UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 1978

  • Clement Freud – 1978 Speech on Rudolf Hess

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Cyril Townsend – 1978 Speech on Rudolf Hess

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Reginald Bennett – 1978 Speech on British Vineyards

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

    I beg to move,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • James Craigen – 1978 Speech on Education in Scotland

    Below is the text of the speech made by James Craigen, the then Labour MP for Glasgow Maryhill, in the House of Commons on 3 July 1978.

    The subject of tonight’s debate has proved more timely than I had thought, because at the end of last week the Scottish Education Department presented its annual report for 1977 to the Secretary of State for Scotland. These annual reports seem to be getting thinner each year. This year’s annual report seems ​ to be little more than a bibliography of departmental circulars.

    However, tonight I should like to press the Minister to outline what the role of the Scottish Education Department is in four broad areas of educational policy in Scotland. The first concerns teaching resources, particularly the vexed issue of composite classes. I read in the annual report that:

    “A recent feature of school organisation in some areas has been an increase in the number of composite classes containing pupils of more than one age group in schools where such classes have not been traditional.”

    I hope that the Minister will give some more information than that available in the SED report about the extent to which we now have composite classes in many urban areas in Scotland.

    I am aware that sheer geography has made composite classes a fact of life in many areas in rural Scotland as an alternative to travelling long distances or to the prospect of youngsters having to live away from home, but there is growing concern in many city areas about the prevalence of composite classes. In Glasgow in the session that has just ended, there were 514 composite classes in our primary schools. Of these 159 were under-25-pupil classes, and the other 355 were over the limit.

    We must acknowledge that the national teacher-pupil ratios are better than they have ever been. This is largely the result of improved teacher supply, and a marked decline in the school rolls. Yet the Minister will be aware of the resolution passed at the annual general meeting of the Educational Institute of Scotland, which is the largest of the various teaching organisations in Scotland. The EIS resolution said:

    “Members should be advised to refuse to teach composite classes containing more than 25 pupils as from the start of the session 1978/79.”

    What is the Scottish Education Department doing to avoid Scottish education being plunged, this winter, into discontent and disruption? Local education authorities are having to steer between circular 819 and the Red Book staffing standards as laid down by the Department, and the requirements of contract.

    The Minister will be aware of the great concern that would flow from the refusal of teachers to take classes of more than ​ 25 pupils. It seems strange that there should be a growth in the number of composite classes at a time when there are questions about whether it is educationally necessary, in the light of the current teacher supply situation. Moreover, the surplus of young teachers from the colleges and universities is not being absorbed by the job creation programme, or by local authority recruitment. The resources are there if we care to make use of them.

    The second matter of concern about teaching resources relates to educational priority areas. I pay tribute to the work of the Minister in trying to obtain additional teaching resources in areas of urban deprivation. I am aware of the additional 84 teachers obtained in Glasgow through the urban aid programme, and the additional teachers obtained in Strathclyde and four other regions, as a result of circular 991 last September. However, there seemed to be a fair amount of delay in implementing that scheme. One suspected that there was a fair amount of—dare I say it?—”red tape” coming from St. Andrews House.

    The Minister may recall that at the beginning of last year I wrote to him about the possibility of a number of areas becoming educational priority areas so that additional teaching resources could be put into them. The Minister replied to me on 22nd February last year that he was anxious to avoid any formal designation because stigma could arise in certain areas. However, he pointed out that there had been one experiment in Scotland and three in England in educational priority areas.

    I gathered that the one in Scotland was the Dundee study, the report of the research project sponsored by the Scottish Education Department and Social Research Council. However, it seemed to be fairly inconclusive about the extent to which such extra assistance succeeds.

    Nevertheless, as I have told the Minister privately, recently I have seen some assessments which secondary schools have been making of the primary school intake for next session. It is somewhat disturbing to see figures showing that a fairly high proportion of youngsters of 11 or 12 will enter secondary schools next session with reading ages of 8, 9 or 10.

    There may be arguments among educationists about the test methods used, but ​ the fact remains that there is a problem. Although we are prepared to employ remedial teachers at secondary school level, I suggest that there is an urgent need to improve the supply of remedial teachers in the primary schools, otherwise the position will be upside down. Because we shall not be helping youngsters while they are still in the primary school, we shall wait until they go into the secondary schools and become caught up in the problems of transition and a much wider curriculum. The fact that we recently had to launch an adult literacy programme is evidence of the extent to which we are not quite catching up on the problems in either the primary or secondary schools.

    The Minister is aware that the job creation programme has come to an end and that neither the youth opportunities programme nor the special temporary employment arrangement helps those young teachers who hitherto had been absorbed in essentially non-teaching employment. Frankly, I could not care what mechanism is used, whether it be urban aid or the provisions of circular 991, but I should like to think that the Minister and his Department are currently examining ways to step up the numbers of teachers who might be available for those areas of urban deprivation.

