UKPOL.CO.UK

Blog

  • Ernest Armstrong – 1978 Speech on Insulation in Council Housing

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ernest Armstrong, the then Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, in the House of Commons on 20 April 1978.

    First, I should like to commend the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on his choice of a subject for tonight’s debate. He knows, I think, that my right hon. Friends and I share his concern about the problem he has raised, which he has approached tonight, if I may say so, in a particularly constructive and responsible way.

    It is indeed a very worrying state of affairs to find homes in the public sector which have been built—some in the last 10 years—where serious problems of this sort have arisen and where the replacement of almost new central heating systems is being put forward as a bid for scarce resources in competition with much needed programmes of improvement and modernisation for houses in authorities’ stock which may be 50 years or more old.

    High fuel bills are a cause of anxiety for all members of the community. Some of the most acute problems undoubtedly arise with electric heating systems. There are as many as 900,000 public sector tenants in England and Wales who are mainly dependent on electricity for space and water heating. This problem takes on an added dimension for them because they will, in general, have had little or no say in the choice of the heating system for their home.

    One of the causes of abnormally high heating bills in electrically heated homes has been the sharp increase in the price of electricity in recent years compared with the prices of other fuels. This has made domestic electric heating systems a far less attractive proposition to run than they were when many of the decisions to install them were taken during the 1960s and 1970s. At that time the choice of electricity no doubt seemed a reasonable one to local authorities, and they were encouraged by the availability of cheap off-peak tariffs and the low capital cost of electric heating compared with most other heating systems.

    It is also true, however, that in some cases electric heating has been chosen for dwellings without sufficient care being taken to ensure that it is suitable for the dwelling. The result is that the system uses an unreasonable amount of energy to maintain reasonable temperatures.

    In an effort to economise on their use of fuel, some people—especially those with low incomes—use their electric heating systems less or, worse still, are forced to switch them off altogether. As the hon. Member said—and I have seen this in my constituency—they resort to other means of supplying heat such as oil heaters and calor gas. Some of my constituents are so afraid of running up big bills that they no longer use their systems for space heating. That is a very serious state ​ of affairs. The consequent lack of a steady level of heat increases the risk of condensation and damp and can result not only in loss of comfort but, indeed, in a danger to health—especially for the very young and the old.
    Where condensation persists for long enough, it will cause damp patches and mould growth which can damage the structure of the dwelling, as well as spoil decorations and furnishings. I have had recent examples where clothing in wardrobes has been seriously affected. There are cases where design and construction deficiencies also cause dampness.

    I should now like to turn to the ways in which the Government are tackling this problem, which, of course, is not confined to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. During the 1960s we promoted a campaign to advise householders about condensation. We are considering a further publicity campaign in time for next winter. Additionally, in 1975, the standards of thermal insulation required by the building regulations were raised. The insulation in many dwellings built before 1975 has since been increased and, for the public sector, we have the 10-year insulation programme announced in December 1977: £23 million is being made available to local authorities this year.

    Some help will also be made available to the private sector under the scheme recently announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

    The only really satisfactory answer to the problems we are discussing is one which prevents them from arising in the first place. Financial help with electricity bills can be regarded as only a partial answer at best, but it is available in some cases. In certain circumstances the supplementary benefits scheme provides an allowance towards heating costs and, over the last two winters, the electricity discount scheme has been operated by the Department of Energy. But longer term solutions are necessary and are being sought and, clearly, the problem is not one that can be solved by the Government alone. Co-operation is needed from all those bodies with local responsibility for public sector housing.
    Because of our growing concern, a joint working party on heating and energy conservation in public sector housing was set up by my Department early in 1977 to look into, among other things, problems arising with heating systems in both new and existing dwellings. The working party consists of representatives of the Department of the Environment, the Department of Energy, the Welsh Office, the local authority associations concerned with housing, the New Towns Association and the Housing Corporation.

    At one of its early meetings, the working party decided that priority should be given to producing advice on problems with electric heating systems in public sector dwellings. Its first advice note on this—domestic energy note No. 1—has been made available to all housing authorities in England and Wales. The main thrust of the note is that where the local authority considers that an electric heating system is to be provided the form and construction of the dwelling must be suitable for it.

    In particular, this means that the dwelling should have the high levels of insulation necessary to ensure that reasonable running costs can be achieved. Although the capital costs of electric heating systems are generally lower than those associated with other forms of heating, the advice note stresses that the first call on any money saved because of this should be the provision of the necessary extra insulation.

    While domestic energy note No. 1 is intended to ensure that, in the future, electrically heated dwellings will not give rise to major problems, the difficulties which have arisen in our existing electrically heated housing stock remain. The working party is therefore concentrating at present on what advice it can give to housing authorities on remedial measures where problems have arisen. A note will be issued in the near future.

    The hon. Member mentioned the com plaint, which I am afraid is a common one, that the housing cost yardstick is so stringent that it forces housing authorities to select electric heating because of its lower capital cost. It is inevitable that accusations of this sort will be levelled at any system of cost control, but the yardstick allows for a choice of heating systems complying with the Parker Morris standards. It provides for an overall sum to cover all the costs of the whole scheme. There is no allowance specifically allo- ​ cated for heating systems. There is sufficient room within the yardstick to install, for example, gas radiator systems. In fact, many authorities are doing this.

    I am aware of the tendering difficulties in the Northern Region about which the hon. Gentleman spoke—indeed, he has referred me to these matters on many occasions—and particularly the difficulties in the smaller projects necessary because of the scattered nature of his constituency.

    As the hon. Gentleman knows, since 1975 the Department has carried out a quarterly review of the yardstick levels relating to the various regions, and over the last year we have taken special steps to respond to difficulties which have emerged in the Northern Region. In the most recent review, the yardstick for the North was increased, taking the increase to the basic yardstick level together with the adjustment to the regional variations, by over 9 per cent. in average terms compared with the national average of 6 per cent.

    I hope that this substantial increase will alleviate many local difficulties. In the meantime, as we said in the housing review Green Paper we would—and I listened carefully to the hon. Member’s comments about the yardstick—we are considering new methods of cost control to replace the present system.

    The other difficult matter is the extent to which housing authorities are able to finance any necessary remedial measures ​ from within tightly drawn limits on public expenditure. The new system of housing investment programmes gives local authorities much more freedom to utilise resources to meet local problems and priorities, and this flexibility should help those authorities where this particular problem is causing difficulty. Authorities are able to put additional roof insulation, for which they can receive subsidy, in electrically heated dwellings which have suffered major problems. This will mean that it will be possible to bring loft insulation in these dwellings up to a high standard. Authorities are also able to do this under the new public sector housing energy conservation programme if the dwellings are presently uninsulated.

    Much progress has been made since the war in improving not only the supply but the standards of housing in this country. It is a matter for serious concern—I am glad that the hon. Member has raised it, and I share his concern—when families move into modern homes anticipating better living conditions, including central heating, and they are faced with a combination of excessive costs as well as a lack of comfort coupled with extensive dampness and condensation.

    We are tackling the problem with some urgency. We are working with local housing authorities to find a reasonable solution.

  • Alan Beith – 1978 Speech on Insulation in Council Housing

    Below is the text of the speech made by Alan Beith, the then Liberal MP for Berwick-upon-Tweed, in the House of Commons on 20 April 1978.

    In this country we take some pride in the fact that by partnership between central Government and local authorities, the latter having done the major part of the work, we have housed millions of people in modern council houses in the post-war years. Without that action many would now be living in appalling housing conditions. However, it is a worrying fact that a significant number of those who in recent years went into new modern council houses thinking that they had been extremely fortunate and given a wonderful opportunity for a new start in life have found themselves faced with misery—the misery, that is, of cold, damp houses which were supposedly built to the highest modern standards. Some of these houses are a misery to live in because of the damp that they contain and the impossibility of keeping them warm.

    I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State is present to listen to a plea that I put to him on behalf of some of these tenants. I know that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the matter and has already taken quite a bit of notice of problems of which he is aware in the North-East and other parts of the country. I shall remind him of things that he must know well from his own experience. For example, there are the elderly couples huddled round a one-bar electric fire trying to keep themselves warm in what is supposed to be a centrally heated house. There are young couples buying paraffin heaters and boiling kettles of water for washing in houses that are equipped with the most modern electrical appliances for central heating and water supply. There are those whose supply is cut off because they cannot pay high electricity bills. Perhaps the most horrifying sights of all—I think that all hon. Members have seen this in houses that we have inspected—are green and black walls that are affected by damp, furniture pulled away from the walls because it is being similarly affected by damp, and wet carpets that are sometimes even frozen to the floor. These conditions are found in houses that are modern and built with the advice of experienced architects.

    Some of the problems arise from structural damp. It is worrying that there are so many modern properties that are afflicted by damp caused by faults in the structure. Those in local authorities rarely believe that damp is structural. If a case of damp is reported, it seems that structural damp is never the cause. It is said that there is too much condensation and advice is given to wipe the window sills. It is said that the fault lies with the heating. It is rarely admitted that the problem is due to structural damp However, there is a good deal of it. I think that the Minister must know that. We must learn why there is so much, and I wonder what research the Department is carrying out to ascertain why we cannot ensure that the vast majority of local authority housing is not affected by structural damp.

    Much of the problem of cold and damp housing to which I draw attention is related to systems of electric central heating. Perhaps one of the most notorious problems is ceiling heating, that is, electric heating provided by elements in the ceiling. There are such instances in my constituency in Alnwick in the Cornhill Estate and at Pottergate The Minister will know of other areas in the North-East that have been featured on television and in the news such as St. Cuthbert’s Village, Gateshead.

    Ducted air systems have given rise to problems in the The Martins, Wooler, in my constituency. It is a system based on night storage, but the weakness of the system is that the night storage cannot generate enough heat to keep the house warm all the day. Therefore, there has to be a daytime boost. It is that daytime ​ boost on peak electricity prices that immediately puts up the cost and leads to very high bills.

    It is a problem all over the country, not only in council houses. I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that in my constituency there are modern RAF married quarters, built by the Department’s Property Services Agency at Longhoughton for RAF Boulmer, which are much appreciated. But they have a heating system which proves to be beyond the resources of an airman’s pay. We hope to see improvements in forces’ pay. But over the last winter there have been pleas for help from commanding officers’ funds and so on because of difficulties arising from heating.

    I have seen bills for between £100 and £150 a quarter in both Wooler and Alnwick in my constituency. This morning I was telephoned and told of a £200 quarterly bill. Those who try to budget and who go to the electricity board and say

    “How much a week will I have to pay? Let me go on to a weekly basis” are being asked for £9 or £10 a week. I am talking about the people to whom we give priority in filling council houses—people who cannot afford to buy houses in the private sector and many of whom, by definition, are on low wages. I am talking about people in my area with wages of between £50 and £60 a week who are paying £9·20 a week in rent and £9 or £10 a week on heating.

    What do they do? In many cases they abandon the heating, so the houses get colder and damper. Perhaps they get paraffin heaters, but they make the situation worse. I am told, on the best authority, that to burn a gallon of paraffin in a heater creates a gallon of moisture which deposits itself in condensation around the house. The local authority suggests opening a window to let out the condensation. But then the tenants freeze, because the little heat that they generate is lost out of the window.

    We are all used to the traditional system of the fire in the fireplace and the chimney providing the ventilation and letting out the condensation. People in old properties had a fire for heating in one room, hot water from a back boiler and some ventilation. They thought that they would be better off in modern property, but now they find that they have ​ virtually nothing. They have homes in which they cannot afford to live. That is no exaggeration. That is the feeling of many young couples and elderly people who, in different ways, are trying to make a fresh start. I find it deeply depressing to come across so many people, anxious not to get into debt, who cannot cope with the costs involved in these heating systems.

    What is wrong? There are two main things. First, I do not believe that electric heating of this type should have been put into these council houses. It was cheap to install. The capital costs were low. But it is fearfully expensive to run.

    On top of that, insulation in many of these houses is virtually non-existent. Houses on Cornhill Estate in Alnwick have none at all. Houses on Martins Estate in Wooler have enormous windows. They have loft insulation, but enormous windows which are not double glazed. This can be seen in other parts of the country. Looking at the window frames, one sees a groove which was intended for the second glazing. That was not installed. How did local authorities, trying to do their best for their tenants and potential tenants, produce properties which such tenants could not afford to heat?

