their approach, they would earn considerable respect. I said that the imprisonment of Hess was no longer in accord with proclaimed Soviet or western aims for society, and that this made it all the more necessary to end it.

    Unfortunately, I have to inform the House that the Soviet ambassador’s reaction was the same as the Soviet’s reaction has been for over 10 years. There has never been the slightest sign of flexibility in their attitude, and they are adamant that Hess must remain in gaol until the end of his sentence—in other words, until his death.

    The Russians argue that many people still regard Hess as one of the principal architects of the Nazi system and that to release him would be to set up a living symbol of barbaric ideas and a focal point for nefarious neo-Nazi influences. His sentence and continued imprisonment, on the other hand, serve, they say as a powerful deterrent to such activities. ​

    The Russians contend that compassion and humanity have already been shown to Hess in full measure by the simple fact that his life was spared, and they claim that the Soviet people, who retain vivid memories of their war-time sufferings and the 20 million Soviet casualties, would not understand the sort of compassion involved in releasing Hess.

    I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I express the fullest respect for the sacrifices made by the Soviet Union and its people in the fight against Nazism. Few nations made a greater sacrifice or fought with greater courage. But it is difficult to believe that the release of Hess would conjure up the dangers the Russians identify, or that it would be seen as anything other than an act of common humanity.

    Indeed—contrary to their judgment—there is a danger that Hess’s continued imprisonment could attract greater sympathy to him than would be the case if he were released. The constant publicity given to his predicament surely keeps him, and what he stood for, in the public eye much more than would be the case if he were released and after, inevitably, a brief period of publicity, were to vanish into obscurity.

    As I told the Soviet ambassador, release would underline the values of our respective societies, as claimed, as compared with the evil of all that motivated Nazism. But one thing remains certain—the Russians are not prepared to contemplate the release of Hess.

    In these circumstances, it has been suggested that the western allies should resolve jointly to ignore the Russians and to release Hess unilaterally during one of those months when one of the allies is providing the guard at Spandau gaol. This has been suggested this afternoon. It has been argued that such a move would call Soviet bluff, that it would demonstrate a bold decision to end an intolerable situation, and that in any response the Russians would not endanger the achievements of detente, with all the benefits it has brought to the Soviet Union, simply to demonstrate their irritation at such a move. This may be the case.

    But I must leave the House in no doubt that unilateral action by the British Government, or by the three western powers acting in concert, would undeniably constitute a violation of a binding international agreement. The Nuremberg tribunal which sentenced Hess was established by a formal agreement between the four Governments, and the charter of the tribunal clearly states that it is the responsibility of the control council of Germany—that is, the four powers—to reduce or alter sentences.

    The four powers also acted by quadripartite agreement in choosing Spandau prison and laying down the regulations of that prison. The day-to-day administration, and the arrangements for guarding the prison, also rest on a quadripartite basis. There have been no decisions relating to the prison and its inmates, or changes to the original 1946 and 1947 arrangements which have not been a matter for consensus among the four powers.

    This is the legal reality surrounding the continued imprisonment of Hess. I need not remind the House that it would be a grave matter under any circumstances if the British Government were unilaterally to violate a binding international agreement. But in the case of Berlin such an act would be likely to have unforeseeable but certainly dangerous consequences. In Berlin, the whole western position depends on a nexus of four-power agreements of which that involving Hess is only one. It has always been a matter of policy for the western powers that these agreements should be scrupulously observed and not infringed unilaterally. As a result, our position in Berlin is strong, and the Soviet authorities have never had any legitimate reason to tamper with the presence and rights of the western powers in Berlin.

    It is a plain fact that the security and freedom of the 2 million inhabitants of the city depend on this presence and these rights. The House will, therefore, understand that a unilateral infringement of the agreements relating to Hess might well set a precedent which could lead to an unacceptable degree of uncertainty and tension relating to Berlin. This is a situation which it is in our vital interest to avoid.

    In these circumstances I believe—although I reach this conclusion with the greatest possible regret—that it would be the height of irresponsibility for the British Government to act unilaterally in ​the case of Hess. Such an act could endanger the comparative calm and stability that has been so laboriously constructed in and around Berlin. The only course open to us is to continue to represent to the Soviet Union the fundamental unreasonableness, inhumanity, and, above all, counter-productivity of the Soviet position on this case.