    Employers are concerned about the reading and numeracy ability of many youngsters. Therefore, this is a crucial area. An article in the Glasgow Herald on 24th June pointed out that between November 1975 and December 1977 3,303 qualified students were able to make use of the job creation programme in 272 projects. These exercises cost more than £3·3 million. I suggest that it would often be easier to get value for money if we put such amounts into the education budget rather than into alternative means of taking on teaching staff.

    A series of educational initiatives have been taken in the past few years. I remember taking up with the Minister’s predecessor the possibility of setting up a Royal Commission to consider various aspects of education in Scotland. At that time I was told that the SED had just set up the Pack committee to inquire into truancy and indiscipline in schools in Scotland. I was amazed that there was ​ no primary school teacher among the membership of that committee. We also had the Dunning committee, to review examination assessments in the third and fourth years of education and the Munn committee, to consider the content of third and fourth year curricula.

    Scottish education has had to swallow a series of reports in the past year or two, but all three reports have been published for nearly a year and so far we have had no clear indication of the Department’s thinking on them.

    The Minister knows my views about changing the examination system. I question whether the Department would be prepared to grant the considerable finances that might be necessary to meet the cost of a fundamental upheaval in our examination system—quite apart from the difficulties that would arise for teachers, employers, pupils and parents in getting accustomed to the new system.

    I do not want to dwell too long on the three reports, but the prevalence of truancy in many of our schools is serious. I hope that the Minister will comment on the problem of absenteeism and on the prevalence of absenteeism among teachers. Earlier this year, many of my colleagues and I were presented with an interesting document from the Educational Institute for Scotland entitled “Stresses and Strains in Teaching”. That showed that a fair number of teachers are cracking up under the strain of teaching. Has the Department been considering this issue?

    I understand that the Government consider that it would be desirable to set up a tertiary education council—that sounds like the top layer of a sandwich—or a higher education council as a forum for discussion of post-school education in Scotland. I am always a little sceptical of institutionalism as a means of resolving some of our educational problems.

    It is a fact that the Scottish Education Department is not the Ministry responsible for the universities in Scotland. Having said that, in my view any higher education council ought to be representative of the whole of post-school education in Scotland, and must necessarily take all the further education colleges, central institutions and colleges of education, as well as the eight universities. ​ I should like to hear the views of the Minister on this matter.

    I gather from statements that have been made that the work of the Scottish Technical Education Council and the Scottish Business Education Council would not be undermined in any way by the setting up of a higher education council in Scotland.

    I urge the Minister to consider the extent to which technical and commercial colleges in Scotland play an important part in servicing local industries, because I feel, that it is crucial to manpower planning—which, incidentally, is now a function of the Scottish Office—that there should be a close response between the needs of local industry and the services which are available in our further education colleges.

    I mention in passing, for example, the concern that exists about the present and future status of the Glasgow College of Technology, which is neither a central institution nor an ordinary further education college, since it is servicing a fairly wide regional area.

    The Minister will be aware of the representations that have been made on the question of the extent to which Scottish Education Department views are coming across within the European Community. Obviously, representations at this level would have to be dealt with by national education Ministries, and it goes without saying that the DES is the lead Department in the United Kingdom, for no other reason than that it is also the Ministry concerned with university education. But I do not think that that absolves the Scottish Education Department from taking a close interest and becoming as closely involved as it can in the shaping of educational policies within the European Community.

    Earlier this year I wrote to the Commission because, as I understood it, the Belgian Government—which has two Ministries of Education, one for the French-speaking population and another for the Dutch-speaking population—makes sure that both language interests are fully represented at EEC level. I was advised by the Commission’s directorate-general for research, science and education in a letter of 17th January, that the composition of delegations to the ​ education committee is a matter for national Governments. In the case of Belgium, the delegation is normally representative of the ministries of both French and Dutch culture. It would seem to me that there really ought to be little or no problem in the Department’s making sure that its views are fully aired at that level.

    I have raised four broad issues on which I should like the Minister to comment briefly tonight. There was a time when the Scottish Education Department was reckoned to exercise a fairly tight control over education developments in Scotland. I was interested to note that in the evidence submitted by the Department to the Kilbrandon Commission this shifted in the mid-1960s to something more akin to the exercise of guidance. The Department is also the channel through which our education authorities in Scotland receive the bulk of their resources. There have been many initiatives in the last few years. What is the Department doing in those broad areas and in any other areas about which the Minister finds time to comment?

  • Edward Bishop – 1978 Speech on Food Production

    Below is the text of the speech made by Edward Bishop, the then Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in the House of Commons on 30 June 1978.

    I have listened with interest to the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills). In addressing ourselves to what he said, we should, I think, first look carefully at the present position in United Kingdom agriculture.

