UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 1978

  • Martin Flannery – 1978 Speech on the Sheffield Cutlery Industry

    Below is the text of the speech made by Martin Flannery, the then Labour MP for Sheffield Hillsborough, in the House of Commons on 24 July 1978.

    I wish to speak about the Sheffield cutlery industry, an ancient industry which for many reasons finds itself in grave difficulty.

    Some time ago I saw a television programme that dealt with the American textile industry. The plight of that industry embodies to some extent the dilemma of the cutlery industry in Sheffield. We in Sheffield love the cutlery industry. Some of my people, including my mother, worked in it. One part of the television programme showed a huge ​ textile factory standing idle. It had been built to make shirts, but it was closed because Japan flooded the market with shirts which had one button and one button hole missing. The American workers had only to put on the button and the button hole in order to stitch on a label which said “Made in USA”. That sort of thing is happening all over the world, and certainly in Sheffield in the cutlery industry.

    An excellent article in The Guardian today about Sheffield cutlery says:

    “In the beginning, there were knives, forks and spoons. The world looked at them, saw the mark ‘Made in Sheffield’ and pronounced them good. Then came knives, forks and spoons from Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Korea. The world looked at them and said they were not so good but were cheap. Some of the world continued to demand the quality indicated by Made in Sheffield’.”

    A long time ago, London was the beginning of cutlery, in the same way as it was the beginning of most things. There was a 200-year struggle with Sheffield in the Middle Ages from which Sheffield emerged triumphant, tiny place though it was. Chaucer, for instance, in “The Reeve’s Tale”, mentioned that the miller carried a Sheffield knife:

    “A Sheffield thwytel bare he in his hose.”

    That trade in the sixteenth century gradually developed trade marks. In 1624, the Company of Cutlers in Hallamshire was formed by an Act of Parliament. Hallam-shire is the ancient name for the Sheffield area. There was a steady growth in prosperity because of the water and the water wheels in the area. There was little real competition.

    Then we make a real jump to the last war. I remember being in India for a long time during the war. When I was in Calcutta at one stage, I idly did what every Sheffielder does—I picked up the cutlery and examined it. It was a link with home: it was all “Made in Sheffield”. Tonight, in the Dining Room, I examined the cutlery of the House of Commons. In contrast with some of the crockery recently, the cutlery is still “Made in Sheffield”.

    But can anyone be sure that “Made in Sheffield” still means what it says? In many cases it does not. How has this happened, As The Guardian said, after the war, Japan entered the market, in the late 1950s Taiwan and Hong Kong, and now South Korea undercuts them all; 94 per cent. of the industry has gone, due to unfair competition.

    There are about 25,000 cutlery workers in South Korea making stainless steel table cutlery. Their production is the equivalent of that of 60,000 British workers—and not because the British workers dodge but because the South Korean workers work 56 hours a week, six days a week, with very few holidays. Their young labour force works at a relentless and rapid rate. Many of them are juveniles. There are no trade unions. There is no organised labour. There are no guards on the machines. This enables a far faster work rate.

    Factory conditions are primitive. There is poor ventilation and inadequate dust extraction. Little attention is paid to effluent disposal and the departments are cramped and crowded. Hygiene, welfare and safety are casualties of the system. Raw materials are cheap. At $950 a tonne stainless steel is about half European prices. Some low-cost finished Korean cutlery actually lands in our country at the same price as European stainless steel sheet.

    The industry has no development costs. Initially the State finances the plant and equipment for foreign exchange purposes. Importers, sadly, including those in our own country, originate products or get successful products copied. So product development costs do not arise in South Korea. Low prices ensure that the overseas customer goes to them because they have virtually no home market.

    The services are supplied by cheap labour. The average male wage is about £70 a month, the female wage is about £60, and the reductions for juveniles are drastic.

    I turn now to the question of trade marks and the Trade Descriptions Act. Most people do not know that cutlery, as with other items, can enter this country without the country of origin being marked on it if it is unbranded—that is, if it has no trade mark. When it is sold ​ anonymously, the consumer will never know where it comes from and whether it is oriental in origin. If it is branded with a name or trade mark, the country of origin must be shown on the products and packaging.