    There was too much hard-sell by electricity boards and favourable terms for all-electric houses. I think that the Department of the Environment also played its part in encouraging electric heating. One of my local authorities points to the period in which it was told in letters and circulars—this is some years ago, long before the Under-Secretary occupied his present post—that the Government hoped to rationalise fuel costs and to make sure that all fuels were charged at roughly the same level. Those days are far off now. That was one factor. Many architects seemed to be overtaken with enthusiasm for these systems.

    An equally important factor was cost cutting at the beginning. I pick on one target, namely, the system by which the Government try to control how much local authorities spend on individual houses. It is called the housing cost yardstick.

    What happens when council houses are built? The council or its consultant architects design the houses, and they take advice from many quarters, but one of ​ the most important things they must consider is the Parker Morris standards relating to space and other building features. They design a house to Parker Morris standards, they include central heating, and if it has a certain number of bedrooms it has two toilets, one upstairs and one down. The standards are high and impressive.

    The council then puts the scheme out to tender. It finds that when the tenders are returned the houses cannot be built to those standards within the cost limitations imposted by the yardstick. The council officers and architects then say “Where can we cut?” The first thing they look at is the heating system. They ask “Is there one that is cheaper in capital costs to install?” They then examine the hot-water system and ask “Is there a cheaper type of immersion heater we can put in?” The first victim tends to be the heating system, and because of that kind of decision some switches to electric heating were made.

    The next thing that is said is “we shall have to leave out some of this insulation, and, if there is to be double glazing, we shall have to do without that. We might have to do without loft insulation, and we might have to have cheaper window frames”. I can quote many instances of items such as window frames and good quality doors and door frames having suffered.

    The result of this kind of condensation is misery. It is an ironical situation. The houses have two toilets, large rooms and heating the tenants cannot afford. There are lavish standards in one respect, but desperate cost cutting in another respect, which has been a major contributory cause of the difficulty the tenants face.

    What can be done in future to avoid such situations? I suggest to the Minister that the housing cost yardstick is in many ways a menance. One is setting for local authorities high standards of room sizes and the number of toilets they provide and then, when they have started to abide by those standards, one is saying “No, you cannot spend any money on the houses and we shall tell you from the centre exactly how much you are allowed to spend”. It has resulted in a situation—inded it has in my constituency—where the houses cannot be built at all within the cost yardstick. Equally, it can result ​ in cost cutting which tenants pay for in the future.

    I should like the Minister to consider dispensing with the cost yardstick. I have put forward this argument in election speeches for five or six years and have come to realise what a menace the yardstick can be. I reiterate my plea that perhaps we should not try to operate a yardstick of that type. Local authorities have no interest in wasting money—or in spending more than they need—in providing a decent house. It is a mistaken approach on the part of the Governments—it is a “nursemaid approach”—for them to say “We need to stop local authorities spending money in this way”. They want to build as many houses as they can to meet their needs and do not want to spend any more on them than is necessary. They are answerable to their electors and their ratepayers.

    The Government must review what it is we are trying to build and the costs of upkeep in relation to the potential income of the tenants we are trying to house. That is for the future; it will not help tenants who are now facing difficulties. We must think about the people who are living with these mistakes.

    We shall have to take seriously some of the challenges which are being made on electricity prices. Only today the chairman of the Electricity Consumer Council has challenged the Energy Minister who is responsible for electricity prices because the chairman believes that prices in relation to cost are too high.

    But that alone will not, in my view, solve the problem. I think that many houses will have to be changed to other systems—to solid fuel or gas. It has been done in some areas. It has been done in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) and in the Minister’s area in County Durham. It is a hard decision for a local authority to take, but it may have to be taken. Alnwick District Council is considering changing the system in some of its houses and is trying to run a pilot scheme by putting solid fuel into one house. The Berwick council will have to consider doing the same.

    The difficulty that all councils face is that they can do that only at the expense of those tenants who are living in much ​ older houses and looking for basic modernisation. Houses in Clayport Gardens, Alnwick, for example, still have bathrooms leading off kitchens. They have waited for years for basic modernisation features. Any council will be concerned about how to spend its limited amount of money in this situation. I believe that the Government must recognise the need for extra help for council’s faced with this difficulty.

    We must take the problem of insulation very seriously. It was criminal to leave out insulation in the first place. It must now be installed. I am not talking about a couple of inches in the loft. There is more to it than that. In the Wooler houses there are enormous floor-to-ceiling windows which occupy more than half of the most exposed walls of houses which face the windy Cheviot Hills. Heat loss in such a home is enormous and insulation can be provided only by expensive means.

    Berwick council has only £10,000 available for the year for all house insulation work. That is the amount that it is able to spend and that can attract Government subsidy. How much can the council do with £l0,000? Can it really insulate even 20 houses to a reasonable standard and save a fair amount of heat loss? The Government have rightly given some priority to insulation. In the Budget last week they announced the provision of more money to insulate private houses. That is also necessary.

    However, we must recognise that proper insulation is a costly business and will require many resources. The Department of the Environment must share some of the responsibility, not only for future policy but for past mistakes. They must help local authorities to put right the mistakes and to put an end to the misery which many tenants are now suffering.

  • Roland Moyle – 1978 Speech on Abortion

    Below is the text of the speech made by Roland Moyle, the then Minister of State at the Department for Health and Social Security, in the House of Commons on 19 April 1978.

    I shall try to deal with the questions affecting my responsibilities as one of the Ministers responsible for the administration of the Abortion Act. First, however, I must remind the House that the Government take no collective view on the moral questions of abortion in the belief that individual Members should make their own judgments on these matters.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) invited me to remind the House of the measures taken by my Department to control the private sector of abortion and to comment on whether I agreed that these measures are effective. It might help if I indicate to the House the range of undertakings which private nursing home proprietors must give my right hon. Friend as a condition of his approval under the Abortion Act.

    Briefly, they provide for the maintenance of detailed records, the inspection of premises and records by the Department’s officers at any time without notice, the ​ giving of receipts to patients and the retention of copies for inspection, the acceptance of fees only after two doctors have certified that the Act’s criteria are met in each case, the number of patients per 24 hours not to exceed the number of beds approved, and for the examination of patients by a doctor before discharge.

    The nursing home must also undertake not to advertise abroad, either directly or indirectly, employ touts, or to accept patients who have been diverted from their intended destinations or touted for. The proprietors must have no connection with agencies or persons known to advertise abroad, or to tout for or divert patients.

    Proprietors must also, in applying for approval, provide the Department with detailed information about the business arrangements of the companies and individuals involved in the application, all of which is carefully inquired into by the Department’s investigators. Medical and nursing arrangements, including staffing, equipment, procedures and accommodation, are checked by the Department’s medical and nursing teams.

    Nursing homes which concentrate on abortions have had to satisfy my right hon. Friend that the total costs charged to abortion patients treated on their premises are not unreasonable, and must not increase these costs without prior approval. All financial arrangements between nursing homes and doctors, other than payment of fees, and pregnancy advice bureaux must be reported to the Department.

    I think that it will also be worth while on this occasion, having dealt with nursing homes, to focus on the arrangements for registration of approved advice bureaux, as this register was established only early last year.

    The background to the register is that, under the Abortion Act 1967, only places which carry out termination of pregnancy are required to be approved for that purpose by the Secretary of State. This means that nursing homes that carry out abortions, in addition to being registered with the local health authority, also have to satisfy the Secretary of State that they should be approved for carrying out abortion, whereas the bureaux which advise and refer women for abortion neither require approval under the 1967 ​ Act nor need to be registered with the local health authority.

    In the early years, following the implementation of the Act, and in the absence of control of any kind, a large number of small referral agencies mushroomed, mainly in London. It was these agencies that saw some of the most blatant abuses of the Abortion Act and caused public concern—such practices as touting for patients, employing persons to divert patients from their intended destinations, and canvassing abroad for patients. This led the Lane Committee to recommend that, whilst the existing control over nursing homes appeared to work very satisfactorily, there ought to be a system of licensing pregnancy advice bureaux.

    Even while the Committee was sitting, my Department had adopted a system of blacklisting undesirable agencies. Approved nursing homes were warned that if they accepted referrals from such agencies they would risk losing the Secretary of State’s approval. As a result of the blacklisting of 23 agencies, these abuses were eliminated and most of the people concerned put out of business. In 1975 the then Secretary of State accepted a recommendation by the Select Committee on the Abortion (Amendment) Bill, based on the conclusions of the Lane Committee, that this form of control should be extended by requiring approved nursing homes to give an assurance that they would accept only patients referred from pregnancy advice bureaux who were on a register approved by the Secretary of State. The first register was published on 10th February 1977 and there are now 35 registered bureaux; nine applications have been refused. Registration will be reviewed and, as appropriate, renewed on 1st October this year.

    Before registration, each bureau is inspected to ensure that the accommodation and facilities for counselling and medical assessment on the premises are of reasonable standard; counsellors are interviewed and counselling notes inspected to assess, as far as it is possible to do so, the standard of counselling to be provided to clients and the business arrangements inquired into to ensure that undesirable persons are not involved and that all is above board.

    In addition, registered bureaux must subscribe to various requirements governing their conduct. Amongst other things, these prohibit advertising abroad and ​ association with touts and require the maintenance of proper records, the giving of receipts, and consultation with my Department about the methods of advertising in this country. All registered bureaux have received a copy of my Department’s counselling circular, and they are expected to provide counselling in accordance with its central requirement that women should make up their minds in the light of all the relevant facts about their situation and about the alternatives to abortion which are open to them. The register appears to be working well.

    As with approved nursing homes, all registered bureaux are subject to unannounced visits by my Department’s inspecting officers. One of these officers is always a doctor, authorised to inspect counselling notes and medical records and to discuss counselling and medical procedures at the bureaux with the counsellors and doctors concerned. The other member of the team, an administrative officer, checks facilities, staffing and accommodation and general records and receipts. A full report is made on every unannounced visit.

    Bureaux may also be visited by the Department’s special investigators, who are ex-police officers, either at random or as part of wider inquiries, and the opportunity is taken to check records—other than patient records—staffing and procedures at the premises. So far it has not been necessary to remove any bureau from the register for failing to comply with the requirements of registration. My right hon. Friend, however, will not hesitate to do this, if necessary; nor will he hesitate to take firm measures against any approved nursing home which he finds has acted contrary to assurances given to him. I am of the opinion that the present system of administrative control, including as it does now the registration of pregnancy advice bureaux, is effective in preventing abuse and flexible enough to react quickly to any change in circumstances.

    The second main issue which has been raised with me concerns the effects of the 1967 Act over the first 10 years of its operation and, in particular, the extent to which the NHS has provided facilities for abortion. The statistics published ​ regularly by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys show that the number of abortions performed under the Act increased steadily up to 1973 when there were 167,149 abortions performed in England and Wales of which 110,563 were performed on women resident in England and Wales. The number of abortions notified in 1977 was 132,999 of which 102,237 were notified as being performed on resident women. The rate of abortions per 1,000 women aged Is to 45 years also increased up to 1974, but decreased after that, and appears to be significantly lower than the rate in countries with similar legislation.

    It is difficult to establish what the long term pattern will be, but, for those of us who lay emphasis on prevention, there are encouraging signs that the free family planning services are helping to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies. A survey of family planning use between 1970 and 1975 published yesterday demonstrates the growing use of more effective birth control methods particularly amongst those groups which previously seemed least inclined to use the family planning services. The most recent figures on births and abortions show that the rate of extramarital conception, measured approximately by adding figures of illegitimacy, pre-nuptial conception and legal abortion amongst the young, is decreasing. For example, the rate of extramarital conceptions per 1,000 women in the age group 16 to 19 fell from 60·4 per 1,000 women in 1972 to 45·8 per 1,000 women in 1976—a fall of 24 per cent. A similar decline occurred in the 20 to 24 year age group. Even in the under-16 age group, where the numbers are small but of considerable concern to us, the figures, which showed a rise up to two per 1,000 in 1973, remained steady thereafter.
    On the question of NHS abortion facilities, I fully accept that provision varies considerably among different parts of England, and overall the NHS performs only just over half of all abortions on women resident in England and Wales.