    We must continue to remind the Russians, as we have been eloquently reminded, that Hess is an old and broken man. We must impress upon them that he is a more potent symbol of Nazism if he remains an object of sympathy than he would be if he were released. We must emphasise that his continuing im ​prisonment is an affront to civilised values. We must point out that to keep him in jail undermines our own self-confidence that human values have been re-established since the Nazi holocaust.

    We shall continue to do all these things and, in doing so, I am confident that we have the support of virtually the whole House. I hope the message from this afternoon’s debate will be seriously and attentively listened to in Moscow. That message is unmistakably clear: Hess should be released from Spandau immediately.

  • Neville Sandelson – 1978 Speech on Rudolf Hess

    Below is the text of the speech made by Neville Sandelson, the then Labour MP for Hayes and Harlington, in the House of Commons on 7 July 1978.

    I, too, am grateful to the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) for allowing me a few moments in which to support his plea. Two or three years ago, I had the macabre experience of flying low over Spandau in a British military helicopter and seeing this human remnant from a bygone political era taking his brief morning exercise within the prison walls. It seemed to me horrifying and morally offensive then, and even more so now, that a man in his eighties, ill in health, should continue to be incarcerated in solitary confinement in that huge prison with the grotesque multinational militia permanently taking their turn to guard him.

    What on earth is the point of it all? What is it supposed to prove? What moral lessons are being proclaimed? To my mind, only one—that those who deny his release today are themselves guilty of grave moral wickedness. It is the vindictiveness and malignity of the Soviet Government which alone prevents Hess’s immediate release.
    I, too, fully recognise Hess’s personal guilt and responsibility for the crimes of the Nazi regime. By any penal standard short of the death penalty, he has paid a heavy and protracted price for his offences against human rights. But what is the human rights record of the Soviet Government? Need I say more about Soviet tyranny, which at present stands condemned in the eyes of the whole civilised world?

    As one who recalls with deep emotion the Nazi massacres of those whom I think of as my own brothers and sisters, I beg the British Government and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, whom I know to be a sensitive man and sympathetic to the views that are being expressed in the Chamber, to ensure that this sick old man is released by taking power into their own hands. I urge the Government to contrive Hess’s release into a West German hospital the next time the British military control over Spandau comes round. It would be an act of mercy which would be in accord with the British character, and it would be approved by decent people the world over.

  • Clement Freud – 1978 Speech on Rudolf Hess

    Below is the text of the speech made by Clement Freud, the then Liberal MP for the Isle of Ely, in the House of Commons on 7 July 1978.

    I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) for allowing me a few minutes of his Adjournment debate. In his time as a soldier, the hon. Member has guarded Hess in Spandau prison. In my time at the end of the war, I was ​ war crimes liaison officer in Nuremberg and it was my duty—”privilege” is perhaps the wrong word—to meet him and other war criminals. I therefore came upon the scene at a rather earlier stage than did the hon. Member.

    It should be remembered that what Hess did is totally irrelevant to this debate. There is no question but that he was a war criminal and that, as the Russians continue to maintain, he was a symbol of Nazi Germany. The Russians also say that he is a man who has never relented. I feel that a man of 84 probably has little else to do in life but not relent, especially in view of the treatment that he has had.

    I welcome the Minister of State, Foreign Office, to this debate because in previous debates we have been faced with a Minister for the Army. It must be realised that our—when I say “our” I mean that I, too, am a member of the hon. Member’s campaign to free Rudolf Hess—complaint has been not so much with the Army as with the general attitude of Her Majesty’s Government. Although I welcome the Minister, I am sorry that other Ministers—such as the Secretaries of State for Industry and Trade and the Ministers with responsibility for the arts and for the Central Office of Information: all the Ministers who are responsible for the fact that the Russians get more from us than we get from them—are not here to listen to a debate which shows the displeasure of all caring people of Great Britain.

    I am not concerned particularly about the numbers or the weaponry of those who are guarding Rudolf Hess. I am concerned about the simple obscenity of having anyone, armed or not, guarding a man of 84 who is about to die. That is the crux of this debate.

    It is significant that his incarceration is having in the world today the opposite effect to that intended by the Russians. A man who is a criminal is being made a martyr. His books, which had no particular merit, are selling better than many books of enormous literary merit, simply because of the fascination and sympathy with this old man.