    There is a loophole. If a manufacturing process occurs on imported products, resulting in what is called a substantial or material change, the product may he stamped as “British” or “Sheffield”, and that is quite lawful. But what is a material or substantial change? It needs a court case to determine that. I hope that there will be one to define the phrase, because it is not clearly defined at present.

    There is a disturbing and growing tendency for some manufacturers to take advantage of this loophole. They bring in stainless steel knives, forks and spoons without identification on them. They then stamp with their name and the words “silver plated Sheffield”. It should be “in Sheffield” but they omit the word “in” sometimes. Instead of saying “in Sheffield”, they say merely “Sheffield” and convey the impression that the article was made there. That is a product passing for British.

    There is a severe split in the cutlery trade in Sheffield. I confess that I am very surprised that the unions did not go into this matter on a considerable scale a long time ago. The split has arisen between the importers of cheap, almost finished goods and those who are resisting this trend. The importers want a quick profit and, whether they like it or not, are selling tomorrow for today. It is, one would think, a short-sighted, myopic policy. They are cutting the industry’s jugular vein, and they must know it, and the industry is bleeding to death. Some factories in Sheffield are becoming mere warehouses for cheap, shoddy products from sweat shops in South Korea which convey the impression that they were made in this country and in our city.

    One of the Sheffield newspapers which telephoned me yesterday told me that since 1971 5,000 jobs have gone. One recent visitor to South Korea has told us that special steels, which are now the lifeblood of Sheffield and the one really profitable side of the BSC, are in grave danger because of the machinery now in South Korea which is building up a special steels industry. However, that will be ​ taken up in another debate. Since the late 1950s, about 10,000 jobs have gone. Only about 4,000 now remain, and 400 of those work people are out of work.

    We are asked to accept voluntary agreements. They mean that countries rely on one another—as they do in the motor trade, for instance, where vast numbers of Japanese cars come into this country but we sell hardly any to Japan. As a result of a deputation that we had some time ago to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, there is now to be surveillance of cutlery.

    The Common Market forbids import controls. France and Italy have thriving cutlery industries because they operated import controls before the Treaty of Rome was signed, and therefore they are not affected in the same way as we are. I wonder how many of the employers in the cutlery industry who are now squealing asked for us to stay in the Common Market and wanted us to join the Common Market. By that they struck a blow at their own industry from which it is reeling to its knees, and even further. The so-called voluntary agreements are difficult to police, are seldom honoured and are totally inadequate.

    What, then, can we do? The Government must intervene on imports. Whatever laws they violate in so doing, let them remember that it is our industry, not the Common Market’s industry. It is an old and honourable craft. We do not want it killed because of our adherence to EEC quotas. Quotas must be introduced on cheap table cutlery—for example, the £5 per dozen pieces which are coming into this country and under-cutting the workers in our city. The quotas must be on all table cutlery made from all metals. They should be introduced progressively so that the industry is not suddenly faced with an increased demand which it will be unable to meet.

    Therefore, these controls would need to be introduced progressively. This would steadily reduce the rate of imports from Far Eastern countries and produce expansion in the trade, which we calculate would be from 5,000 to 8,000 jobs in a few years, depending on, say, 25 per cent. at the beginning. The rate of expansion will depend on that, but it is my duty to warn all concerned that there will be ​ resistance from within the trade from those whose quick profits now depend on cheap imports.

    It is possible still to save the Sheffield cutlery industry if we act now and act quickly. This is a proud industry with a proud history, and it must not be allowed to die. We can and we must take the necessary steps to save it.

  • Denis Healey – 1978 Statement on Inflation

    Below is the text of the speech made by Denis Healey, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the House of Commons on 21 July 1978.

    With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on the Government’s policy for winning the battle against inflation.

    The policy I announced on 15th July last year comes to an end in 10 days’ ​ time. It has been an impressive success. Inflation has been reduced to 7·4 per cent, well under half the rate a year ago, the lowest inflation rate for six years and far lower than that which the present Government inherited in March 1974. In fact, Britain’s inflation rate is now about the average for industrial countries—about the same as that of the United States, lower than that of France and Canada, although still higher than that of Germany and Japan.