    But we are determined to improve NHS facilities. The letter of guidance which went out with the £50 million announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the Budget Statement last week in fact states that some of the money could be spent on day-care termination facilities.

    As a result of recent activities, I am happy to say that my Department has had discussions with two regions about improving abortion facilities—namely, Wessex and the West Midlands. I have noted that the West Midlands Regional Health Authority has accepted its working party’s report on abortion facilities in that region, which proposed the provision of day-care facilities for abortion supported by arrangements for counselling. I am sure that my hon. Friend will regard that as a considerable advance.

    On the question of the Barking case, I understand that papers relating to the incident at Barking Hospital were referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who considered them and con- ​ cluded that there was no evidence of a criminal offence.

    My hon. Friend also raised the question of the Droylesden case. Mrs. Chester, the lady who made the accusation, refused to be interviewed or to give any further information about the allegation, other than what she had been told about the notice by a staff nurse. The editor—

    [Time ran out and the house was adjourned]

  • Renee Short – 1978 Speech on Abortion

    Below is the text of the speech made by Renee Short, the then Labour MP for Wolverhampton North-East, in the House of Commons on 19 April 1978.

    I am glad to have the opportunity to raise this subject on the Adjournment, because next week sees the tenth anniversary of the passing of the Abortion Act 1967 which made abortion legal in Britain.

    Too much is heard in this House and outside of alleged scandals, abuses and harmful effects, and far too little, because on the whole it is not the stuff of headlines, of the enormous sense of well-being and relief that the 1967 Act, by its very existence, has brought to many women and their families. So now is a good time to ask whether we have the administration right. Of course, it will never be right for those who believe that all abortion is wrong, but most of us know—and I hope that my hon Friend the Minister of State will bring up to date those who do not—the measures which have been taken to control the working of the Act.

    There is only one major scandal and failure of the Act, namely, the failure of the National Health Service to provide the necessary facilities for equitable treatment throughout the country, and it is a failure that needs a remedy. But it is never mentioned by those who shout most loudly about “cleaning up abuse”.

    Next week, those basically opposed to legal abortions and thus opposed to the concept of freedom of moral choice for individuals within a pluralistic society will be carrying wreaths from town to town, having wreaths delivered to hon. Members here, and generally attempting to continue their campaign of spreading lies, distortions and despondency, which have been their stock in trade ever since ​ they realised that the majority of citizens did not accept their view that abortion was the same as murder from the moment of conception.

    This campaign ignores the fact that more than 1¼ million safe abortions have taken place in Britain since 1967 and that almost every country in Western Europe has now followed and in many cases gone further in liberalising and humanising its laws. Only last week in Roman Catholic Italy the Chamber of Deputies passed a Bill to allow abortion on request to any woman over 18 and less than 12 weeks pregnant—something done several years earlier by France and Austria.

    Next week in Britain, not only will there be emotive stories spread around, but a new political initiative will be launched called “Value your Vote”, based on what has now been shown to be the completely erroneous assumption that abortion can be a major issue in election campaigns. Fortunately, the electors at Garscadden have proved the contrary to be true. So this Government or any other need no longer have any fear about introducing bold and robust measures to implement the Abortion Act and make National Health Service day-care abortions the rule rather than the exception.

    In Garscadden we saw the most highly organised, spare-no-expense campaign that the anti-abortionists could organise. We had a campaign where a pressure group acted like a political party. It ran public meetings attended by the candidates, distributed leaflets to every house, had leaflet drops outside churches, plastered the constituency with emotive posters, cruised with loudspeaker vans and even provided cars to take its supporters to the polls.

    It was a campaign in which the leading Roman Catholic lay organisation recommended the faithful to vote against any pro-abortion candidate and declared that

    “the sanctity of life transcends normal political considerations.”

    It was a campaign in which the candidate’s views on abortion were canvassed and continually publicised, a campaign in which a Church of Scotland clergyman felt impelled in his parish magazine to request his flock not to be “party political meddlers”—whatever that means—and to remind them that ​

    “Roman Catholic priests in another part of this constituency have advised their folk to vote SNP since it is the only party with an anti-abortion policy”.

    It was a campaign in which Roman Catholic priests knocked on doors of houses of parishioners showing Labour Party posters and ordered them to take them down; and one in which the journal of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Glasgow sought the views of all candidates only on abortion.

    But, despite all these massive attempts in an area with a 35 per cent. Roman Catholic population, the declared antiabortion candidates did not win, and a television programme survey of voters leaving the polling station found only 3 per cent of Roman Catholics to agree that abortion was the most important issue. It also found that 62 per cent. of them voted for the candidate who as a Member of Parliament in 1967 had voted for the Bill.

    The lesson from this must be clear to all Members who have had intimidating threats made to them about future votes going against supporters of a liberal abortion law. We know that it is a hollow threat for, if it had any substance, it would have been fulfilled at Garscadden. If it failed at Garscadden, it must fail elsewhere.

    As it must be clear that there are no votes to be lost on this issue, I hope that the Minister will propose immediate plans for day-care centres run by sympathetic staff in every region, regardless of the personal prejudices of senior members of the local gynaecological establishment.

    These centres would save not only health and happiness by ensuring that pregnancies were terminated early but money and would release overnight hospital beds for those on gynaecological waiting lists. The money saved could be used for family planning—prevention is better than cure—through contraception and sterilisation programmes. This in the long run would reduce the numbers of abortions.

    Perhaps my hon. Friend could confirm my view that if some of the extra money made available for day-care units in the Budget last week were used to increase the provision of early outpatient abortion, there would in a short time be an overall saving of money and further reduction in the already much reduced maternal ​ mortality and morbidity associated more with late than with early abortion.

    We have already seen a welcome move in my part of the country. Faced with an intransigent professor and gynaecological establishment who have ensured that only some 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. of West Midlands women have succeeded in getting NHS abortions the regional health authority, under pressure from the community health councils, set up a working party to consider what could be done. That working party has now produced a report with recommendations to improve the situation and to open daycare facilities.

    Typically, it has been publicly attacked by Professor Scarisbrick of the anti-all-abortion “Life” organisation. In a letter to the chairman of the RHA, released to and widely reported by the local and national Press, he accuses the working party of

    “a serious and astonishing error”

    in stating that the NHS has a statutory responsibility to provide an abortion service.

    In fact, it is the professor who is guilty of the “serious error”, because his letter suggests that the working party believed this duty on the NHS sprang from the Abortion Act 1967. But nowhere in the report is this said, and clearly the duty—as detailed by the authoritative Lane Report—springs from the National Health Service Act 1946, which puts a duty on the Secretary of State, among other things, to

    “promote the establishment in England and Wales of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement in the physical and mental health of the people of England and Wales …”

    Precisely the same aims as those of the Abortion Act. Perhaps my hon. Friend can comment on this. The false premises about the 1967 Act have been enshrined in the recent series of Bills before the House which in turn were based on the report of the Select Committee of anti-abortionists.

    In fact, in all those areas—except two—where concern was expressed and changes recommended, changes and controls have been introduced. The DHSS now has complete control of the private sector, and let us hope it can now devote its energies to improving the public sector. ​ Those two areas, where little has been done, are the areas where those with detailed knowledge and objective minds know that there is no real evidence to show that change is necessary. These are reduction of the upper time limit and restrictions on the charitable services. The pressure for reduction of the upper time limit comes from repeatedly making emotive claims about live babies being killed—claims which, when exhaustively investigated, are shown to have no basis in truth.

    From the evidence it appears that there was only ever one case where a child might have lived—the Stobhill case in Glasgow in 1970. Tragic and upsetting though it was, one such case in 1¼ million legal abortions cannot justify restricting the law. That there has been only one such case is shown by the fact that it is still quoted today by the anti-abortionists. If they knew of others, they would certainly not rely on evidence that is eight years out of date.

    This lack of evidence has not stopped those opposed to legal abortion making unsubstantiated and extravagant claims that have understandably worried the public conscience, have been eagerly leapt upon and spread around by a Press that is hungry for sensationalism and fuelled by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), who started this hare running in May 1970 with the rumour headlined in the Daily Express as

    “Abortion trade in unborn babies”

    From a whole series of unsavoury accusations I come to one of the most recent which on 8th February this year was shown in a reply to me to have no foundation in fact. On that occasion, a Mrs. Chester of Droylsden complained in a letter published in her local newspaper that a Tameside hospital had posted a notice instructing staff not to resuscitate live babies born following a certain method of abortion. Clearly, if this had been true, NHS staff would have been guilty of inciting others to break the law, so investigations were made. It was noticeable that neither Mrs. Chester nor the newspaper that printed her letter was able or willing to give the source of the information or the name of the hospital. So both DHSS time and that of the Tame-side area health authority was wasted on following up this apparently baseless accusation.

    These unfounded and untrue accusations have led to a general belief that live babies are being aborted. They waste much time of the Department and AHAs in trying to follow them through—time that could have been much better spent in implementing, through the NHS, the Abortion Act in those parts of the country where abortion is not yet available.

    Currently, if the “Life” newsletter is to be believed—and perhaps my hon. Friend can tell us what he knows of this—the most recent “horror” accusation is with the DPP. This story, featured again in the national Press with vast amounts of space and told to it by the “Life” organisation, concerned a child delivered by Caesarean section at Barking Hospital when, in the 29th week of pregnancy, the mother’s life was in dander. According to “Life”, the foetus was 25 to 26 weeks old and was thrown aside as dead and rescued only by accident while on its way to the incinerator—shades of the Stobhill story? But, according to the paediatrician concerned, the baby was in the intensive care unit within seven weeks of delivery and was thriving some weeks later when “Life” told its horror story to the Press. At the time, “Life” said that its sources were absolutely authoritative. Now its newsletter admits:

    “We have no eye-witnesses unfortunately.”

    It is a scandal that this sort of unauthorised and unfounded allegation can be picked up by the Press so avidly.

    However, the really interesting thing about that story is that the child was born on 17th December and the story was not released in the Press until 21st January—in the same week that the authors of the book “Babies for Burning” were forced to make their humiliating High Court retraction and apology to the British Pregnancy Advisory Service.

    Which brings us to the only other area of concern of the Select Committee whose recommendations for restrictive measures have not been implemented separation of the counselling and other functions of the charities.

    It is noticeable that nobody questioned the good faith, the professional integrity or the great need for bodies such as BPAS until that disgusting little book was touted around. Could it have been that, because the charities were making the Abortion Act 1967 work as Parliament intended ​ and driving the exploiters out of business by providing a competitive, non-profit service, they had to be discredited by the anti-abortionists who saw their supply of sensational stories disappearing and thus their hopes of appealing to the electorate?

    Certainly the attacks on the charities intensified from that time, and most of them are as baseless as that book would have been shown to be had the authors not recognised that it was better to apologise quickly than to allow all the evidence of their lying, deception and duplicity to come out into the open during a trial. For not only did the authors lie in the book, they lied before a Select Committee of the House. That is my main reason for seeking this Adjournment debate.

    Both Mr. Litchfield and “Mrs. Litchfield”, otherwise Kentish, as she is called on the birth certificate of her and Litchfield’s child, a certificate which during the course of a BBC interview Litchfield described as a

    “fraud being investigated by Scotland Yard”

    but which so far has never been challenged, told the Select Committee that the transcripts with which the Committee was supplied were a full, true and accurate record of the relevant tape recordings. Had the Select Committee listened to those recordings and compared them with the transcripts supplied by the authors, it would have found that they were neither full nor accurate, nor complete.

    It is not surprising that the Select Committee did not make that comparison, for it took some 300 hours to do just that in preparation for the BPAS trial. Of 65 relevant conversations found on the tapes, transcripts of only 32 were given to the Committee. Among those supplied more than half differed materially from the tapes. The BPAS schedule of important differences between the tapes—that is, those that materially altered the meaning or the context of the transcripts as supplied by the authors—amounted to no fewer than 71 typed pages.