    The hon. Gentleman is right, of course, to emphasise the importance of confidence in the industry. I am tempted simply to read at length from a recent article by a national newspaper correspondent who, after visits to the Devon County Show—a show in the hon. Gentleman’s own area—and other shows, described farmers as having renewed confidence and being increasingly hopeful about the winter wheat harvest and busily planning to expand dairy herds and sheep numbers, with a boom in dairying and perhaps a memorable year for horticulture in prospect. He advised the “gloom stirrers”, as he called them, that they had secured quite a lot from the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Minister.

    However, I shall not pursue that but will give my own assessment. In May, we secured a very satisfactory outcome to the price negotiations which represented a fair balance between the interests of consumers and producers. The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to mention that relationship. The increase in common prices implied an increase in returns to producers, net of extra feed costs, of ​ some £35 million to £40 million, in addition to the £150 million to £200 million resulting from the green pound devaluation on which the Government had earlier secured a sensibly phased timetable for change. This takes into account the effect on cereal costs and so on.

    But the confidence in the industry goes a long way. The hon. Gentleman, I know, is interested in the dairy herd, and this is an important aspect of agriculture. The price package was notable for the agreement which fully and permanently safeguards the Milk Marketing Boards, which was widely and warmly welcomed. I am sure that this was of considerable interest to the hon. Gentleman, who has expressed his concern about the boards from time to time. We also secured better arrangements for the United Kingdom butter subsidy than had been proposed and a reduction in the MCAs for pigmeat, to which reference has been made, which is coming into effect within the next few days.

    There has rightly been reference to the matter of the Budget and taxation. The Budget was another event of importance for the farming industry. Last year, the hon. Member for Devon, West advocated a system for allowing profits to be averaged over a period of years. My hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have heard his pleas, because he announced a change on these lines on 11th April. The provision for averaging tax over two years is worth some £10 million to the farming industry in a full year. Farmers are helped also by the increased first-year capital allowance for agricultural buildings and works and the measures to aid small businesses, especially the so-called roll-over facility for capital gains tax on gifts of assets used in a business and the extension to all business assets of the 50 per cent. relief for capital transfer tax.

    We have said time and again that there is a relationship between taxation and industry, especially the agriculture industry, and I think that my right hon. Friend has had well-deserved tributes for his response to the representations and for the results on this score. These developments give grounds for satisfaction to the farming industry. But, of course, there are always complaints from time to time—and rightly so—and in considering these ​ it is helpful to look at what is actually happening in practice in the various sectors.

    In the milk sector, I do not see any signs of lack of confidence. Production continues month by month to exceed even last year’s record levels. Prices for cows in milk are very high, calf prices are high, the number of artificial inseminations has risen and profitability is high. We shall in any case be reviewing the position when we fix the maximum wholesale prices for the coming winter.

    The hon. Gentleman did mention the beef sector, but this is another part of agriculture in which confidence is important. The new target price scale means that the average support price for 1978–79 is some 11 per cent. above the average for the previous year, itself some 16 per cent. above the average for the year before that. Market prices are firm, and, indeed, they have recently been at record levels.

    I accept that there is some concern among producers about Irish imports and the size of the Anglo-Irish net MCAs, but, while it is true that Irish imports last year had an undue effect on our prices, this year we have a rather different situation, with a firmer market which so far has had no difficulty in absorbing the imports of Irish carcass beef and cattle. Producers have in any event the dual protection of intervention and the variable premium system.

    The hon. Gentleman was right to mention today, as he has on many other occasions, the problems of the pig industry. In the pig sector, producers’ returns are much improved this year. I have in mind that the Cambridge Economics Unit shows an average profit of £15 per £100 output in the six months ending in March. Meanwhile, the breeding herd is showing signs of a recovery.

    I know that the bacon curing industry is facing difficulty, but the cuts in MCAs have helped to improve its competitive position. The MCA calculation on bacon sides is now £66 lower than it would have been without the green pound devalution.

    The hon. Gentleman should not overlook, in his fair assessment, the work already done for the pig industry. In November 1976 we had the basis of the ​MCA calculations modified in a way which reduced the pigmeat MCAs by 8½ per cent. Then, because we did not think that that went far enough, we introduced a subsidy which, until the European Court forced its suspension, was worth £17 million to the pig industry. That subsidy was greatly welcomed at the time when the industry was facing the greatest pressure.

    All these matters should be taken into account. They include the 7½ per cent. phased devaluation of the green pound this year, which does not apply to cereals until 1st August. Therefore, that has given extra help.

    The hon. Gentleman did not mention the sheep sector, but I know that he has an interest in it. Last year our mutton and lamb exports increased by just over one-third, and the June and December returns showed a slight increase in the breeding herd, which was encouraging. I think that producers’ confidence is well founded. As members of the most efficient sheep industry in the Community, they can look to the future with assurance. Discussions on a Community regime will, of course, go on for some time and all concerned can be certain that we shall seek a fair balance between the interests of producers and consumers, with a fair and economic return for our producers, but not the kind of price increases would would damage consumption.