    The standard of living has not simply been maintained, as I then promised. It has risen by some 5 per cent. for most men and women in Britain during the current pay round, partly as a result of the tax cuts and improvements in social benefits which the falling rate of inflation has enabled the Government to make. Some of these tax cuts and increases in benefit have still to take effect. In particular, retirement pensions will be worth £31·20 for a married couple in November—an increase of almost 20 per cent. in real terms compared with the level we inherited four and a half years ago, and the child benefit will amount to £4 a week for every child when the increase next April is added to that in November. As a result of all the fiscal changes since last October and taking account of child benefit changes, a family on £75 a week with two children, will have an increase in net income of some 12 per cent. by next April—equivalent to a wage increase of about 15·5 per cent.

    The fall in our inflation rate has also made possible a substantial increase in national growth. Industrial output was rising at an annual rate of well over 4 per cent. in the last three months. Unemployment has been on a falling trend since September last year.

    The nation owes a debt to trade unionists and employers alike for the common sense they have shown in observing the Government’s guidelines in the last 12 months.

    Inflation will remain around 8 per cent. for the rest of this year at least. We must now ensure that it does not rise into double figures again next year. This means that earnings must increase substantially less in the coming pay round than in the current round.

    Our aim should be to keep the increase next year to half what it has been this ​ year. The climate for pay negotiation is now very much more favourable to moderate settlements than it was a year ago. Nevertheless, the Government cannot rely on this alone. They must give a clear lead: they must accept the responsibility for fixing guidelines which will enable us to keep inflation in single figures. The White Paper to be published today therefore sets a guideline for pay settlements for the coming round at 5 per cent.—half the level of the guideline in the current round.

    The White Paper sets out some limited exceptions to this guideline. The form of the guideline offers negotiators the same flexibility as they have had in the current round to structure their settlements in the way best suited to their particular circumstances. I hope employers and unions will use this flexibility according to their needs—in particular, to restore differentials where appropriate.

    In a small number of cases in the public sector the Government have already recognised that some exceptional increase is required. The increase in national earnings resulting from these exceptions is expected to be only about 0·15 per cent. in each of the next two years. There may be a small number of other groups for whom similar treatment might be appropriate when they reach their settlement date. But it would be self-defeating if more than a few groups were accorded such treatment and the Government will therefore carefully examine any proposals put forward in this area to see how far the same considerations apply.

    To help those on the lowest incomes, the Government would be ready to see higher percentage increases where the resulting earnings were no more than £44·50 for a normal full-time week, which is the present-day equivalent of the minimum pay target set by the TUC four years ago plus the 5 per cent. The Government expect those on higher earnings in the same or other industries to accept the relative improvement in the position of the lowest paid which follows.

    The Government will expect negotiators, as in the current year, to respect their existing annual settlement date. In the very exceptional case which may arise where a highly fragmented bargaining situation needs to be rationalised, the Government will be prepared to consider synchronising settlement dates providing ​ that the overall level of the settlement takes account of any costs involved.

    Self-financing productivity deals will be permitted on the same conditions as in the current round.

    Much attention has been focused on the possibility of reducing working hours and the contribution this might make to increasing job opportunities. We welcome the recent TUC initiative on the reduction of overtime working. However, if a reduction in hours led to an increase in labour costs the result could only be to reduce employment. In general, therefore, the Government could accept a reduction in hours as part of a pay settlement only on condition that the settlement as a whole does not lead to any increase in unit costs above what would have resulted from a straight guideline settlement on pay.

    As in the current round, the Government will do everything possible to ensure that the guidance set out in the White Paper is observed throughout the public sector. In the private sector the Government rely on employers and unions to act with responsibility and moderation as the CBI and TUC have assured us they will. However, the Government will, if necessary, take account of any failure to observe the guidelines in exercising their discretion in the fields of statutory assistance and other appropriate discretionary powers. The pay clauses in existing Government contracts will remain in force and will continue to be included in new contracts. The Government will, of course, as promised in March, be ready to hold discussions with the CBI about the operation of these arrangements for the future.

    The Government regard continuing price control as an important part of the battle against inflation. Over the coming months the Price Commission will maintain an active programme of investigations into individual companies and will also examine, at the direction of the Government, pricing practices in different sectors of industry. The Commission not only has a duty to identify excessive price increases and to recommend the steps needed to correct them, but in doing so to take full account of the wider economic background against which such price increases are put forward.