    We have been told that unilateral action by us in the odd series of days on which we are responsible for guarding Spandau might incur the displeasure of ​ the Russians. Heaven knows, the Russians have incurred our displeasure often enough, and I say to the Minister that the time to be frightened of incurring displeasure should be over. I would dearly like us to see whether we cannot, with the consent of the two other humane nations which are part of this quadpartite agreement, work out a way—and to hell with the displeasure of the Russians—which will allow an old man to die in peace at home.

  • Cyril Townsend – 1978 Speech on Rudolf Hess

    Below is the text of the speech made by Cyril Townsend, the then Conservative MP for Bexleyheath, in the House of Commons on 7 July 1978.

    I rise to appeal to our Government once again over the plight of Rudolf Hess. I shall be brief so that other hon. Members from other parties may take part in the debate. I shall not repeat all the points that I made when I last raised the matter in the House on 20th December 1976.

    Hess has been in captivity since May 1941. Since 1966 he has been in solitary confinement in Spandau. He is 84 years of age and his health, according to his family with whom I am in close contact, is failing fast. To be blunt, Rudolf Hess may well die before his case is debated again in the House.

    I am the current chairman of the all-party freedom for Rudolf Hess campaign. I recently returned from addressing our fellow campaigners in West Germany where, not unnaturally, there is strong feeling on the subject.

    The Foreign Office should be thanked for raising this matter yet again with the Soviet authorities which have been vindictive and intransigent. I must express my abhorrence at the petty, outdated, inexcusable regulations that are being applied at Spandau. Is it not monstrous that so long after the war the Government still cannot make available to Parliament the rules laid down by the four Governments at Spandau for prisoners who are in solitary confinement?
    I have no doubt that Hess would be willing to swap his prison conditions with those of the most cruel and callous IRA mass murderer in any of Her Majesty’s prisons. No country that calls itself civilised can continue endlessly with the Spandau charade.

    I have known the Foreign Secretary personally since long before he became a Member of the House. I am the last person to doubt his humanity or his passionate belief in human rights. But what is going on at Spandau today and every day is inhumane and a total negation of human rights. For example, Hess is not even allowed to consult the lawyer of his choice, Dr. Bucher, the former Minister of Justice in the Federal Republic.

    It is the considered view of the all-party committee that the next time that the United Kingdom is responsible for Spandau Hess should be removed to a secure ward in the British military hospital in Berlin. Of course, that step would be supported by America and France. Of course it would incur the displeasure of the Soviet Union, with which the ultimate blame must rest. The Soviet position cannot and must not be the position of the British Government and people any longer. Quite simply, their ways are not our ways, particularly when it comes to dealing with those who are in captivity.

    What would the Russians do if we were to break the four-power agreement on Berlin in this minor area? It is clear. There would be a diplomatic flurry. There might be a threat and nothing much more would happen. Perhaps we shall be told by the Minister that if we took unilateral action the Russians would feel deprived of some basic right in West Berlin. But the truth is that Soviet military personnel can move round at liberty in West Berlin, as British military personnel can move round East Berlin in freedom. In West Berlin the Soviets have their own war memorial which they guard every day with Soviet soldiers.

    If we never say boo to a goose we shall end up defending the indefensible. Both Funk and Raeder were released on grounds of age and ill health. I should prefer Hess to be released unconditionally so that he can go home to die in peace. But I accept that that might present greater difficulties for the Foreign Office.

    I hope that the Government will have a fresh look at the military guard which is supplied every month in rotation by the allied powers. We deploy one officer and 25 men. I do not believe that that is any longer acceptable. Nor is it acceptable to have a little ceremony when we hand over to the next power. Surely we could cut out that cruel military charade, for there is little to be proud of at Spandau at present.

    I mentioned the petty restrictions which apply at Spandau. When I last met Wolf Rudiger Hess, Hess’s son, I was told that, for example, when the Soviet authorities are on duty at Spandau they take the old man’s spectacles away at 10 o’clock so that he cannot read in bed. That may be the way to treat a young guards recruit, but is it the way to treat a prisoner of his age?

    Hess is allowed only very rare visits, one person at a time, and has never seen his very attractive daughter-in-law. His books and papers are still heavily censored and only recently was he allowed a radio. So far as I know, he is not allowed a television.

    I have been closely following this case since I was responsible for guarding Hess at Spandau in the early 1960s. I confess to the House that I sometimes think in the still hours of the night of that enfeebled old man alone in a cold, damp, outdated prison fortress, a stranger to his wife and family, and wonder how it is that in this day and age this cruelty can go on and on, in my name and in all our names—for Britain has a special responsibility in this matter, and the rest of the world recognises that.