    For example—this was a thread that ran throughout the deception—Mrs. Litchfield-Kentish told the Select Committee that she was not asked about her menstrual cycle on any occasion. However, in every interview recorded on the tape recordings there is lengthy and ​ detailed investigation of her menstrual history.

    In one particular interview with a Mr. Pond, whom they visited before she saw her own doctor to confirm that she was not pregnant, despite the book stating that she was confirmed as not pregnant before their investigation started, the true transcript shows six pages of conversation about her pill-taking habits and menstrual pattern, with Mr. Pond, exasperated, saying

    “You’re most unlikely to be pregnant”.

    Before the book was published the News of the World featured that visit to Mr. Pond in its series of articles that later became the book. It not only erroneously stated that

    “first she visited her own doctor”

    but had Mr. Pond saying “You are 16 weeks”, whereas the tape clearly has Mr. Pond saying

    “You are 16 weeks on from your last period.”

    That is something that Kentish herself had told him, and which could have been true as it was quite clear from the long private conversation between the authors, which is still on the tape although they did not realise that the tape was working at the time. That conversation took place while Mr. Pond was out of the room doing the urine test. At that stage they both thought that she really was pregnant and was genuinely seeking an abortion. They were arguing about the cost while Mr. Pond was outside the room.

    Their distorting their own situation, distorting the truth and destroying with a a tissue of lies the reputations of honest charities, doctors and others are the so-called journalists whom the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) described as “virginal and pristine”, and who the broadsheet of the Festival of Light says it has

    “consistently backed in bringing their book to the attention of the Christian public”,

    going on to remark

    “Its almost unbelievable stories of the abortion racket show the dearth of moral fibre in Britain today.”

    Indeed they do, but not quite in the way that the Festival of Light intended.

    There are 71 pages of lies, omissions and variations. It is to be hoped that soon, despite the apology being given ​ before the evidence was out in court, it will be available for all. The DPP has requested the police to have the full tapes transcribed. I hope that they are, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be able to enlighten the House on this point, for Sessional Standing Orders tell us that

    “the House will proceed with the utmost severity against any person who hath given false evidence before this House or any Committee thereof.”

    That should interest my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

    So far this pair have got off scot-free. They have deluded the public and deluded a Select Committee into producing a report that has resulted in two Bills coming before the House, each of which has attacked and sought to destroy the work that the two major abortion charities undertake to make good the lack of NHS provision.

    I hope that my hon. Friend, 10 years after the enlightened legislation that the House enacted with the liars publicly exposed and the electorate’s views on the anti-abortion lobby made clear at Garscadden, will be able to get on with the task and that the House will provide the resources for him to do so.

  • Robert Jenrick – 2020 Statement on the Coronavirus

    Robert Jenrick – 2020 Statement on the Coronavirus

    Below is the text of the statement made by Robert Jenrick, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, in the House of Commons on 29 March 2020.

    Good afternoon,

    I would like to update you on our response to COVID-19.

    I’m joined today by Dr Jenny Harries, the Deputy Chief Medical Officer.

    As of 9am today:

    127,737 people have now been tested for the virus.

    108,215 have tested negative.

    19,522 have tested positive.

    Of those who have contracted the virus, 1,228 have, sadly, died.

    The virus is indiscriminate

    It doesn’t matter who you are, where you are or how old you are.

    We each have a part to play by staying at home, protecting the NHS and helping to save lives.

    We all have a duty to one another to keep everyone safe.

    So today I would like to give you two updates, before answering questions.

    The first on the plans I have put in place to ensure that every corner of the country can confront the coronavirus epidemic.

    The second on what the government is doing to shield the most vulnerable people in society.

    On the first question, I have put in place in all parts of the country procedures to ensure that everywhere can be ready to move forward together. All parts of the country are now on an emergency footing.

    This is an unprecedented step in peace time.

    We haven’t done anything like this since the Second World War.

    This means that we’re establishing strategic co-ordination centres across the whole country.

    Each centre is led by gold commanders.

    We are bringing together senior members of the emergency services

    the police, the fire service, the ambulance service, with local authorities and the NHS, to lead communities through this challenging period.

    From Cornwall to Cumbria.

    And we have embedded within each of these groups members of the armed forces – including some of the finest military planners in the world.

    These groups are planning the local response to the virus.

    Using their expertise, their judgement and their leadership to ensure a comprehensive, a coordinated, and consistent response across the country.

    One issue that they have been helping us to coordinate and about which I know there is a lot of concern is the provision of personal protect equipment.

    We simply cannot and should not ask people to be on the frontline without the right protective equipment.

    We have a clear plan to ensure that those serving this country at this time have the right equipment.

    We have established the National Supply Distribution Response Team and they are supported now by the armed forces and other emergency services who are working round the clock to deliver the equipment to the people who need it most:

    170 million masks

    42.8 million gloves

    13.7 million aprons

    182,000 gowns

    Almost 10 million items of cleaning equipment

    and 2.3 million pairs of eye protectors

    all delivered to 58,000 NHS Trusts and healthcare settings including GP surgeries, pharmacies and community providers.

    Every single GP practice, dental practice and community pharmacy has had a PPE delivery. All care homes, hospices and home care providers have or will shortly receive a delivery.

    To NHS and social care workers, all those who rely on this equipment and to their families and loved ones watching this afternoon – we understand.

    And we will not stop until we have got you the equipment that you need.

    Last weekend, at this press conference, the Prime Minister and I explained why 1.5million people who are extremely vulnerable to the virus, due to their underlying health conditions, needed to stay at home for a period of 12 weeks and avoid face to face contact.

    Since then, the NHS have written to almost a million of these people and outlined the steps that they need to take to protect themselves.

    We have also established a dedicated web page on gov.uk which those in receipt of a letter should go to, to let us know whether or not they need further assistance over the course of the next 12 weeks. There is also a new phone number, which is on the letter they have or will receive shortly.

    If this applies to you, I know that you will find this a very worrying time.

    You will be thinking about how you can continue to access the medicine that you need, how you can get the food and other essential supplies that you rely on.

    If you don’t have family or friends or neighbours nearby who you can rely on then the NHS will deliver your medicines through the community pharmacy network.

    And if you register online or using the phone service that we have set up, letting us know you need support, then we will deliver food and supplies to your doorstep.

    And this weekend I saw for myself first-hand the first deliveries being made.

    The packages included cereal, fruit, tinned goods, teabags, biscuits, toiletries and other essentials.

    The first 50,000 will have been sent out by the end of this week and we are ramping up production to send out as many as are required for as long as it takes.

    If this applies to you, while you will now have to be at home for a prolonged period of time and that will be difficult, I want you to know that you are not alone. We are here to support you for as long as you need us.

    We have all been hugely impressed by the commitment and the dedication of those working in social care, in local councils delivering essential public services like ensuring that the bins continue to get collected. None more so than me, as the Secretary of State for Local Government.

    We all respect the 12,000 heroic former doctors and nurses and paramedics who have come back to work and been deployed this weekend.

    And I think we have all been moved by the number of people who have signed up to be one of the NHS Voluntary Responders – today we can announce an extraordinary, three quarters of a million people have signed up to do that.

    In every city, in every town, in every village, there is going to be work to be done and in each of us there is the power to do it.

    And so please take part, please play your part, please consider your friends, your family, your neighbours when you are shopping, please call the elderly and support them.

    When this is done, and it will be done, we all want to be proud of the part that we’ve played together.

    Thank you very much.

  • Michael Neubert – 1978 Speech on Shop Opening

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Neubert, the then Conservative MP for Romford, in the House of Commons on 18 April 1978.

    I beg to move,

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to allow the organisation on weekdays of promotional evenings on retail premises.
    The Shops Act 1950, passed into law nearly 30 years ago, was itself a consolidating Act. The statutes which it superseded dated back to the period 1912 to 1938. Although the passage of time and changing circumstances would indicate the need for review and reform, there has been no amending legislation other than the Shops (Early Closing Days) Act 1965 which gave shopkeepers a right to fix their own closing day.

    As the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department acknowledged in an Adjournment debate on 28th April last year, successive Governments have treated amendment of the Shops Act as best left to Private Members’ legislation because of its controversial nature. In that spirit, my Bill would amend the Act in a small particular. I hope that it will be both uncontroversial and unexceptionable since it seeks to regularise a well-established practice.

    In recent years the practice has grown up of after-hours presentations of new products by retailers dealing in the more expensive kind of equipment, whose customers need time and considerable technical advice in order to make the right decision. The most familiar examples of this are motor cars and stereophonic sound systems.

    Working men and women, particularly husbands and wives together, welcome the opportunity of an extended demonstration of new models after normal trading hours and in greater comfort and relaxation than shopping facilities usually allow. No purchases take place at the time and nor are orders placed, but it is understood by all that the purpose of these functions is to promote the eventual sale of the product. To this end representatives of the manufacturers are also often in attendance.

    Under the Act, the organisation of such promotional evenings is permitted provided they do not take place on the actual shop premises. This is not very practicable, especially with regard to cars. Dealers would naturally prefer to demonstrate ​ new models in their own showrooms. To do otherwise would be to add to the costs which would eventually be passed on to the consumer in higher prices, as well as being much less convenient for all concerned.

    Unfortunately, although many local authorities regard it as within their discretion to approve the holding of promotions on retail premises after hours, others observe the strict letter of the law and the Lord Chief Justice has upheld the view that, even though no transactions take place, such events must be interpreted as “the serving of customers” under the terms of the Act. As a result, a serious and inhibiting anomaly has developed.

    For example, a random survey taken in October 1976 showed after-hours promotions on business premises to have been held at about that time in places as far apart as Aberdeen and Warrington, Carlisle and Winchester, Preston and Luton, Chislehurst and Hendon—the last two in London. Yet the London Borough of Havering—the starting point of my own interest in this matter—strictly refuses approval for these functions. In 1973 it successfully took a case to the High Court in defence of its interpretation. In the circumstances this may appear to be an excess of rectitude on the council’s part. It reasonably maintains that if it did not carry out the duty conferred on it by Section 71(1)—

    “to enforce within their district the provisions of this Act,”—

    it would be open to an order of mandamus in the High Court.

    These differing interpretations of the scope of their discretion by different local authorities lead to inequity and inequality of opportunity. As an illustration, one company in my constituency—which is a major Vauxhall dealer in East London—is able to hold after-hours promotions in its showrooms in other parts of the area but not in Romford. Naturally, it finds this difficult to understand and resents the effective discrimination.

    My Bill would, therefore, regularise the position by allowing local authorities the discretion to approve the holding of a limited number of specific promotional functions on individual retail premises, after hours, on weekday evenings only. This small amendment to confirm existing ​ practice would not conflict with the principal purposes of the Act in respect of closing hours which were to safeguard employees from exploitation and to protect traders from unfair competition, since such events would be infrequent, subject to approval by the local authority and the opportunity open to all traders on application. I hope, therefore, that the House will give me leave to bring in this Bill.

  • David Owen – 1978 Statement on Rhodesia

    Below is the text of the statement made by David Owen, the then Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 18 April 1978.

    I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a statement on Rhodesia.

    The United States Secretary of State and I met the leaders of the Patriotic Front in Dar-es-Salaam on 14th and 15th April. We also met President Nyerere. On 16th April we had talks in Pretoria on Namibia and Rhodesia with the South African Foreign Minister and on 17th April we met the signatories of the Salisbury agreement.

    The aim of all these meetings was to prepare the ground for round-table talks to bring about a negotiated ceasefire and an internationally acceptable settlement.

    I do not wish to hide from the House that there are still major differences between the parties, both of whom think they are winning. However, there are some signs that we could widen the existing areas of agreement in two important ways, both of them crucial, if we are to establish a neutral Administration for the transitional period, capable of holding fair and free elections.

    First, the Patriotic Front is now closer to accepting a role for the United Nations in supervising a previously negotiated ceasefire and in monitoring the activities of the military and police forces. There is more understanding in Salisbury that United Nations involvement gives an assurance that sanctions would be lifted prior to independence.

    Secondly, all would probably now agree to a Council with wide executive and legislative powers whose members would hold ministerial portfolios. The Patriotic Front said that, provided its other demands—some of which are unacceptable to us—were met, it could accept a Council presided over by a resident commissioner holding reserve executive powers over defence and law and order.