    The present statutory powers to control dividends expire on 31st July 1978. The ​ Government will introduce a Bill to extend the statutory control for a further 12 months from 1st August 1978 on the present basis, with the present provisions for exceptions and one new provision. From 1st August 1978 no company will be required by the controls to increase its dividend cover above the highest level achieved since the current controls began. This will enable companies to increase their dividends in line with profits or in line with the statutory limit, whichever is the higher, but they will not be permitted to distribute funds accumulated in the past. A separate announcement giving details of this provision will be made.

    The Government are convinced that the British people will not throw away the gains they have made over the last three years in the battle against inflation. The guidelines laid down in the White Paper offer negotiators the opportunity to use their freedom in collective bargaining to reach settlements with responsibility and moderation. By doing so they will encourage the regeneration of British industry, maintain living standards and make possible a continuing fall in unemployment.

  • Margaret Beckett – 1978 Speech on Parental Inspection of School Records

    Margaret Beckett – 1978 Speech on Parental Inspection of School Records

    Below is the text of the speech made by Margaret Beckett (then Margaret Jackson), the then Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, in the House of Commons on 17 July 1978.

    I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) for raising this topic tonight, because I know that it is a matter of considerable concern to many hon. Members and to many of their constituents. I am happy to be able to say something about it, because although I readily accept that there is genuine concern about some of the real problems raised by the keeping of records in schools, there is some unreal anxiety. People imagine that things are recorded which are usually not recorded and that they are used for purposes for which they are usually not used. So although I have every sympathy with the real anxiety of many parents, this is not as simple an issue as some people may imagine.

    To begin with, I think there is general agreement among those who are involved in education in any way that school records of some kind should be kept not for the benefit of the teaching profession or for the benefit of any group of bureaucrats but for the benefit of the pupils. One of the factors that came out very clearly during our debate on the Green Paper and in many of our debates on education in the last few years was the anxiety among those concerned in education—this involves many parents—that there should be an accurate transmission of information, for example, between one school that a child attends and another, irrespective of whether it is a school from which a child transfers with a particular age of transfer or whether a child moves from one area to another.

    There is considerable anxiety that at present not enough information about a child’s progress and experience is accurately transferred from one school to another. This is a real anxiety, which has been expressed consistently and which, in a sense, is the other side of the argument that my hon. Friend quite rightly put.

    Local authorities are statutorily obliged to provide this sort of accurate information about a child’s academic record when the child transfers from one school to another, but even though they are obliged to do so by law, there is anxiety whether this is carried out properly. At present, there is no standard procedure for the keeping of school records or for the information there recorded, and local education authorities have complete discretion to decide what form the records take and, which concerns my hon. Friend as much, what access is available to those records and who shall have access to them.

    There is probably a considerable variation of practice in terms of what is contained in records and also in terms of their confidentiality. I understand that most schools keep some sort of written record of each pupil’s educational development, including information about any special factors which it is thought may affect the performance of that pupil. Usually, such records consist almost entirely of academic information which again is usually made available to parents in the term reports or annual reports which they receive on the progress of their children or which is explained at parents’ evenings or in other forms of communication which exist between school and home. But, because there is no standard form, this information varies. Sometimes it will be purely objective data such as test scores or examination results or statements about progress in a scheme of reading or mathematics. But in probably the majority of records that purely statistical factual information will be supplemented by the teacher’s own assessment of the pupil’s progress both in general terms and also in relation to the teacher’s assessment of the potential of the pupil.

    Such records and assessments are a very important part of the assessment of a child’s intellectual and educational development. As I said earlier, they are ​ important if a child is transferring from one school to another. Records of this kind also are usually used as a basis for academic references if a pupil applies for a job or for a place at a university or college. Because requests for references may be made some little time after a pupil has left the school concerned, secondary schools, for example, usually keep these records for five or six years after pupils have left their premises.
    As I said just now, academic information is usually available for parents throughout a child’s school career and to others in terms of references immediately afterwards or for a short period afterwards.