    The other sector which is important to the industry, particularly to my own constituency, is the potato sector, where there have been many uncertainties in recent times because of the Commission’s failure in the past two years to decide what it wants about the potato regime. We have been closely in touch with the industry, and we have now come to the conclusion that there can be no Community regime for potatoes in time for the 1978 crop. Nevertheless, we have just announced that the guarantee will continue to next year. This will give a valuable degree of support and, I hope, confidence to producers in a year when their costs are lower, owing to the very big drop in the price of seed compared with last year.

    My brief survey of farming shows an industry in good order. The net product was certainly hit by the drought in 1976. We must not forget the drought and the ​ difficulties of the year before in some sectors, especially the potato and sugar beet sectors. The net product was certainly hit by the drought in 1976, but last year it rose by over 25 per cent. and we expect a further increase this year.

    Whatever theories hon. Members press about green currencies—we are lectured on this matter from time to time—and the effects on profitability, what is happening in practice gives reassurance. The Government take seriously their responsibilities towards agriculture and the food industry and are providing the right climate and framework for helping development. We are not always in control of the climate, but that is the kind of climate which helps the industry, when the other form of climate is so unpredictable. This is important for those who work in the industry and for consumers.

    I turn to the question of resources. We have heard mention of our document “Food from Our Own Resources”. It will be clear from what I have said that we are concerned to provide the right framework of assurance in the farming industry about the longer term as well as the short term. It was because we recognised the need for confidence among farmers about the longer term prospects that my right hon. Friend announced the review of “Food from Our Own Resources.” Perhaps it might be better named “Food from Our Own Devices”, which would give the right initials. We have collected together all the evidence and are considering it. The industry will recognise that it is a job which should not be rushed and that it is not sensible to press us to go faster.

    I admit that the hon. Gentleman was not doing that. He is right in suggesting that the industry wants to know about the future and about the guidelines. We hope that it will be possible to publish something in the autumn.

    The hon. Gentleman mentioned poultry meat. In this sector supplies are high and the United Kingdom is self-sufficient. The export trade, which had been growing, has been more sluggish in recent months, but internal demand should remain keen.

    The hon. Gentleman referred to problems facing the British poultry industry and to various factors. One of these is ​ the Poultrymeat (Hygiene) Regulations 1976. I should first like to pay tribute to the co-operation that the industry has shown in the arrangements for phasing in the poultry meat inspection service. We have recognised its concern that the whole cost of recruitment and training of inspectors should not be borne entirely by the industry.

    I have announced today details of the Government’s assistance towards the cost of meat inspection. The Government have decided to provide assistance towards the setting up of the local authority poultry meat inspection service, which is required to be in full operation by August 1979. Grants at the rate of 50 per cent. of the eligible expenditure will be payable in respect of staff employed and trained for this purpose.

    The detailed arrangements are to be discussed with the appropriate organisations. These are very important points. We estimate that the Supplementary Estimates will be presented in due course and that the great bulk of this expenditure will be incurred in England, and to take account of it the appropriate Ministry cash limit for 1978–79 will be increased by about £1 million.

    I am aware, of course, of the concern also about the economics of small-scale egg production if implementation of the regulations leads to significant difficulties amongst slaughterhouses specialising in the processing of spent hens. The NFU has been in touch with us on this matter, and I understand that it is trying to assess what the scale of the problems could be nationally. I find it interesting to refer to these matters because in my constituency I have sugar beet and potato growing, arable farming, the usual mixed dairy farming, and, of course, one of the biggest poultry and egg producers in Europe.

    I want to say a few words about issues relating to the common agricultural policy. When talking of the future of our industry, we must remember that we cannot be in the situation now where we are completely responsible for what happens. We are a member of the EEC, and we want to be sure that the framework within which our industry functions is the right one.

    Earlier this year, the hon. Gentleman advocated the gradual devaluation of the ​ green pound to reach parity with the Community. If by this he means aligning the green rate for the pound with the market rate used for MCA purposes, he is calling for an increase in United Kingdom farm support prices of about 30 per cent. Does he really believe that our agriculture needs an increase of that kind, which could produce an additional 6 per cent. increase on food prices, and thus an additional cost to the consumer of over £1,000 million, at a time when the Conservative Front Bench are criticising the Government for the increase in food prices?

    I am very pleased that recently, for a period, food prices have been remaining steady, and, indeed, have been falling. The Government’s policy is clear. We do not believe that MCAs should be phased out unless common prices can be set in a representative unit—the EUA—rather than the present unit, which is based on the currencies of the joint float, and unless they can be set at a sensible level.

    These are some of the important points that we should take into account, and we have made this point clearly in the discussion of MCAs which took place in the context of the price fixing, with the result that the Council of Ministers eventually agreed that the reduction of MCAs should be pursued

    “in the light of a satisfactory price policy and the development of a more stable relationship between Community currencies.”