    There was widespread recognition in all of Southern Africa that if we and the United States were to abandon the search for a negotiated settlement based on the principles of the Anglo-United States proposals there would be no alternative to a bitter and bloody conflict, with an uncertain outcome and the grave danger of it becoming internationalised and involving all the countries surrounding Rhodesia. The Patriotic Front accepted our invitation to round-table talks and the signatories of the Salisbury agreement have undertaken to give it serious consideration.

    Mr. John Davies

    I should like to thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, which he has made so quickly after his return from Africa. I commend him on the efforts that he is clearly making, even though we think that they were belated, to achieve a reconciliation between the divergent viewpoints on Rhodesia. However, does he not think ​ that it is right to build on a firm foundation in seeking to achieve such a reconciliation? Does he not believe that a firmer foundation is to be found in the Salisbury agreement than in the Anglo-American proposals? The truth is that the Salisbury agreement has developed in a quite interesting way, in for instance the granting of amnesty to guerrillas in appropriate cases, the release of detainees, the appointment of both black and white Ministers and the work of the Executive Council.

    Is it not perhaps unreasonable to imagine that those who have achieved what, as recently as a year ago, seemed an absolutely unhoped-for understanding between black and white alike should now conceive in any way compromising their agreement in favour of discussions when one of the parties to the discussions was reported yesterday as saying that his sole objective was to achieve a one-party Marxist State in Rhodesia? Does he not think that the only way forward to reconciliation lies in the agreement reached in Salisbury and perhaps in its evolution—but not its evolution in favour of those who still see their one way forward as fighting their way through to domination of that country?

    Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman press upon the Leader of the House the need to hold a debate upon this matter? We have long asked for such a debate. We arranged, on something of an expediency basis, to have one immediately before the Easter Recess, but the time seems appropriate now to hold a proper debate on this matter as it reaches this important stage.

    Dr. Owen

    I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. I arrived back only this morning, but I think the House treats this matter with great seriousness—rightly so—and deserves to be kept as fully informed as possible.

    On the right hon. Gentleman’s question about one course being the only way forward, the problem is that both parties to the dispute believe that they have the recipe and the only way forward. Therefore, it is the job of the mediator, of the United States Secretary of State and myself, to try to search for an alternative route which can bring about a major ​ compromise affecting all sides. By trying to stick to principles we are better able to do that.

    There has been substantial progress. It was nearly a year ago that I first visited Rhodesia and discussed with Mr. Smith some of the steps which needed to be taken. Looking back now, one sees that there has been tremendous progress. At that time, the principle of one-man, one-vote was rejected. At that time, independence in 1978 was not able to be confirmed. There are now considerable areas of agreement.

    Unfortunately, the main area of disagreement is the continued non-inclusion of all the nationalist leaders and the inability to negotiate a ceasefire. It is to the attempt to achieve a ceasefire that we must now bend all our efforts. It may not be possible to do so, but I hope that we shall be able to have a negotiated ceasefire.

    As for the question of a debate, the Leader of the House is here and will have heard the request. We had a debate a few weeks ago on the right hon. Gentleman’s instigation, but I am always ready to discuss the issues.

    Mr. Thorpe

    Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us who have met the leaders both of the Patriotic Front and of the Salisbury internal settlement have urged on each in turn the necessity for a genuine attempt to bring both sides together? Is he aware that if he were to give unqualified support, as the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) has suggested, to one side to the exclusion of the other, it would completely defeat any prospect of getting both sides together? [An HON. MEMBER: “IS the right hon. Gentleman on the Marxist side or the other side?”] I am on the side of peace, and we shall get peace only through both sides coming together.

    How long does the Foreign Secretary expect it will take before he receives a reply from Salisbury about their readiness or otherwise to attend and how soon does he expect to convene a conference?

    Dr. Owen

    I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman’s constant efforts to use his influence with leaders of both sides to get them to negotiations. I believe that that is the course favoured by every ​ hon. Member who wants to end this distressing chapter. As for the question of when a meeting could take place, Secretary Vance and I were prepared to go towards the end of April. It is unlikely that we shall get a response in time for that, and I think that we shall have to search for a time some time in May. The problem is to have it as early as possible before we actually have open conflict and the waging of war between the black nationalist leaders but also at a time when people are more ready to compromise than they are currently.

    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes

    I thank my right hon. Friend for his untiring efforts to seek a solution to this difficult problem. Was the possibility of participating in free elections under United Nations supervision put to Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe and the other parties? If so, what was their reaction?

    Dr. Owen

    All sides have agreed to have fair and free elections. It is a question of trying to get agreement on the administration for the transitional period which each side will think fair to its case. I believe that a United Nations presence is one of the ways of having a neutral Administration. That is closer to acceptance by the Patriotic Front now than it has been before, but I think that some of the hostility to the United Nations, which was understandable at one time, particularly after the refusal to hear Bishop Muzorewa in Salisbury, has lessened as they have realised the need to get international acceptance.

    Mr. Maudling

    I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s great difficulties and the great efforts that he is making to deal with this problem. May I put this one point to him? There has been an internal agreement, which we understand is to be subject to free and fair elections. Should the free and fair elections confirm the agreement will the British Government defend it come hell or high water?

    Dr. Owen

    The short answer to that question is “Yes”. If there are free and fair elections and this House is satisfied that the fifth principle, being acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole, is met and that there have been a transfer of power, an independence constitution and a new Government, I believe that this House would have to form that difficult judgment and remain true to the six ​ principles which we have held to through thick and thin.

    Mr. MacFarquhar

    Can my right hon. Friend confirm reports from Rhodesia that the broadcast he did with the Rhodesian Broadcasting Company has been censored? If he can confirm such reports, what conclusions does he draw as to the opinions of Mr. Smith about the viability of the internal settlement?

    Dr. Owen

    I have seen these reports in the South African newspapers. Secretary of State Vance and I did a television broadcast in the late afternoon in Rhodesia. I was given to understand that it was likely to go out that night. I certainly hope that it does go out. When I last visited Rhodesia in September, I was not allowed to go on Rhodesian television, but I had been allowed to do so in April.

    The climate in which one will hold free and fair elections must be one with out any form of censorship whatever. The sooner that is abolished and the sooner the television network is made available to all people in Rhodesia, the better.

    Mr. Amery

    I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman has to work closely with his American colleagues, but will he explain to Mr. Vance what Burke said long ago, that nothing is more futile than to be tied to the carcase of a dead policy? Will he recognise that the Anglo-American settlement is not acceptable to the Patriotic Front or to Salisbury? Will he also understand that most of us in the House believe that if he is not prepared to stop trying to undermine the internal settlement, that can only be interpreted as a determination at any price to avoid a confrontation with the Soviet Union in defence of democracy and majority rule in Southern Africa?

    Dr. Owen

    The quickest way of achieving the carcass of a dead policy would be for the United States and ourselves to abandon any attempts at a negotiated settlement. There is no one else who proffers the prospect of a negotiated settlement and a ceasefire. There are many people with guns, people who are ready to provide more guns, who would seize the opportunity to have a conflict that could involve many African countries and much loss of life in Africa. So I reject the charge that the American Secretary ​ of State is doing anything other than, as I am, negotiating a peaceful ceasefire, and we shall do so. It is not our job to undermine anything. It is our job to bring people together.

    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon

    Can there be a peaceful settlement without involving the Patriotic Front in the ultimate agreement? If its views are regarded as unreasonable, has my right hon. Friend seen the very balanced criticism of the internal settlement by the Catholic Institute, which indicates the serious dangers of leaving the Patriotic Front out of the settlement?

    Dr. Owen

    I think that there is a growing recognition in this country that there are problems with the internal settlement, that it is inadequate in quite a number of respects, and that it is right for us not to have endorsed it. Anyone who watched Panorama last night could see quite clearly that there are many conscientious black people who support what they call their boys and who will continue to support the liberation fighters. What we must try to do is to understand the motivation of the people on both sides who hold different views, and try to bring them together.

    Mr. Maurice Macmillan

    Does not the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary think that he may be suffering from a dangerous delusion when he says that there is a danger of this conflict becoming internationalised, in the sense that it already is internationalised, with a massive build-up of Soviet-Cuban troops and with a high-ranking Russian general in charge of the Soviet-Cuban base in Mozambique? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many tanks and MiG aircraft there are now in countries neighbouring Rhodesia, and whether it is true that guerrillas seeking to return peacefully without their arms from Zambia are being arrested and imprisoned to stop them so doing?

    Dr. Owen

    As the House knows, I have never hidden from the country the fact that there are Cuban involvements in some of the countries around Rhodesia. I made my views about this quite clear in the Mansion House only very recently. But I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that the way to stop that build-up and to prevent what he and others fear is certainly not to abandon the prospect of a negotiated settlement, and certainly ​ not to choose sides and seem arrayed only on one side, for to do so would mean that we should be condemned and criticised not only by people inside Rhodesia and some outside Rhodesia—all Rhodesians—but also by many African countries.

    Mr. Faulds

    Pursuant to his earlier reply, how will my right hon. Friend be able to defend, or the House accept, the outcome of any elections in Southern Rhodesia in which not all the political parties have been able to campaign or to put up candidates?

    Dr. Owen

    It will be difficult. That judgment will be extremely difficult to make. But I have always believed that if we give a veto to any side in this difficult and tortuous dispute we shall never bring about peace. We must go on seeking to get a neutral Administration which really can hold fair and free elections without armed conflict continuing.

    It is very difficult to have a fair test of opinion on acceptability of a settlement while there is continued armed conflict. But to say that it is impossible ever to hold a fair test of opinion in those conditions would simply be to give a veto to people who wish to continue fighting. I do not believe that most of the people in the Patriotic Front wish such a thing. They want a fair and honourable settlement and they are prepared to fight their views on the elections.

    Mr. Carlisle

    I fully recognise the desirability of achieving Mr. Nkomo’s involvement in any Rhodesian settlement, if that be at all possible, but does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if the talks he has in mind have any chance of success they must be on the basis of building on what has been achieved through the internal settlement rather than going back to the original Anglo-United States proposals?

    Secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman now accept, having been there recently, the real need for a senior diplomatic presence in Salisbury so that the Government can be advised on a day-to-day basis on what appears to be a rapidly changing situation?

    Dr. Owen

    There are many elements common to both sides which one can build on. Many of those elements are ​ incorporated within the internal arrangements, so it is possible to do that without also excluding the other side. I think that that is the important thing to try to do.

    As to the hon. and learned Gentleman’s last point, I offered in the context of working towards round-table talks to put in a more senior diplomat, and I believe that they are considering the situation.

    Miss Joan Lestor

    Does not my right hon. Friend agree that if Conservative Members continue to refer to Mugabe and Joshua Nkomo as if they are some sort of lepers because they may or may not be Marxists, those hon. Members will make it absolutely impossible for them to join any negotiating team? Would it not be a good thing to remind Conservative Members that 40 years ago Conservative Members and, indeed, all Members welcomed the intervention and support of the Soviet Union in what they considered to be a fight against Fascism? It seems very odd to some of us that at times they will hold up the very thing that they used to support in order to condemn people who see themselves in precisely the same situation as that in which Britain saw herself from 1939 to 1945.

    Dr. Owen

    I am convinced that all the nationalist leaders are prepared to take their chance on a test in an election. There is no doubt that there are different views and different ideologies as between the differing black nationalist leaders, but one of the essences of democracy is that one is able to put different ideological issues to the people and let them decide.

    That is the best way of resolving the ever-present conflict of views between the black nationalist leaders. It is the absence of a united view that has harmed and in my view put back the achievement of an independent Zimbabwe over the years.

    Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler

    In an earlier reply, the Foreign Secretary referred to the fact that the Patriotic Front had been excluded from any elections which were likely to take place in that country. Would he, for the record, care to register that that is not the case, and that the Patriotic Front is excluded from elections, if it is, by its own choice?