    But it is acknowledged, I think, that a small number of records will also contain observations which the school thinks—and perhaps others might think—ought to be kept confidential to the school in the pupil’s own best interests. It might be as simple as a reference to strains or difficulties in the pupil’s home life or sometimes to suspicions that the pupil is being neglected or maltreated or is in some way at risk.

    It is in cases of this kind that the issue of confidentiality arises, and it is particularly difficult to balance the general need, which my hon. Friend expressed and which I understand and have a great deal of sympathy with, for parents to have access to school records and to be able to see there is nothing on such records which they feel is inaccurate with the need sometimes for such records to be kept in the pupil’s own interests perhaps to safeguard individual pupils. Sometimes there is, indeed, a need for teachers to take note of adverse circumstances in a pupil’s home life, so that this can be treated and regarded with sympathy.

    I realise that this is exactly the kind of case which gives some people pause and where they feel that parents should have a right to see records and to see what is recorded. But I think that there is a certain difficulty here in that it is obviously more difficult for teachers to feel willing to set down, for example, their concern that a child may be subject to non-accidental damage if they know that the parent involved may at any time have access to records stating such a fact. If this is not so, clearly there will be many who feel that the parent has such a right, ​ and that it is in the parent’s and the child’s interests that they should see that such queries have been made.

    But I must tell my hon. Friend in all sincerity that it is my understanding, on the evidence that I have seen, comparatively small though it is, that it is more usually the rule that teachers are reluctant to suggest that a child has been subjected to non-accidental damage than the reverse, and that to my knowledge there are more cases of a teacher being unwilling either to commit his suspicions to paper or to convey them to colleagues than there are cases in which a teacher has wantonly put down such suspicions, which have caused damage or concern to the child or the parent, which have subsequently proved to be untrue.

    Certainly in many cases that have come to public attention, a wish has been expressed, whether fairly or otherwise in the circumstances at the time, that teachers and others concerned with the care of a particular child should have been more ready to make known their suspicions.

    Mr. Madden

    Does not the Minister agree that most concern surrounds the often highly subjective view which is sometimes expressed by teachers about the personality of children, which seems to encroach into assessments of psychological factors which are entirely outside the competence or training of teachers to make? Is it not in this area where, perhaps, changes in the range of information which is recorded would serve a very useful purpose and would overcome much of the concern and the abuse which undoubtedly can exist in some of the record systems which are currently in operation?

    Miss Jackson

    Yes, I entirely accept my hon. Friend’s contention on that point. I hope to come in a few moments to the case that he is putting. But many of the people who have put to the Department, in speech or in writing, the case that he is putting, of concern about the confidentiality of school records, have usually gone so far that they exclude anything other than the purest statistical recording. I accept entirely my hon. Friend’s contention that there is a difference between the recording of academic information and of information such as a ​ query about non-accidental damage, and the sort of personality judgment of a child. Of course I accept that. As I said, I shall come to that matter.

    I was making this point because the contention that my hon. Friend has just put forward is not usually the one that has been made to me, and I was anxious to get it on record that there is a very real difficulty which the teaching profession faces in cases of this kind.

    My hon. Friend will forgive me for also drawing to his attention another difficulty which is arising more frequently these days. For example, if a couple are separated or divorced and there is a dispute about the custody of the child, the school needs to be aware of such a fact. In fact, often such a dispute comes to the attention of the school because there is a query about whether records should be available to one or to both parents. It is necessary for the staff concerned with that child to be aware of such a difficulty. But either one or both of the parents may object to such a fact being recorded on the child’s formal record.

    This is the sort of difficulty which members of the teaching profession are facing. They are genuine difficulties. They are not merely a matter of people standing on their professional dignity or being absurd about the need for confidentiality because they wish to have attention turned away from any deficient judgment that they might make. Therefore, I accept my hon. Friend’s general contention that there are these two areas.

    As my hon. Friend said in his speech —I am glad to see that he is aware of it —in a recent circular we have made some inquiries of local authorities about the practice in school record keeping. We are hopeful that we shall get something of use from local authorities about their practice today. We are also considering the question whether, depending on what we hear from local authorities about their current practice, we should give advice about whether there should be some sort of standard form of records, and whether there should be some guidelines as to what kind of information is recorded. We are looking at all of these questions and we are very anxious to see them resolved satisfactorily.