    The hon. Gentleman was right to focus attention on the importance of British ​ agriculture. Over the years, under successive Governments, from the time of the Minister who brought in the 1947 Act—Tom Williams, who is still held by all parties as being the man who laid the foundation stone—all parties have been doing their best to give confidence to the industry.

    In the changing times in which we live, with our position in the Community, I believe that my right hon. Friend has done a great deal to give the United Kingdom industry confidence despite the uncertainties.

    I hope that I have said enough about our farming industry and the CAP. The Government do carry out their responsibilities successfully—responsibilities towards the food-purchasing industries, which are such an important part of the whole economy. The Government balance the interests of the various sectors, seeking to follow policies which are in the national interest, looking after the interests of both the producer and the consumer.

  • Peter Mills – 1978 Speech on Food Production

    Below is the text of the speech made by Peter Mills, the then Conservative MP for Devon West, in the House of Commons on 30 June 1978.

    I am grateful for this opportunity of saying a few words about another important subject. Having saved the Government as the only West Country Member here on the important issue of Northern ​ Ireland, I am pleased that I can turn to an important subject about which I know a little more.

    I declare an interest in farming and meat plants. When we think of the Government’s responsibility for food production, there is one word that is crucial to agriculture and its future. It is the word “confidence”. It is more important than many other words. In the last three or four years, confidence has been sadly lacking under this Government.

    Food production is of major importance to the country. About two-thirds of our temperate food is produced here. It is easy for some folk to think that we can rely on food from other countries, but this has real dangers. One has only to look at what is happening in Australia, where there is a severe shortage of production, to see that that attitude is wrong.

    If we want home-grown food, we must have a confident British agriculture industry. The Government have a responsibility for such matters. How can we expect further investment in British agriculture without long-term confidence? As I hope to show, many aspects of Government policy have had a serious effect on confidence in British agriculture.

    Farmers would like to hear the Government trumpeting the value of home-grown food as much as they trumpet the value of home-grown oil. We hear much about home-grown oil and its advantages to the balance of payments. What about trumpeting the value of home-grown food?

    Consumers are not aware of the position that British agriculture is in. There is lack of confidence. The effects of the green pound are serious to the pig industry. My message to consumers is that if they want British food we must have a healthy and confident agriculture industry. They might have to pay a slight increase in price sometimes, they might have to pay for some storage costs, but in the long run that is better than being held to ransom by world shortages.

    What are some of the major fears which stem mainly from the Government’s policies? They are fears which produce a real lack of confidence. First, there is the fear of taxation. Under a Socialist Government farmers have experienced fairly heavy taxation. There are also the problems of the capital transfer tax and the capital gains tax. The Government have made some efforts to help in that direction, but the effect on farms and small businesses is serious.

    Extra insurance contributions are to be imposed. That will not help confidence on the part of the small business man, let alone British farmers. One of the most serious articles that I have read in an agriculture paper appeared in the Big Farm Weekly. Under the heading

    “Our future role—AMC Chairman”

    it stated:

    “The main purpose of lending by the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation in the future may be to help the purchase by other farmers of land which some owners will have to sell in order to pay their taxes.”

    That is a most serious matter. Indeed, if there is anything that would sap confidence, it is a statement such as that. I am not blaming Mr. Glyn, the chairman, one little bit for making those remarks. What I am saying is that the Government should not, through taxation, sap confidence in this way.

    Then there is the proposed wealth tax. Nothing could reduce confidence more than this. I wonder whether the Minister and the Government realise the effect of a wealth tax on British agriculture. Certainly my party would never introduce this, and such an assurance from the Government would indeed restore confidence to agriculture. If we had this tax, it would be a real body blow.

    What about land nationalisation? The Minister of Agriculture himself said the other day that the Government would not be introducing land nationalisation in the life of this Parliament. True enough. But what happens if there is a Socialist Government next time? I am pretty certain that a wealth tax would be on the cards then, and I believe that the farming community should beware.

    Then what about future needs in production? The lack of any firm guidelines from the Government has weakened confidence in the future. The National Farmers’ Union is quite right when it says “We want to know what is wanted from us in this country as regards food production.” The National Farmers’ Union would, of course, like to see “Food from Our Own Resources” brought up to date. So would I. I think it is only ​ fair and right that this should be done, so that we know where we are going. Perhaps the Minister will be able to answer, even at this late hour, what exactly the position is as regards bringing “Food from Our Own Resources” up to date, so that the farming community knows exactly where it stands.

    All these things which I have mentioned weaken confidence. I believe that it is the duty of any Government to see that confidence is restored by dealing with these matters.

    I turn now to the food industry and the processors. The relationship between the processing industry and agriculture is very close, because 70 per cent. of United Kingdom agricultural production is processed before it reaches the consumer. It is therefore important that, before any major decisions are reached on agricultural policy or a review is made of the current position, the interests of the food manufacturers are taken fully into account. I believe that the Government have a major responsibility, because the food manufacturing industry has serious problems.

    The profitability of food manufacturers has been severely eroded over the past four or five years through price controls.