    Dr. Owen

    I do not think that the hon. Gentleman, who has a fair record of ​ looking at these things, would agree with that when he looks at the circumstances. It is true that the Patriotic Front has been given an offer to come in on the terms of the internal agreement. It sees that as exclusion. Perhaps that would be a better way to describe it. I must say that I do not think that it has been given what I described in this House some time ago as an opportunity to come back to the country to fight free and fair elections with honour and dignity. I believe, therefore, that the way to bring back the Patriotic Front is on the basis of a negotiated settlement, with participation in the negotiations.

    Mr. Hooley

    What is the prospect of getting rid of Smith?

    Dr. Owen

    At the moment, not very high. I think that he accepts that at the election he obviously will lose power. As to whether he wishes to stand in an election, and have his chance to be elected, if we are true and fair democrats we must accept that that can happen. I have no doubt that if, during the transitional period, he were to cease to be Premier, as he is still called—although he is part of a four-man Council—and to leave public life, it would certainly lessen much of the suspicion and hostility which exists in Africa.

    Mr. Emery

    Will the Foreign Secretary recall the answer that he gave when he said that the Patriotic Front wanted a full and fair settlement? Does he equate that with the statement from one of the leaders of the Patriotic Front that its objective is the setting up of a one-party Marxist State? Will the Foreign Secretary not realise that that sort of statement is just as damaging as the claim that the only way to obtain a settlement is by Smith going? There must be a proper balance, but from the statements of the Secretary of State it would appear to many people that it is in favour of the Patriotic Front.

    Dr. Owen

    Mr. Mugabe did not make that statement to me at the conference table. Had he done so, I would have told him my views. He said it outside the conference, and not in my presence. But I think that it is perfectly possible for anyone to fight an election in this country holding the view that there should be a ​ one-party State. If we believe in democracy, we have to be prepared to allow people with different ideologies and different views to fight elections. I make no secret of it. Of course, I do not hold those views myself.

    But I do not believe that we should take too much notice of issues of this sort. Mr. Mugabe is a Left-wing Socialist and subscribes to some Marxist views. He has said openly, I believe, that he would prefer a one-party State. But even in that statement he said, I believe, that he would strive to convince others through fair democracy. It is not part of my job to defend Mr. Mugabe, nor do I intend to do it, but I intend to refute a charge that it is not possible to hold fair and free elections with people of different ideologies taking part.

    Mr. Crawshaw

    Will my right hon. Friend agree that, had the Salisbury agreement occurred about five years ago, it might have had some chance of success, with the prospect of peace in the future? But, however much one wants to solve this problem, is it not closing our eyes to reality to ignore the fact that the Salisbury agreement came about because of the pressure applied by the freedom fighters?

    Is it not closing our eyes to reality to think that peace can be brought about on the basis of the Salisbury agreement alone? Is it not absolutely vital to make sure that the freedom fighters at least have a say in the agreement that is brought about? It would be easy to throw the burden over and think that we had solved the issue, but surely the fighting will continue unless the freedom fighters are at least involved in the agreement.

    Dr. Owen

    I agree with my hon. Friend that we should attempt to do everything we can to involve the freedom fighters. If we look at the history of this country over many years in facing difficulties of this sort, usually we find that we did not take sufficient account of the aspirations of freedom fighters. It was not that we leaned over backwards to meet the freedom fighters. Some of the allegations which have been made in the present context have been made against successive Foreign Secretaries in the past. It is the task of Foreign Secretaries to ​ seek peace and to talk to everyone but also to uphold principles. I shall uphold the six principles in this House and the principles underlying the Anglo-American proposals.

    Several Hon. Members rose—

    Mr. Speaker

    Order. Before we get to the Wales Bill, which is governed by a timetable motion, we have a Ten-Minute Bill. I shall therefore take questions on the Rhodesia statement for another five minutes until 4.10 p.m.

    Mr. Rhodes James

    Will the Foreign Secretary say a little more about the discussions concerning the future role of the United Nations? Is he aware that some of us are very doubtful about the capability of the United Nations to undertake yet another peace-keeping operation in the present circumstances?

    Dr. Owen

    I think that the hon. Gentleman is right. One would be unrealistic to think that the United Nations’ facilities would not be very considerably stretched, with a new demand in the Lebanon, a possible demand in Namibia, and a possible demand in Rhodesia. The one hopeful sign is that major countries are now showing a greater readiness to play a part in United Nations peace-keeping operations. France has contributed forces in the Lebanon. Countries such as Iran are contributing in the Lebanon. I think that there is greater hope that some of the bigger nations which have previously not participated in United Nations peacekeeping will do so, but the hon. Gentleman is right to point out that these demands will present a great challenge to the United Nations.

    Mr. Newens

    Will my right hon. Friend not agree that statements made in this House by Opposition Members—particularly bearing in mind that some of them previously expressed sympathy with the illegal Smith regime—can only make a peaceful agreement far more difficult? Will he, therefore, expressly state—especially in view of his reply to the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling)—that in no circumstances will the Government be prepared to come to terms with the so-called internal settlement and approve it, whether or not there is some form of election introduced to give it sanctity, or anything of that sort? Will my right hon. Friend state that he ​ will stand absolutely firm on the position which he has expressed here in the past?

    Dr. Owen

    I will stand firm on the principle of fair and free elections. The test that I would put would be one that I hope this House would put—that it must be acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole. I think that my hon. Friend’s anxieties about the manner in which that question might be put are shared by everybody in the House, but I think that we would deal with this as we have dealt with it before. There were many people in Africa who thought that this House would not accept the recommendation of the Pearce Commission if it was against the views of the then British Government. The then Government, to give them full credit, honoured their obligations to the six principles, and I will do no less.

    Mr. Biffen

    Since the Foreign Secretary’s negotiating role must turn on the assessment, at least in part, that he has made of Mr. Mugabe, will he tell the House whether he thinks that Mr. Mugabe is irrevocably committed to the concept of a one-party Marxist State and its attainment by means of an armed struggle, or does he think that Mr. Mugabe’s statements on these points are merely related to a negotiating position?

    Dr. Owen

    These are things for Mr. Mugabe himself to say. But if the hon. Gentleman will look at the statement, as I have done, he will see that it can be read as being within democratic politics—in other words, that this is Mr. Mugabe’s view which he would put to the people, and that if he did not reach agreement, he would continue to search for it. Many people who have expressed both Marxist views and support for one-party States have operated within a democratic ​ framework. I think that we should not necessarily condemn Mr. Mugabe merely because of one, in my view, extremely ill-advised remark.

    Mr. Nicholas Winterton

    It is not the first time that Mr. Mugabe has said it.

    Mr. Urwin

    Why do you not shut up?

    Mr. Speaker

    Order. Theoretically, a remark such as that is addressed to me, and no one could have been quieter.

    Mr. Dunlop

    Is the Foreign Secretary aware of the visit not so long ago of Mr. Mugabe to the cities of Dublin and Belfast, where he met leaders of the Provisional IRA? Is the Foreign Secretary also aware that there was a reciprocal visit from the IRA to meet Mr. Mugabe and his companions in Mozambique? Could it be that the purpose of their meeting was to perfect the techniques of murder and destruction which these arch-terrorists have perpetrated in Southern Africa and Northern Ireland? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that these are suitable people to bring about a democratic solution in Rhodesia?

    Dr. Owen

    The hon. Gentleman knows that I deplore violence wherever it is. He knows perfectly well that each and every one must form his views in a democratic election about the candidates. It is the electorate who will decide this. I have little doubt that anyone who fights an election in Rhodesia will have little support for a claim for a one-party State, either from black or white Rhodesians.

  • Harold McCusker – 1978 Speech on Craigavon

    Below is the text of the speech made by Harold McCusker, the Ulster Unionist MP for Armagh, in the House of Commons on 17 April 1978.

    At the outset I want to make it clear that nothing I shall say this evening should be construed as “Craigavon bashing”. That label is sometimes given to anyone who over the past few months has raised questions about the future of the new city concept in order to try to obtain from the Government what their thinking is on the matter.

    I have requested this debate to elicit clarification on what is now the Craigavon question. It hinges around the simple issue whether Craigavon has a future as a new city or as a growth area. As I develop my theme I think it will be seen to be not as simple as it appears. This is a matter which has perturbed not only me. As the Under-Secretary will know, it has perturbed the borough council of Craigavon, which recently called for a public inquiry into the whole issue.

    It is also essential that we should have this opportunity for debate because of two major policy decisions that have been made during the past six months. One has been the decision of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to stop further building in Craigavon. The other is the new emphasis and initiative, which has been spearheaded by the Under-Secretary, to reconstruct and regenerate inner Belfast.

    There is substantial unease in the area of Craigavon because 3,000 acres or 50 per cent. of the total of the compulsorily ​ acquired land still remains undeveloped 12 years after it was acquired. This all points to the fact that there has been an obvious and distinct divergence from the original concept and plan of the 1965–66 period.

    It is important to review the historical development of Craigavon in order to put it into perspective. The early 1960s were accompanied in Northern Ireland by an accelerating growth in population and a growing success in the attraction of new industries. The accelerating growth in population put great stress on existing housing and necessitated an acceleration in the provision of housing in the Province. The attraction of new industry demanded a modern infrastructure and the services which today’s industry requires.

    Furthermore, when the high percentage of unemployment in the Province was analysed, it was found to consist of small pockets of unemployment scattered throughout the Province, rather than a large and readily available labour market, which is sometimes envisaged when one talks about a 10 per cent., 12 per cent., or 15 per cent. rate of unemployment.

    Confronted with this situation in the early 1960s, the Northern Ireland Government commissioned Professor Matthew to produce the Belfast regional plan, which recommended the creation of a new city in County Armagh, located on the borders of Lurgan and Portadown. The new city was not to be created by natural or accelerated growth of the existing towns; it was to be a planned creation in the smallest detail, involving the expenditure of hundreds of millions of pounds. The cost was estimated at £140 million in 1965. If that expenditure had continued through to today it could have been quadrupled.

    In a debate at Stormont on 6th July 1965, justifying the compulsory acquisition of the 6,200 acres of prime agricultural land, the then Minister of Development stated:

    “The intention is to create a modern environment of the highest standards, embracing all aspects of living—urban, village, rural. All this must be developed in accordance with a single unified plan.”

    This theme is readily discernible in everything associated with the new city, in the ​ New Towns Act of 1965, and in the manner in which the Northern Ireland approach to new cities development differed from that of Great Britain.

    In July 1965, the Ministry of Development designated for the new town site an area of about 100 square miles, which was called the designated area. This was to be rigidly controlled and developed. On 8th June 1966, 6,200 acres of land were compulsorily purchased by the Ministry of Development, to be known as the “distinguished area”. This area was to be planned virtually down to the last blade of grass.

    The debates of the time illustrate clearly the intention of the Northern Ireland Government. It should be remembered that this detailed planning and application was the justification for introducing legislation in Stormont which gave the Ministry of Development and the New Towns Commission powers far in excess of those applying in the rest of the United Kingdom.

    Extracts from the debate of the 24th February 1965, said:

    “The Bill is a piece of machinery for a specific purpose.… The immediate purpose of the Bill is to provide the machinery for the creation of the new city in County Armagh.… It is the means of accelerating large growth centres at a pace well beyond the capacity of local resources. … If one is convinced of the need for a development of this size then one has to acquire 6,000 acres. One will see that it is wise before embarking upon such a venture as investing £145 million to make sure that one can carry it through to a successful conclusion.”

    So it can fairly be seen that the Government’s intention was, over a relatively short period of time, to build a new city in County Armagh using massive sums of public money. Lurgan and Portadown, the two existing towns, were to be relegated to a secondary role of “district centres”. That is the term used in the second report of the plan, printed in 1968. Despite my opposition to the concept, and to the decisions taken in 1965, I would accept that there were factors and indicators there which favoured the decision that was opted for.

    The Northern Ireland population had risen between 1945 and 1965 from 1,300,000 to 1,500,000. By the early 1980s it was expected that it would rise to 1,700,000, and to more than 2 million by the turn of the century.