  • Peter Hardy – 1978 Speech on Lawrence-Moon-Biedl Syndrome

    Below is the text of the speech made by Peter Hardy, the then Labour MP for Rother Valley, in the House of Commons on 6 July 1978.

    Many hon. Members are well acquainted with tragedy. Each day we learn of the griefs and tribulations which affect our constituents or ourselves. That is why I understand why the Under-Secretary of State is replying to the debate. Perhaps we become so accustomed to responding that the response becomes habitual. But sometimes we encounter circumstances which are particularly dreadful.

    This has certainly been the case with my experience of the Hoden family of East Hellingthorpe, Rotherham. The first I learned of this family’s problems was through the local papers. I checked that Mr. and Mrs. Hoden were my constituents and then commenced inquiries into what seemed to be an alarming story. The inquiries convinced me that the alarm was justified.

    I called to see the Hodens at their home in the company of Mr Payne, the secretary of the Rotherham community health council, on 29th April. Before I made that call Mr. Payne furnished me with a moving account of the family’s experiences. I wrote to the Minister and the Rotherham health authority and conveyed the Hodens’ strong belief that a thorough inquiry should be held. Mrs. Hoden had written in similar terms to the authority on 3rd February this year.

    The area administrator wrote to me on 26th May to say that the chairman had instructed his officials to assemble all the known facts in order to assist the authority to decide whether to hold an inquiry. I understand that the information is still being compiled. I believe, however, that sufficient information is known to allow a decision to be made. But that question has not yet been resolved.

    I received a letter from the chairman dated 23rd June which informed me that the information was not yet ready for decision. The Minister might say that I should have awaited a decision. But I did not feel that I could let further months elapse. The pace of administration must not be allowed to determine the speed of representative response.

    I regret that matters have not proceeded more urgently. I hope that the Minister will not seek to shelter behind the authority. I hope that what he knows already and what I shall say will convince him of the need to urge that an inquiry is held. It is necessary not to blame individuals or pillory the service but to ensure that lessons are learned.

    Mr. and Mrs. Hoden are good and respectable people. Mr. Hoden is a strong clean man and is a mains layer in the civil engineering industry. He is quiet and decent and is an anchor in the storms which have assailed his home. Mrs. Hoden is more articulate, a good ​ South Yorkshire housewife and, as the authority is learning, a determined mother. She has a passionate concern for her children. I am not surprised, just as I am not critical, about the insistent questions which she is asking about her children. The replies she has received have not satisfied her.

    The three children are said to be affected by the Lawrence-Moon-Biedl syndrome. Tina is the eldest, born in December 1961. Diane was born in May 1963 and Barry in January 1965. They have been receiving attention for visual difficulty almost since infancy. Tina was born in Listerdale Hospital, Rotherham with extra digits which were removed at Lodge Moor hospital, Sheffield when she was a baby. She was then a patient at the children’s hospital in Sheffield. Both Diane and Barry had similar experience.

    Just before Barry was born in 1965, the two girls contracted measles and Diane seemed to develop an eye condition. She was seen at the Doncaster Gate hospital, Rotherham, and was referred for eye exercises and treatment, which included wearing a patch to correct a lazy eye. Later records suggest that nystagmus was diagnosed.

    Barry was born in similar condition, again with extra digits, but with the addition of talipes foot. Surgery to remedy this was carried out before he was 11 months old. He then developed cerebrospinal meningitis and was in hospital at Moorgate in Rotherham. Barry was classed as ineducable while in his fourth year. Tina started school at five in the normal way. Eye tests were carried out, but Mrs. Hoden was told little except that the girl was short-sighted.

    From about this time Mr. and Mrs. Hoden found that accidents were happening and they could not let the girls out after dark. Questions were asked at the eye clinic but these are said to have brought merely a brisk and officious response.

    At the age of seven Tina was said to be falling behind at school and she was later classified as backward and sent to the Abbey special school in Rotherham. Diane was given a similar classification and attended this school from the age of six. Barry, classed earlier as ineducable, made progress and also arrived at the Abbey school.

    The children had regular eye tests but the parents were never given any idea that a serious position was developing, until retinitis pigmentosa was simultaneously diagnosed in all three children late last year. Certainly from the period when the eldest girl, Tina, was about nine, the children were often having accidents, slipping off kerbs, bumping into posts, walls, and so on. The attention of the medical authorities was drawn to these incidents but they were told that it was because the children were backward.