    We have no interest in and no sympathy for seeing records maintained which are ​ used to the disadvantage of pupils or which may be used against them. Equally, we have no interest in seeing—because perhaps in the past in a minority of cases it has been misused—a system of genuinely needed education recording discarded.

    We are trying to find a middle way between these two opposing points of view. We are hopeful of finding a degree of agreement about the kinds of record that are needed. We are certainly intent on insisting that authorities and teachers require high standards of accuracy in the maintenance of such records as a prime consideration, and we are hopeful that, in the near future, whether there is need for legislative action or not, we will be able to get some sort of agreement about what kinds of record are kept and also to whom they are available.

    We have great sympathy with those who are concerned about this issue and are concerned that children should not be damaged by the maintenance of inaccurate records and that people who know the facts should be well informed about who should have access to the records. We are very sympathetic to that point of view.

    We are also concerned that some children should not be harmed by the fact that their records are not available and ​ that information is not available to schools to which they have transferred. Much of the problem that we have been discussing is resolved and becomes unnecessary to discuss if in many of our schools there is an adequate system of pastoral care.

    It seems to me that this is the way forward for many of these problems. If there is real continuity between one school and another and within schools among the teaching staffs, and if there is continuity of the staffs themselves, without the high turnover that we have seen in recent years, much of the need for written records that has been seen in the past will disappear.

    Nevertheless, I think that there will always be some need for an objective assessment of what a child has been doing during its educational career. I accept my hon. Friend’s argument about the necessity, nevertheless, for establishing to whom that record should be available. It is a matter that we are considering most sympathetically, and I hope that in the not-too-distant future we shall be able to say something that will satisfy my hon. Friend, if not perhaps all of those whose case he has been putting.

  • Max Madden – 1978 Speech on Parental Inspection of School Records

    Below is the text of the speech made by Max Madden, the then Labour MP for Sowerby, in the House of Commons on 17 July 1978.

    Despite the hour, I should like to draw attention to the need to give all parents the right to inspect information about their children which is kept by most schools. The information, normally recorded on a strictly confidential basis, can be a most important influence in a child’s progress from primary to secondary school, moving between schools and securing further and higher education or employment.

    Where, the magazine of the Advisory Centre for Education, surveyed 93 local education authorities in 1975. It found that all the authorities kept records. However, only two guaranteed that parents could see them and 24 left this to the discretion of head teachers. The rest did not offer parents any rights to inspect their children’s files.
    If there is a case for some information to be kept, it follows that access to the information must be allowed for parents and older children. Such a right is a basic freedom. It would also be an important and necessary safeguard against the recording of wrong or wholly irrelevant information, which can often follow a child for years, creating all kinds of needless problems and anxieties.

    The Where survey revealed the case of a boy who had once been accused of menacing and taking money from a younger boy. It was later found that the boy was entirely innocent. His father sought—and obtained—the assurance of the head teacher that any reference to the incident would not appear on the boy’s record. However, later, the innocent boy and his brother moved to a new school. The brother was greatly upset when a teacher, having asked his name, said “Oh, you’re the brother of the thief.” The boy’s record—and its mistakes—had moved with him.

    Another example concerns an older girl with a pleasant, open nature, who soon found a job in a company branch office after leaving school at 16. A fortnight later the manager said that head office ​ was questioning her appointment. After receiving her report, it said that she ought never to have been recruited, and she was put on three months’ probation.

    All the girl could assume was that the cause of the difficulty was that her report referred to a bad patch that she had experienced at school when she was 11, five years earlier.

    One record card, seen by the National Council for Civil Liberties, followed a child through a number of years and included the following remarks:

    “Mother says she’s nervous and highly strung. I think this could be inherited from mother. A bit concerned over S’s honesty—though as yet have no evidence”

    and later

    “Not convinced she always tells the complete truth: mum came round one evening and made one or two remarks that were not fully accurate”.

    As the NCCL said in its book, “Privacy: the Information Gatherers”

    “Such pseudo-psychological comments”

    —is S supposed to have inherited her mother’s nervousness, or merely imitated it?—

    “or the extraordinary assumption that a child should be blamed for a mother’s inaccuracies should never be allowed to remain unchallenged in a permanent record”.