    I speak frankly. The Conservatives were certainly not free of criticism in these matters. One has only to look at profitability when the Conservatives were in power to see that the damage started then. But something needs to be done. The slight improvements that we have had in 1975, 1976 and 1977 have now been completely eroded by the Price Commission legislation introduced on 1st August 1977.

    I believe that, because of the position of the food processors and manufacturers, consumers are very much at risk, and this is very undesirable. Again, the Government have a real responsibility in these matters.

    I now turn to the poultry industry. More and more consumers are turning to poultry meat, and it is extremely important that the industry is not only profitable but has fair treatment. The poultry meat industry is one of the rare sections of agriculture that has to stand on its own feet. It does not get a lot of help, and at present it lacks confidence. Something ought to be done ​ to help the poultry meat industry to restore its confidence.

    What do we find when we look into the problems and difficulties of the poultry meat industry? We find that the industry is facing considerable expenditure in adapting to EEC requirements of inspection. The United Kingdom industry did not oppose this. Indeed, it has gone to great lengths to co-operate in regard to these standards. But fundamental to this support was the requirement to have parity with the poultry meat industries in the Community. That is not happening, and this is why the industry is in serious difficulty. It is causing lack of confidence.

    It is true that the Government are now prepared to make about £1 million available to help with the cost of training the poultry meat inspectors. Although we recognise the value of what the Government are doing in this respect, what is required is parity with the poultry meat industries in the Community. I hope that the Government will deal with the anomalies and disadvantages from which our poultry meat industry suffers. Representatives of our poultry meat industry have told me that it is small wonder that the industry doubts the Government’s good faith in their protestations of an intention to protect and promote the industry’s interests. That is a very unpleasant thing to say, but the Government should have discussions with representatives of the industry and try to allay the doubts and fears which exist, because it is important for the consumer that in the long term the industry is stable and viable.

    The Government have a major responsibility for the present state of the pig industry. The National Farmers’ Union is right in pointing to the Government’s failures in this respect. Numbers and profitability are down. Worse of all, Community farmers are gaining a much greater share of the market. I recently toured a very well-organised farm at Dorchester. Its killing-out percentage is 70, with a 3·2 to 1 conversion ratio. However, despite all the knowledge and skill available on the farm and the good-quality pigs, the farm was losing about £1 a pig. How British farmers must hate the headline in the Big Farm Weekly which said

    “German pig herd is set for a boom”.

    ​ I did not join the Common Market to see the Germans, the Danes and the Dutch taking a larger share of our pig-meat market. The Government should have done more to help the pig industry in its difficulties, particularly with the composition of the monetary compensation amounts. It is not only the pig producers who are affected but the processing industry, which produces bacon and tinned hams and other products, and jobs are at stake.

    I therefore hope that we shall hear from the Minister that he intends to redouble his efforts to save our pig industry so that those working in it can be assured that they will have a profitable job. The problems of the pig industry demand and deserve great attention from the Government.

  • John Horam – 1978 Speech on Roads in South-East England

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Horam, the then Under-Secretary of State for Transport, in the House of Commons on 29 June 1978.

    I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) for raising this subject because it is, as all hon. Members will agree, an under-debated subject in the House of Commons. I am delighted that the hon. Member found time to discuss it rather earlier than most Adjournment motions.

    First, in reply to the hon. Member’s remarks and those of the hon. Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Johnson Smith), who intervened briefly, I take the point that in the past the whole of the South-East, including Sussex certainly, has had less than a fair share of the national cake of road expenditure. I do not think anyone would deny that. What is, happening, however, is that the balance is now being changed and the number of motorway and trunk road projects, let alone county projects, under way in the South-East, including in Sussex and Kent, for example, the links between London and the coast, is really very considerable.

    My first point is on the question of road maintenance, because the hon. Gentleman quoted at some length from an article in the magazine Drive which came out very recently. I regret that article because it was full of inadequacies and distortions, and I am really surprised that a magazine which is run by the Automobile ‘Association should indulge in such scaremongering on the subject of road maintenance. I welcome an article on this very important and worthwhile subject. but those responsible should have taken the trouble to be more accurate in their presentation of the situation.

    It was said, for example, that expenditure had decreased by as much as one-third over the period from 1973–74 until today. That is really gross exaggeration. Probably it has come down by no more than one-eighth over the period, so that that is a distortion by a factor of more than two. I hope that if in future Drive writes on the subject it will get its facts more accurate. It has to be said, however, that expenditure on road maintenance has been cut there is no denying that. Public expenditure has been constrained and, as we know, Conservative Members have urged the Government to go much further than they have gone in restraining public expenditure. But it is a question of balance.