    Eventually Mr. and Mrs. Hoden requested that the children see another consultant. This consultant, so Mrs. Hoden tells me, said simply that both girls had bad right eyes and that the optic nerve was withering.

    By 1977 the Abbey school had become worried since the children were experiencing serious difficulty. Unbeknown to the parents, the school is said to have expressed anxiety. I have spoken to the headmaster and he confirms that the anxiety was serious enough for him to feel that needs seemed to be going unresolved.

    In early 1977, the school medical officer was asked to assist. At about the same time I understand that a doctor from the department visited the school for another purpose and met these children. Apparently he is said to have urged that further steps were needed.

    In April 1977, Mrs. Hoden learned that the school authorities had contacted the medical authorities, and in June these children saw another consultant. They were told that the right optic nerve had withered and they had night blindness. The case was referred to another consultant. Five months elapsed before this was arranged.

    On 1st November last year the consultant, Mr. Maw, saw the three children with their parents. There was great distress when the parents learned that all three were going to be totally blind. Mr. and Mrs. Hoden then discussed the matter with Mr. Maw, who explained the nature of the condition. I understand that Mr. Maw was unaware that no earlier explanation had been given. Perhaps I should add that I am not critical of Mr. Maw. He is an experienced consultant of high standing in our area and he faced a dreadful situation. To have ​ to break such news must have been an ordeal. The ground should have been prepared before.

    Mrs. Hoden has asked if the eye condition could be the cause of other difficulties and anxieties and of the series of trials and tribulations which had been experienced.

    The Lawrence-Moon-Biedl syndrome was at least suspected by Mr. Maw, as soon as he saw the children together. He observed common characteristics, not merely the visual difficulties. I believe that he wondered whether retinitis pigmentosa was not primary but part of another condition or syndrome, a distinct group of symptoms which form a whole.

    The case was then referred to Dr. Hosking, a consultant at the Reigate centre for children in Sheffield. Dr. Hosking confirmed Mr. Maw’s suspicions. Aspects of the syndrome are or were to be observed in each of the Hoden children—extra digits at birth, obesity, the dreadful handicap of retinitis pigmentosa, some deafness, and mental retardation, although as far as deafness is concerned, the girl’s problems appear to be eased now, for only Barry wears a hearing aid.

    The Hodens therefore know the worst. As I said, that was very long after the first symptoms were to be observed. To be fair, this syndrome is rare. Dr. Hosking had encountered only two previous cases, but it is a well documented condition, first described a century ago, and I know that one child—one, not three—sadly has had it diagnosed in another area of Yorkshire recently. That child is only seven years of age.

    Mr. and Mrs. Hoden do not seem to be critical of the education authority, for they were told that on the children’s records—records which clearly ought to have been more adequate—there was only reference to eye difficulty. That is an example of unsatisfactory communication which my hon. Friend should note.

    Early this year the Hodens visited the Henshaw school for the visually handicapped in Harrogate. It was pointed out quite properly that the elder girl, Tina, by now aged 16, should be leaving school, not starting it. I understand that one official present remarked that something had gone wrong somewhere. Something ​ very clearly has gone wrong. The condition—if I may use Mr. Payne’s words, the approach to eventual darkness—had been disregarded.

    Since the diagnosis Mr. and Mrs. Hoden have attempted to ascertain the facts. As far as they are concerned there was no hint of gravity of vision until June 1977. There should not have been such delay, such slowness of response, or such inadequacy of communication, before the consultation on 1st November. Perhaps my hon. Friend will bear this in mind when the authority considers its decision.

    I know that the Trent region health authority, and our South Yorkshire part of it especially, has been the least favoured area for health provision for a century or more. I know that the Government are set on a course to put that right. But the fact is that while we have below-average waiting lists at our hospitals the Trent authority has 17·4 consultants per 100,000 population, as I learnt from a Question this week, and that compares unfavourably with the highest provision, at North-East Thames, of 26·19 per 100,000. I know that my hon. Friend is determined to get the balance right, but I should like him to be rather less gradual in his approach. Certainly, I hope that inadequacies in consultant establishment have not proved a factor in this case. He might care to comment on that.

    The children, all three, commenced attendance at the Henshaw school in February. I have spoken to Mr. Seed, the head, this week. The latest position is interesting. Given earlier classification of Tina as educationally sub-normal, I was surprised when Mrs. Hoden told me that Tina had asked her the other day “Mother, what do I have to do to prove that I am not stupid?” That is not a question an educationally sub-normal child would ask.