    The birth rate in 1940 was 25,000 a year, and it rose rapidly to an average of 33,000 a year, year on year, in the early 1960s. Then in 1965 the New Towns Act was passed. It must have been the most effective contraceptive device ever introduced into Northern Ireland. Since 1965 the birth rate has fallen each year, year on year until this year it will probably be the lowest in any year since the formation of the State. The population of Northern Ireland peaked in 1973 at a little over the 1965 figure of 1½ million, and is now just about holding its own, and there has been a little falling off over the period.

    The economic well-being of the early 1960s deteriorated in the latter half of that decade and, coupled with terrorism, inflation, and the energy crisis, industrial growth in the Province has ground to a standstill.

    Even as early as 1971–72 targets were being missed, despite the exodus of people from the troubled areas and moving to Craigavon for the wrong reasons. In the early years of the project one had to have a lob in Craigavon and one was carefully vetted before being allowed to set up home there—and as people came willy-nilly into the area, we saw the dream of the 1960s becoming almost a nightmare of the 1970s.

    I believe that de facto recognition of the demise of the new city was indicated by the dissolution of the New Towns Commission in 1973. It is interesting to note that on 24th February 1965 it was stated:

    “When the stage is reached that the new development is complete or substantially complete the New Towns Commission will be wound up.”

    That could have read:

    “When the stage is reached that the new development is unrealistic and impossible to achieve, the New Towns Commission will be wound up.’

    In the Under-Secretary of State’s own words, the Commission was “replaced by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive”, the Department of Commerce assuming its industrial functions and with the recreational functions being taken over by Craigavon Borough Council. In the same letter he said:

    “… the former Craigavon Development Commission employed some hundreds of staff in what was in a very real sense a multi-purpose organisation. Under the present system ​ of organisation only a very few officers in my Department have specific responsibilities for Craigavon and they are heavily committed in many directions”.

    In fact, when the Commission was wound up, its responsibilities were handed over, as is indicated in that letter from the Minister. That was a de facto indication that the new city was grinding to a halt.

    Perhaps most important of all is what was described in the second report of the plan in 1968:

    “A most important component of Craigavon will be the city centre.”

    I read from page 38 of that report:

    “Apart from the residential and industrial areas, a most important component of Craigavon will be the city centre. While fulfilling a regional role, this facility must also crown a hierarchy of service centres within Craigavon.”

    It goes on:

    “The city centre will be the hub of the area and a focal point of activity and influence for a catchment beyond the city itself, a main commercial and business precinct, including offices, specialist and department stores, and will relate to zones of civic and community buildings, comprising local and central government offices, law courts, police, post office and other municipal functions. Cultural and entertainment buildings, such as a cinema, theatre, concert hall, restaurants and hotel will also form an integral part of the design. In addition, central area apartments will be provided.”

    Later in the report, we see:

    “The city centre will have restaurants and cafes like the one featured in the sketch. As well as shops, offices, civic and entertainment buildings, town houses and apartments will be built there for people attracted to the idea of central area living. The centre will be designed to be a place of bustle, excitement and interest at all times.”

    That is the description in the report. It shows how much importance was placed on the city centre and how vital it was to the whole concept. Yet the Public Accounts Committee a couple of years ago criticised the Government heavily for its expenditure there and recommended that no further expenditure should take place.

    Despite those hard things, I hope that the Under-Secretary will agree that I have tried to avoid the emotive issues, but they are serious and fundamental and they must be touched upon. There is the destruction and vandalism and hundreds of houses in Craigavon, sometimes twice over. There is the neglect of Lurgan and Portadown. Even to this day it has not ​ been thought fit to include them in the town centre face-lift scheme. I hope that the Under-Secretary will have second thoughts about that.

    There is the unemployment in the area, which, while better than in most of Northern Ireland for a time, is now running at 3,000, about 10 per cent. of the working population. All the social problems associated with the rootless society are evident there. I shall not list them now.

    There was the deliberate neglect of existing small communities and attempts to eliminate them. The fact that after 12 years of enforced growth there are still more than 3,000 acres undeveloped and likely to remain undeveloped this side of the year 2000 are all further causes for concern. The Under-Secretary must be the only absentee landlord of any significance left in Ulster. He has 3,000 acres of agricultural land under his control and the farmers who at one time owned that land and farmed it now have to rent it back from him to do precisely the same thing.

    While it was the intention of the Northern Ireland Government when vesting the land to avoid unscrupulous exploitation of land which had been given an added value by the investment of huge sums of public money, it surely could never have been their intention that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, not noted in other spheres of its activity for frugality or good house-keeping, should become Rachman profiteers.

    I well remember reading the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig), who spelt this out in detail to a public, who did not really appreciate it, 12 years ago in Northern Ireland, that if the Government were going to spend £100 million and that was going to give an added value to land in the area, they would not see people exploit that situation. There is exploitation taking place.

    Councillor Bob McAvoy, who does not belong to the same political party as I do but who is a former employee of the Development Commission, described the ground rent policy of the Housing Executive in Craigavon as

    “a legacy from the days of feudalism and land lordism.”

    He said that at £30 per year ground rent, with a density of eight to 12 houses per acre,

    “The Housing Executive are commanding a higher value in ground rent per acre per annum than was paid in compensation to the former landowners.”

    Was this the concept of the Northern Ireland Government 13 years ago? I know the answer. The answer is that it was not. I believe that if that Government had still been in existence it would have acknowledged that fact some years back. It would have taken stock of what had occurred and was occurring and would have sought to establish the best way forward from there.

    That is what I am proposing to the Minister tonight. I do not do it in bitterness or animosity or with any desire to embarrass him or the Government. Therefore, I hope that he will not hide behind the type of reassurances given earlier this year by his right hon. Friend, who tells us when challenged “We will make a success of Craigavon.” That is not the kind of answer we want. Unfortunately, that meaningless reassurance conceals what is required, which is an acceptance that things have gone wrong and that it is time to reassess and move forward from there.

    At a time of nil or declining population growth, it is impossible to reconcile the Minister’s vital decision to rebuild and revitalise central Belfast and the decision to create only 20 miles away Craigavon as originally conceived. It is an impossibility, and this Government should have the courage to say so. Only then can we obtain a proper assessment of our priorities.

    For example, what is necessary to develop the business and commercial centres of Lurgan and Portadown so that growth can again be based on them? How can we maintain, exploit and pay for the excellent recreational and leisure facilities that are already in existence? How can the area designated for the city centre evolve and develop to provide a mixture of shopping, business and certain other commercial activities which are suited to the facilities provided there?
    How can we encourage and generate a home-owning society in an area where we have a massive surfeit of public authority houses and where home ownership ​ might bring with it a sense of responsibility and belonging to the community?
    How can we return to many farmers the land which is properly theirs and which is now held under false pretences? Can we make a start with those on the periphery? In other words, is it not time for us to think again?

  • Shirley Summerskill – 1978 Speech on the Maxwell Confait Case

    Below is the text of the speech made by Shirley Summerskill, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office, in the House of Commons on 13 April 1978.

    I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) has raised the subject of Sir Henry Fisher’s report, because I can give him some of the reassurance that he seeks.

    Perhaps I should explain that the report arose because the convictions of the three boys—Colin Lattimore, Ronald Leighton and Ahmet Salih—were referred by the then Home Secretary to the Court of Appeal in 1975. Four months later, their convictions were quashed by the court and they were immediately released.

    In view of the public concern which arose following the Appeal Court judgment, the Government announced in November 1975 the setting up of an independent inquiry to investigate the circumstances leading to the trial of the three boys. Sir Henry Fisher, a former High Court judge, was invited to conduct the inquiry.

    Because the inquiry took place in private, certain understandings of confidentiality were necessarily given in respect of the evidence submitted. This relates to the last point that my hon. Friend raised. It was on this basis that witnesses gave evidence. It would be a breach of faith if the inquiry documents were made public now or, as my hon. Friend suggested, if they were made available to research workers or to the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure. I doubt whether there would be much advantage in this, in that Sir Henry Fisher made it clear that his report was prepared in such a way that its findings would be supported by extensive references to the evidence. My right hon. ​ Friend the Home Secretary is, however, considering the possibility that the Royal Commission might have access to some parts of the unpublished evidence, and he will write to my hon. Friend about this in the near future.

    I turn to Sir Henry Fisher’s findings about the involvement of the three youths which, on a balance of probabilities, were different both from those of the trial court and from those of the Court of Appeal. At the trial, Colin Lattimore and Ronald Leighton were convicted of killing Maxwell Confait and they and Ahmet Salih—who did not stand trial for the killing—were convicted of arson. Sir Henry Fisher’s finding was that Ronald Leighton and Ahmet Salih were involved in the killing and that all three youths took part in the arson.

    With regard to the youths’ legal status now, the simple answer is that their convictions were quashed by the Court of Appeal. That is equivalent to an acquittal and, so far as the criminal law is concerned, that is the end of the matter. There is no conceivable way in which the criminal courts could examine the matter afresh. There is no right of appeal by the prosecution, and the Home Secretary has no power to refer the case again to the Court of Appeal, even if he wished to do so.

    My hon. Friend asked what view the Home Secretary takes on Sir Henry Fisher’s findings on the balance of probabilities. It would be improper for the Home Secretary to express a view one way or the other. The proper authority for determining questions of guilt is the courts, and he cannot prefer his own view to theirs. As I have said, in law the youths’ convictions have been quashed.

    It has been said that the present situation is unsatisfactory for all concerned. But it is not correct to say that Sir Henry Fisher found the young men guilty. He was not conducting a trial, and he said no more than that he found, on the balance of probabilities, that they were involved in the offences. The young men have not been placed in this situation by the Government or other public authority. They and their advisers pressed for the inquiry to be held, and at the inquiry, and in all matters relating to it, the young men were fully represented by solicitors and counsel.

    With regard to compensation, the former Home Secretary agreed when the three young men’s convictions were quashed by the Court of Appeal that they were eligible for ex gratia compensation by the Home Office. Interim payments were made of amounts recommended by the independent assessor to whom such cases are customarily referred, but it was decided that a final assessment would have to await Sir Henry Fisher’s findings. In reply to a Question by my hon. Friend on 13th December 1977, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that if the young men wished he would refer all three cases for further consideration by the assessor. Their legal advisers informed the Home Office that they wished to proceed, and, after consultation with them about the terms of the memorandum to be sent to the assessor, the cases were referred to him at the beginning of March. I understand that the applicants’ legal advisers have since made representations direct to the assessor.

    The assessor has not yet made recommendations to the Home Secretary. In doing so he will, in accordance with the normal procedure, have regard to the extent to which the convictions were attributable to any action or failure to act by the police or other public authority or were contributed to by the accused persons’ own conduct. Sir Henry Fisher has things to say on both counts which the assessor may wish to take into account. It would not be right to exclude these matters from the assessor’s consideration or to seek to influence him in any other way.

    I turn now to the broader policy aspects of criminal law and procedure on which Sir Henry Fisher has put forward a number of valuable suggestions. Sir Henry himself accepted that changes which he suggested would need further examination by a body like a Royal Commission. Many of his more substantial suggestions fall into this category, including his proposals relating to the Judges’ Rules. I think it is common ground among us that this task can most appropriately be done by the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure, which was announced last June by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

    This inevitably means some delay, but, having set up a Royal Commission, we ​ must give it the opportunity to weigh all the relevant considerations. In doing so the Commission will need to consider not only the particular suggestions put forward by Sir Henry Fisher but the views of others with an interest in those areas, including those whose views may run counter to the suggestions expressed in the report. It is not an excuse for inactivity, but is will cover a wide range of possible reforms in the law. It is eagerly awaited by many people.

    With regard to the other point which my hon. Friend made, the Royal Commission’s research will not be controlled by the Home Office research unit. It is for the Royal Commission itself to decide what research it needs to assist it in its work and how it should be organised. It can have research done by anyone it likes. It can go anywhere that it wishes. It is up to the Royal Commission entirely.

    While any substantive changes in the whole area covered by the Judges’ Rules must await the views of the Royal Commission, my right hon. Friend has announced his intention to reissue in one document the Judges’ Rules, the administrative directions to the police and the related Home Office circulars, so as to ensure that they are well known to the police and to members of the legal profession. This publication should appear well before the Summer Recess. In the Metropolitan Police, the Commissioner has issued a recent force order emphasising the importance of complying with the rules and directions. I understand that my hon. Friend has recently written about this to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is considering whether these orders can be published. It would be inappropriate for me to comment at length on this request at this stage beyond saying that it is a long-established practice not to publish Metropolitan Police general orders which include information on police operational matters.