    What has now happened is that, after certainly a period of three or four years of successive cuts in road maintenance expenditure, it has now bottomed out and is stable. Looking at local roads, it is now stabilised and will continue at roughly the present level, which is really very high. We are talking of something of the order of £470 million in White Paper figures, a very considerable sum. Not only that, but maintenance of motorways and trunk roads, which take 28 per cent. of our traffic, is now increasing and will be over £80 million next year and going towards £90 million by the end of the decade. Thus it is actually increasing. The situation is therefore very much better than either Drive or the hon. Member for Lewes has said.

    Mr. Rathbone

    I should like to be precisely reassured on this, because Drive may have been off the rails in some of the points it quoted but it gave a direct quotation of a spokesman from the hon. ​ Gentleman’s Department saying that it was Government policy to reduce road maintenance funding. I hope that by what he has said the Minister has refuted that and turned it on its head.

    Mr. Horam

    Yes, I have, The situation is that in the White Paper on transport policy produced last year we said that there would be a further small cut in maintenance expenditure. That has now taken place. We have reached the bottom of the slope down and we have stabilised at roughly the figures now being spent. We do not intend to take the process any further, so that there will not be any further cuts in road maintenance. As I said, on trunk roads, and particularly on motorways, maintenance expenditure is increasing.

    The hon. Member for Lewes referred to the number of repairs on motorways. One thing which strikes people on motorways these days is that an increasing number of repairs are being done. The amount of repair work has to increase because many motorways were built in the early 1960s and the surface has now reached the end of its design life.

    Second, while, for general economic reasons, undertaking that restraint on maintenance expenditure, simultaneously the Government embarked on a series of road maintenance surveys, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned—I cannot recall whether Drive mentioned it—which started in 1976. We have now reached our third annual survey. The first two were to establish a base level of information against which we will judge the trend over the years. I cannot yet give a detailed analysis of the position, but our general evidence is that there is deterioration in the quality of our roads.

    We shall have these further comprehensive checks—they take place at no fewer than 6,000 different places in the road system—to make sure that we do not go below a level which would adversely affect safety on roads and their general condition. So the matter is being looked at scientifically and rationally.

    Mr. Rathbone

    I mentioned that it had been estimated that, if road maintenance funding were not dramatically increased —not just stabilised—in 1983, it would become financially impossible ever to stabilise the quality of the roads. From what the Minister says about future ​ budgeting and about the tentative results of this survey. I gather that he is denying that. Could he elaborate to reassure me?

    Mr. Horam

    The quotation to which the hon. Gentleman referred—he so-called backlog which could not be made up—came, I think, from the Asphalt and Coated Macadam Association. That is an interesting source, because that body clearly has a vested interest in road surfaces. But it is wrong. We have no evidence that such an unsupported assertion is correct. All our evidence suggests that we have got the level of spending about right. Certainly we should check our general view, as we are doing with this comprehensive survey which we do every year, but we have no reason to believe that we are wrong. The important thing is to take an objective view and not to rely on the assertions of vested interests.

    Mr. Rathbone

    Including the Government.

    Mr. Horam

    Certainly.

    I now come to the more local matters of Sussex in particular and the local transport planning in that area. Since April 1975, county councils have had full responsibility for local roads as part of their comprehensive responsibility for local transport matters. The Department’s involvement has been through the medium of the transport supplementary grant procedures and the annual statement which the councils submit to the Secretary of State on their local transport policies and programmes—the TPPs.

    It is important to remember that the county’s local transport needs are considered as an interrelated whole. It is up to the county to decide within the framework of central Government policies and available resources where the need for particular new local roads lies in relation to the various other transport priorities, such as bus revenue support, maintenance expenditure and so on. This is an area where the operation of local choice is very important, because local authorities know the needs of their areas.

    Turning to East Sussex in particular, and keeping in mind that distinction between the role of my Department and the local responsibility of the council, perhaps we could consider the last TSG ​ settlement, for 1978–79, for East Sussex. under which we are now working.

    In its TPP bid for this year which it submitted to my Department last summer, East Sussex decided that the highest priority major new local transport scheme was a new road—as opposed to any other item of expenditure—and that the highest priority was the second part of the Hastings spine road. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reviewed the East Sussex TPP in the light of the total call on the resources available and the proposals before him, he found that he was able to accept an overall level of local transport expenditure sufficient to permit the county to make a start on this new road. The county was told of this in the regional director’s letter of 15th December 1977.

    In the South-East as a whole, again within the overall resource constraint, my right hon. Friend was able to accept sufficiently high expenditure levels to permit several other first priority schemes. In fact, as far as each county’s first priority road schemes were concerned, virtually everything bid for in the South-East was accommodated.

    In East Sussex there was the Hastings spine road, which I have already mentioned. In West Sussex the by pass of Bramber and Steyning will be able to start in 1978–79, the current financial year, as planned. In Hampshire, although for administrative reasons the first-choice scheme, which was the Easton Lane link at Winchester, was not allowed for, both the second and third priority schemes, Odiham bypass and the Hulbert Road link to the M3 at Waterlooville, were included. Kent did not include a major new road scheme in its bid for 1978–79. Nor, after proposals for a junction on the M25 were deferred, did Surrey.