    Tina is not now classified as ESN. An educational psychologist assessed her earlier this year and said that were it not for Tina’s sight she would have no hesitation in sending her to a normal school. This view seems substantiated by the fact that after 11 weeks at the Henshaw school, Tina obtained a certificate of merit for successfully passing her first ​ Braille test. She can now manage to read simple language in Braille. Clearly, there was a dreadful error in her early classification. That needs to be considered, too. I regret that I cannot say that there is obvious error in educational classification of the siblings, but clearly Tina was wrongly labelled.

    Certainly, one can well understand Mrs. Hoden’s anguished cry “Can anyone tell me how in the name of God did three children escape the diagnostic and registration net?” Mr. and Mrs. Hoden insist that they should know, and I believe they have that right. As their Member of Parliament, I feel that investigation is needed.

    I have it on authority—and my own observation bears this out—that Mr. and Mrs. Hoden are caring parents. I am not convinced that society has shown sufficient care. I consider that we need to know whether medical, social and educational diagnoses, treatment and arrangements have been sufficiently careful. We also need to know whether there has been adequate communication between the individuals and agencies involved.

    Until Mr. Maw’s consultation there was grossly inadequate communication to the parents. Mrs. Hoden maintains her belief that the diagnosis was noted earlier, and does not seem to accept the explanation of the reference to the condition on an attendance allowance application form.

    I have already raised serious questions. As I first wrote to my hon. Friend some time ago to express my concern, I hope that he is able to offer comment. Before he does, let me say that South Yorkshire places great store on good neighbourliness. That is shown in this case. In various parts of our area the people have been touched by the Hodens’ experience, and widespread effort is being put into aid for the children. I welcome this evidence of kindness.

    It is good to know that there are many Samaritans in South Yorkshire. But, as my hon. Friend will realise, we in South Yorkshire, above all, are entitled to expect that official provision is sufficient. We are not so given to the parrot cry of cutting taxes above everything, for our history leads us to recognise that civilised arrangements are necessary and must be paid for. We are offended by the reality ​ of Mrs. Hoden’s comment of 3rd February to the health authority, “If someone had spoken years ago, my children would have received years ago the help they will now get”. We wish to know why they did not get it.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) recently raised the question of treatment for retinitis pigmentosa. I shall not repeat his arguments, but I welcome the Minister’s promise to several of us on the Labour Benches that he will study the cases of people who believe that they have benefited from the Oops clinic treatment. May I ask that this study be carried out with urgency? May I ask that if it reveals that benefit has been conferred, provision of this treatment will be rapidly encouraged? That may offend orthodoxy. However, until the study is complete one cannot ignore the claims of people who feel that their condition is noticeably improved by the treatment. I am uneasy about their claims, for I understand that spontaneous improvement is anyway possible. I understand the official response, but, given their experience, the Hodens cannot be easily reassured.

    My hon. Friend may be able to tell me that every possible help will be given to these children in the future. I shall be pleased to hear that. However, I should also like to be assured that the failure in communication, the inadequacies in response and the possible misinterpretations and inaccurate classification apparent in this family’s experience will not be repeated on the scale that has apparently occurred here.

    Certainly authority should consider whether it fully understands the public response, for, as I have shown, this case has moved many people in my area.

    With my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther), I attended the East Herringthorpe club on Friday night, when one of the efforts to support this family was under way. I met Mr. and Mrs. Hoden again there. Hundreds of people had come to show their support. Seven hundred pounds was raised in a very short time. The widespread kindness which was exhibited was memorable. But more important and more obvious was the cry that this must not ​ happen again. There was very genuine and very welcome concern.

    I trust that my hon. Friend will be able to satisfy those people, will be able to respond to the Hodens’ needs, and will be able to comment appropriately on my questions.

  • Reginald Bennett – 1978 Speech on British Vineyards

    Below is the text of the speech by Reginald Bennett, the then Conservative MP for Fareham, in the House of Commons on 5 July 1978.

    I beg to move,

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide relief from duty and rating in respect of British vineyards and associated wine-producing establishments.