    Other teachers have been asked to indicate, on a scale of 1 to 10, how a child rates on a series of attributes, including honesty, leadership, truthfulness and sycophancy. Records normally start in primary school, although one authority in the Midlands introduced into selected infant schools a recording system involving more than 130 questions. Standard record cards kept by Calderdale local education authority, on junior children in my constituency, have sections headed: “Relevant Home Conditions”, “Parental Attitude” and “Personality Attributes”.

    Marie Macey, lecturer in education at Bradford University, has tried, with considerable difficulty, to survey records kept by education authorities responsible for 10 million children. Writing in Where in May she mentions one county recording system which enabled some children, before the age of 5, to be officially labelled

    “unreliable and a source of difficulties”.

    She commented

    “LEAs have good reasons for denying even the existence of school cards; they have good ​ reasons for lying about their content and for refusing to supply sample cards to researchers. And given that the records referred to were blank ones, they have even better reasons for refusing parental access to a child’s filled-in card! What they have neither reason nor justification for is the unthinking perpetuation of such a system. It is difficult to find any education rationale for much of the information required; it is even more difficult to excuse the recording of such information on social or ‘human’ grounds, since its potential for harm is self-evident”.

    Her article concluded that

    “the issue of secrecy in school record-keeping is no trivial one, but has, in fact, far reaching implications and consequences for the individual, the family, school and society. The organisation of the British education system is such that no one appears to be ‘accountable’ to the public, so that the potential for misuse or abuse is inbuilt, just as trust and rights are excluded. It is not a complete exaggeration, either, to suggest that fear is a major component of such a system. Heads tend to refer to area/district officers whenever any ‘problems’ arise; similarly, local officers refer to the central area office at such times; teachers do not tell parents what is going on in schools for fear of personal and professional repercussions; parents refrain from asking too many ‘awkward’ questions either of schools or LEAs because they are afraid of adverse effects on their children. Everyone seems to live in fear of ‘the system’, yet quite who or what makes up this system seems to be a matter of considerable mystery.”

    I am pleased that the Department, in circular 14/77, asked LEAs to supply information, by 30th June, about record keeping, and that the Green Paper “Education in Schools” stressed the need for full regard to be paid to the rights of parents, teachers and pupils to know what material is recorded.

    However, many, including the organisations that I have mentioned and the Campaign Against School Spying, believe that a statutory right of access for parents is necessary. It would ensure a national right of access for parents to standard records and any other material which may be seen—and may influence—a third party and which may convey incorrect or irrelevant information about a child.

    The surveys to which I have referred are graphic and stark evidence of the abuse of the present system. I hope that the Minister will be able to underline the concern of her Department about this matter and to say that a clause will be inserted in an early education Bill to give parents a statutory right of access to this information. But before then there needs to be clear agreement among all ​ those responsible for education and the well-being of children about the information that is recorded. If the statutory right of inspection followed as a check against abuse and a safeguard against inaccurate and irrelevant information being recorded, it would be a useful reform. It would be widely welcomed by all parents, by many teachers who are concerned about the present situation and by a large number of children, particularly older children. I hope that the Minister will at least be able to express sympathy with such a reform even if she cannot announce firm action tonight.

  • Clinton Davis – 1978 Speech on Marine Oil Pollution

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

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

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

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

    Mr. Adley

    Will the Minister give way?

    Mr. Davis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mr. Adley

    No, they would not be unaffected.

    Mr. Davis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [sitting suspended at this point]

  • Robert Adley – 1978 Speech on Marine Oil Pollution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    That is quite unsatisfactory.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I beg to move,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mr. Douglas Henderson (Aberdeenshire, East)

    Why does the hon. Gentleman not join?

    Mr. Winterton

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The board forthrightly says:

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

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

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

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

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

    It goes on to say:

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

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

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

    of the mineral concerned.

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

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

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

    “requiring the unique properties of high purity limestone”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Frank Judd – 1978 Speech on Rudolf Hess

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Neville Sandelson – 1978 Speech on Rudolf Hess

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

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

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

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