    My hon. Friend asked about the Government’s attitude towards the tape recording of police interrogations. Following the report published in 1976 by the Home Office committee which looked into the feasibility of an experiment in tape recording, we consulted a number of individuals and organisations with an interest in the subject. I must stress that, far from being unanimous, their views ​ showed a remarkable divergence, and no unanimity of view emerged about whether an experiment would be desirable. The Home Office has now submitted a memorandum to the Royal Commission inviting it to consider whether it wishes to submit any views to the Government on a possible tape recording experiment and the form which this might take. I assure my hon. Friend that, in the light of the Commission’s views, the Government will decide whether to go ahead with an experiment.

    I also assure my hon. Friend that not all the policy topics raised in Sir Henry Fisher’s report need await the Royal Commission. My Rt. Hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has arranged for the examination of certain suggestions which affect the responsibilities and staffing of the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Working parties set up by the Director of Public Prosecutions are already considering Sir Henry Fisher’s findings on these points. In particular, they are looking at the review of the Prosecution of Offences Regulations 1946 and, in relation to cases committed for trial, the disclosure to the defence of statements and other information in the possession of ​ the prosecution, and the editing of witness statements.

    My Department has also arranged for Sir Henry’s suggestions in regard to pathologists and their reports to be examined. In addition, Sir Henry’s suggestions about the submission of the police report to the Director of Public Prosecutions have been drawn to the notice of the Association of Chief Police Officers, which has agreed to ensure that they are brought to the attention of all police forces, including those responsible for detective training schools.

    Sir Henry Fisher’s report is a valuable document on what is in many ways a distressing case. There have been lessons to be learned from it for all of us. In reserving judgment on a number of wider issues, my rt hon. Friend the Home Secretary is in no way dismissing what Sir Henry had to say, but the areas are so important that we must move forward with great care. We shall move forward, and we are moving forward. That is why I have put a good deal of emphasis on awaiting the views of the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure.

  • Christopher Price – 1978 Speech on the Maxwell Confait Case

    Below is the text of the speech made by Christopher Price, the then Labour MP for Lewisham West, in the House of Commons on 13 April 1978.

    It is almost six years since Maxwell Confait was found dead in a blazing house in my constituency, and it is not my intention to rake over his ashes. I want to look to the future and to review the positive aspects of the report by Sir Henry Fisher into the events that surrounded the death which was published in December last year.

    I should like to congratulate Sir Henry on a masterly report, though I have some criticisms, to which I shall come later. The most glaring gap in the report is the ground on which Sir Henry was forbidden to tread—the trial at the Old Bailey.
    Reading between the lines in the report, one can detect an ignorance about the Judges’ Rules that was as great among the barristers and the judge, Mr. Justice Chapman, as that to which Sir Henry openly refers among the police. It is worth remembering how adept lawyers are at making sure that in any inquiry of this sort they are protected from any scrutiny to which others are subjected.

    However, it was a very thorough though somewhat schizoid report. Sir Henry seems to have produced his sensible findings on the general principles on the protection of individuals in custody, with which I profoundly agree, before going on to wrestle with his soul about the probabilities of what happened. In this sense, the two halves of the report do not mesh.

    For what it is worth, I believe that Sir Henry got his findings on probability wildly wrong. I think that they were based on psychological judgments with which it was unreasonable for a man of his sheltered judicial background to grapple unaided and that the judicial mode of his inquiry was inapt for any verdict on probabilities. The report concerned not probabilities but vague possibilities. What happened remains a mystery. There were two broad possibilities: first, that the boys’ confessions were suggested by the police, and, second, that the confessions ​ were true. A “finding” of either scenario, if false, represents a grave calumny, either against the police, or against my constituents.

    Sir Henry might have done well simply to have stated the facts and left well alone. Instead, he chose the latter possibility and called it a probability, wrongly in my view, postulating the theory that Colin Lattimore’s false confession to the killing was suggested not so much by the police as by his two companion defendants. It was a bizarre judgment, unbolstered by any detail or evidence, and one from which his general conclusions do not follow.

    However, I make no complaint about that. I merely enjoin the Home Secretary to consider the terms of any reference to a future inquiry rather more carefully so that no inquiry ever again can even appear to the public to be a review of the judgment of the Court of Appeal. Only the House of Lords is entitled to do that.

    I note from the report that the Home Office received it privately in March 1977. One of Sir Henry’s first recommendations was that a Royal Commission should be set up to take the matters further. I am pleased that although the Home Office delayed publication until December of last year, it acceded to this request in July.

    Sir Henry Fisher recommended a Royal Commission on the very familiar ground that it was unsafe for him personally in his inquiry to draw general conclusions from a particular case. That is disingenuous. To draw general conclusions from the Appeal Court’s judgment is exactly what Sir Henry’s task was all about. It was what Mr. Roy Jenkins asked him to do when he set up the inquiry.

    It is a very English tradition that we reform anything only after a particular scandal. Children’s legislation in the 1950s emerged only after the death of one child in care in 1948. Therefore, I am pleased that the Royal Commission has been set up. I very much hope that it will be seen as a vehicle for the implementation of the reforms suggested by Sir Henry Fisher rather than as an excuse to commit them to oblivion. Knowing the Home Office as well as I do, I rather fear the latter.

    I recognise that the broad recommendations of the Fisher Report, particularly about the enforcement of the Judges’ Rules, are a matter for the Royal Commission. I do not intend to canvass them too strongly now, because I believe that if we set up a Royal Commission we should let it get on with its job. On that general point, however, I would simply say that as long as there is in our courts judicial discretion to overlook breaches of the Judges’ Rules, the Judges’ Rules will be breached. The only way to ensure that the rules are adhered to and that miscarriages of justice similar to the Confait case do not occur is to insist that evidence taken in breach of them is automatically inadmissible, without any judicial discretion whatsoever.

    What I am most concerned about tonight, however, is not the general principles. However, as the Under-Secretary is present—and I take this opportunity of wishing the Minister of State all the best of luck for a very rapid recovery in the Principality, which I am sure he will achieve—I must say that what I am most concerned about is those very specific areas in which it lies within the power of the Home Office to make or to mar the task of the Royal Commission, particularly concerning the Fisher recommendations, of which I shall mention four.

    The first recommendation is tape recording. This has a very long history. Right back in 1972, the Criminal Law Revision Committee suggested that something should be done about it. In God’s good time, or the Home Office’s good time, a committee was set up, to which the Home Office now refers as the Feasibilities Committee. That reported a couple of years ago and recommended that an experiment should take place. Instead of doing anything about it, the Home Office decided to “consult”, as it called it. It consulted for a couple of years.

    What the Home Office has done now is to send a document to the Royal Commission entitled “Tape Recording of Police Interrogations”. It is one of those documents which are deposited in the House of Commons Library but are kept secret from everyone else. The covering letter in the Library from the Home Office says: ​

    “We regard this document as virtually public.”

    If the Under-Secretary has time during her reply, she might tell me what “virtually public” means. Does it mean public or does it mean secret?

    Even the Prime Minister, a notable incumbent of the Home Office in previous times, says that he believes in open government these days. Perhaps even the Home Office—though I expect that it will be the very last of all Departments of State to come around to this—might begin to believe in open government. Instead of making documents virtually public, it might even get around to making them public.

    Anyway, this document, although purporting occasionally, in odd sentences, to be objective, is in fact not remotely objective, as was made clear in The Times in an article by Marcel Berlins last Saturday. It is a document calculated—that is a good legal word, a nice objective legal word—to persuade the Royal Commission not to engage in an experiment on tape recording so that it can make some recommendations about tape recording.

    Does the Home Office want an experiment on tape recording or not? Is it really trying to persuade the Royal Commission to duck out of an experiment on tape recording on grounds of cost, as this document seems to imply, or is it really trying to get it to duck out of the experiment because it is terrified that the police are opposed to it? It is clear that the police are opposed to it. Many policemen to whom I talk say that they are against it.

    If that is the reason why we are not to have an experiment on tape recording of police interrogations and the taking of statements, let us know and let us not have this nonsense about how expensive it would be. Every lawyer to whom I speak agrees that it would save millions of pounds if we could avoid the endless arguments that highly paid QCs have day in and day out at the Old Bailey and our other courts as to who said what to whom.

    Even the Confait Report cost £200,000, and that is not counting the costs of the police and the DPP. The cost of this sort of argument is enormous. Therefore, the cost of tape recording would be evenly ​ balanced out quite easily. It is utterly disingenuous of the Home Office to put up an argument of cost when I suspect that it is really talking about an argument of police opposition. If that is the real argument, the Home Office might at least come out with it.

    Secondly, I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary how the Home Office is getting on with the recommendation of the Fisher Report, which I understand my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is willing to go ahead with in advance of a report from the Royal Commission, about full publication not only of the Judges’ Rules and the administrative directions but of all the various Home Office circulars to the police departments in one volume.
    The most shattering recommendation and finding of the Fisher Report was that nobody—including the police and eminent Queen’s Counsel and judges—understood what the Judges’ Rules meant, and much less applied them in the courts. Many of the Home Office circulars are not published in “Archbold”, which is the only book a judge grabs and looks at when he is called upon to rule on these matters in court. It is urgent that the Home Office should get these publications out.

    I should like to make one other plea to my hon. Friend. Time and time again in the Fisher Report there are statements that this, that and the other have been included in the general orders for the Metropolitan Police, yet time and time again I have asked the Home Secretary to publish the general orders for the Metropolitan police and again and again he refuses to do so. He will not say what they are. The general orders for the Metropolitan Police are becoming like the prison rules and the social security rules. They are secret rules which are used to trip people up at the last moment.
    If these matters are included in the general orders for the Metropolitan Police, what is so secret about them? Why should we not know? Why should not my hon. Friend be able to publish the general orders? I warn her that I shall return to this question later if she cannot give me a clear promise that she will be able to move towards publishing these general orders.

    I have three more quick points. The first—and I take this very seriously—concerns the research to be undertaken for the Royal Commission. It is a Royal Commission and not a Home Office in-house job. It is meant to be a Royal Commission operating under the Queen’s commission, yet all its research, I understand, is to be controlled by the Home Office research unit. The present papers put up by the Home Office research unit suggest that everything should be kept quite tightly within the Home Office and the institutions which are regularly and massively funded by the Home Office, and that no research is to be allowed to be done by those eminent British institutions, such as the Tavistock Institute, whose research findings are not acceptable by the Home Office.

    I give my hon. Friend warning that if it turns out that the only research which the Royal Commission seems to be allowed to commission is that being done by what I would broadly call tame organisations, I shall return to this subject again and again, because that will show that the Royal Commission is not a genuine Royal Commission but a creature of the Home Office. I should like to have a very strong assurance from my hon. Friend that it will be open to the Royal Commission to commission research from any institution which it thinks proper for the purpose.

    Next week will be the sixth anniversary of the arrest of these three youngsters over whom there was a miscarriage of justice. The Home Office has still not come up with any compensation. Two of them are married, with children. It is a little unreasonable even for the Home Office to sit on things and to dilly-dally as long as this. The first excuse was that the Fisher Report inevitably delayed compensation, but I understand that in proceedings before the assessor he said that the Fisher Report made no difference whatsoever and that he will award compensation as though the Fisher inquiry had never taken place.

    I very much hope that in her speech my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be able to announce the amounts of compensation which will be available to the three youngsters against whom miscarriages of justice took place.
    I sat throughout the Fisher inquiry, except for slight absences here and there, ​ and in my view the evidence that was gathered is quite crucial for the future of criminal justice in Britain. I very much hope that my hon. Friend will be able to assure me that that evidence will not be locked up in some Home Office vault for the next 30 years but will be available at least to scholars, even in a Home Office-type institution such as the Institute of Criminology at Cambridge, so that scholars who really want to study it will be able to do so and form their verdict, which over the years to come might be a little different from that of Sir Henry Fisher.