    I hasten to say at the outset that I do not wish in any way to pre-empt the Bill which follows my modest effort in talking about any fiscal matters. However, this seems perhaps to be a matter which is reasonably appropriate for me to raise in view of the responsibilities that the House has put upon me. Certainly it is a matter which I find very near to my heart or various other adjacent organs, and I feel that there is likely to be general sympathy in the House for the sentiments which I hope to express.

    Many hon. Members may not have realised that there is an English or British vineyards industry. I say “British” because I am told that there are two vineyards in Wales and therefore I cannot confine my remarks to England. As I say, many people may not realise that there are British vineyards. Indeed, it seems improbable in the light of our climate, and this year is probably giving us the best possible demonstration of that.

    In fact, there are no fewer than 100 commercial vineyards in operation actually making and selling wine, and they are making a very good effort. They manage to combat the climate, and they succeed in making wine. It may be that to some extent they have to call in aid the excellent firm of Tate and Lyle. However, that is done a good deal legally in Germany and illegally in France, as many of us know. Nevertheless, the end product often is admirable, and I submit that if it were not so, the effort would be wasted because it would not be worth doing. If they are not likely to make good wine, they would do better not to try at all.

    Although the handicap of the climate is great, it does not discourage these gallant fellows who are working in the vineyards. But I am afraid that there are fiscal provisions which are having a deeply discouraging effect. Therefore, I feel that perhaps it is timely for us to try to give this growing and rather infant ​ industry a chance to thrive and to prosper.

    What happens is that, although people are making the wine, when they have made it, the duties upon it make it remarkably expensive compared with wines which are made abroad under easier conditions—for instance, more sunshine—and which are imported but which pay only the same duty as wines which are grown in this country.

    That is the nub of the argument. To ease this there are several things that can be done. We are basically under the laws of the Treaty of Rome and the EEC, and I know that there is one small matter with which the Chief Secretary will not be unacquainted, which is that the EEC looks like taking this country to the European Court of Justice because we charge seven times as much duty on wine as we do on beer. Some countries do not charge on either. In countries such as France and Germany the duty is the same. Here, it is seven times as much, which is very nice for the brewers but a bit rough on the wine makers. I do not think that that necessarily is a matter that I can hope to rectify in a modest Private Member’s Bill. But I am sure that members of the Government, who I see are so interested, will wish to champion our cause when the Government are arraigned in the clock, wherever it may be.

    The other matter which is also international and which comes under the purview of the EEC is that, although we are bound by the laws of the EEC, the Treaty of Rome, and all the rest of it, to have an excise duty on all wines irrespective of their origin, nevertheless there is a small country called Luxembourg, a founder member of the EEC, which somehow has managed to waive those duties for its own wines while still keeping them on imported wines. As I am sure every hon. Member knows, Luxembourg is beautifully situated on the headwaters of the Moselle in extremely good terrain and with an excellent climate for producing wine, which is more than can generally be said for any of the vineyards in this country. Again, it is more than a Private Member’s Bill can undertake to get the duties relieved entirely on home-produced wines, although, as it has been done, there is a precedent. Perhaps I ​ had better leave that to the Government, too.

    My own interests in this Bill, therefore, are more modestly domestic. The first provision would be to make vineyards, which already are classified as agricultural, together with associated buildings, which are classified as industrial, one entity as an agricultural proceeding, as it produces an agricultural product. That would make it necessary for rating to be relieved on the vineyard complexes, and that would help the wine growers. I must cite in aid of my argument the fact that the hop growers of Kent get away with this, so why not the grape growers of the rest of England?

    The second aspect is that if vineyards become eligible for that relief, they should be—and my Bill will hope to make it so—eligible for the horticultural capital grants schemes. To do so, the minimum area of territory involved should be reduced, and will be in the Bill that I hope to introduce, from four acres to one acre, because four acres is a very big vineyard in this country.

    The next aspect is that specialist gear such as the posts and wires for the vines to be trained upon should be included, as they are not now, in the materials for which capital grants might be available.

    Finally, my Bill would seek to cover the point that money spent on research —not necessarily money that the Government would be asked to grant but ​ money spent by the industry in conjunction with agricultural colleges such as Wye and elsewhere—should be eligible for tax relief, so that this would be, as is most generally allowed in France and other countries, an allowance which would be only fair to enable our wine growers to compete with those whose wines we import.

    In short, I ask for a few modest reliefs for wine growers and wine makers in this country such as are allowed abroad. I ask the House to look sympathetically on my proposals in view of the fact that such reliefs would at least assist us in making a very good and very adequate import substitute.