    In all, about £20 million is being spent by counties in the South-East in this current financial year on their own choices of local transport schemes. This figure includes both small schemes and large schemes and both new schemes and schemes already started. But all are capital works, over and above the ordinary recurrent expenditure—on maintenance or bus subsidies, for instance. So quite a lot is going on on local roads —we are not talking about motorways or trunk roads—in the South-East in the ​ current financial year with the help of financial support from my Department.

    Mr. Rathbone

    I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates that, as I pointed out earlier, one of the reasons why he can claim that a lot is going on and why his Department has granted the counties what they wanted to have is that the counties have been circumscribed in putting forward their plans for each year because they knew of the budgetary limitations and the way that the TPPs would be inspected. It was the very fact of the TPP which inhibited them from putting forward plans which they would otherwise have put forward and which has meant that over the years a huge backlog of desired but unrequested roads has built up.

    Mr. Horam

    I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can have it both ways. Over the last three or four years we have been in a period of general expenditure restraint. I shall have something to say about the future later in my remarks. But one has to accept that general economic restraint of the last three or four years. I think that the county councils accept it.

    I turn now to the future. Obviously I cannot prejudge my right hon. Friend’s decision on TSG settlements yet to come, but it is worth mentioning the sort of scheme that we know counties in the South-East have in mind. Let us look first at East Sussex. Its proposals in last year’s TPP for future years included, among others, an improvement of the access to Shoreham Docks and the bypass of Uckfield.

    As the hon. Member will know, the routes to the country’s docks are a matter of great concern to the Government—he mentioned Newhaven as well as Shoreham—and should this Shoreham Docks proposal be carried forward in the bid for next year we will look at it very carefully and sympathetically. The bypass of Uckfield is also likely to remain high in East Sussex’s order of priority, relieving as it should, the small town centre of the considerable through traffic on the A22.

    I turn now to the longer-term needs of the South-East as a whole. Much work is being done. I would mention in particular the strategic review of roads in the region which is in hand under the ​ auspices of the Standing Conference on London and South-East Regional Planning. My officers are in contact with the conference officials, and I understand that they expect to meet again in the next few days at working level.

    Mr. Rathbone

    When might that group report?

    Mr. Horam

    I cannot say offhand. It is having a meeting in the next few days. That may well be part of a series of meetings which may not necessarily lead to a final report. If it does, I will inform the hon. Gentleman well in advance. These figures and particular schemes do not give the whole picture.

    The hon. Gentleman also asked whether we would reconsider our view about the relationship between national schemes and local schemes. I think that he was asking for more support for local schemes. I can tell him that my right hon. Friend has said that he is willing to look again at the amount of resources which the Government are making available for their own programmes for motorways and trunk roads, as opposed to the county schemes for local roads. We feel that that relationship—given that we have had a long period of motorway and trunk road building—can with benefit be looked at again. Obviously, the hope of the counties will be that we can make more resources available to them. I cannot commit myself at this stage, but we are prepared to examine that to see whether we can change the relationship.

    As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have also opened recently the Lewes bypass. Indeed, I opened it myself. There are also further improvements in prospect there. The South Street link has been started. There are improvements near Brighton. In particular, major improvements are being carried out at Falmer. Elsewhere in East Sussex, there is much trunk road work planned for the near future. The programme centres generally on improvements to the coastal road, the A27 and A259, with the £11 million Brighton bypass as a major scheme in the early 1980s, and improvements to the newly-trunked A21. There is also a sizeable bypass of Robertsbridge and Hurst Green to come.

    Several of these trunk road schemes, particularly those at Lewes and the ​ Brighton bypass, will have a major effect on access to Newhaven Docks, to which the hon. Gentleman referred in his speech. The county’s own Newhaven ring road, which has recently been completed, has already considerably improved the access to the docks.

    Elsewhere in the South-East, the overall road system is dominated by London. Many of the radial routes are trunk roads and many have been considerably improved in recent years. The A20, for example, and the A2 have been improved. Much further work remains in the pipeline. Both hon. Gentleman will know that the highest priority of all in the Government’s road programme is the orbital motorway, M25, around London. This will do much to improve communications for Londoners and for people who live in Sussex and in Kent.

    Finally, I want to touch on one or two other matters raised by the hon. Member for Lewes. He asked me seven specific questions at the end of his remarks. I think that I have dealt with maintenance, the subject of his first question.

    The second question was concerned with the relationship between national schemes and local roads. The hon. Member asked me, further, to reconsider our approach to local transport subsidies. In general, he seems to be in favour of more support for capital schemes as opposed to revenue schemes, such as bus support, for example. I think this is a matter of balance, frankly, and that there is a party political difference between us here. The Government are concerned that there should be proper support for bus services, otherwise we are losing too many of these services throughout the country. Bus services are being cut back and fares increased very rapidly. The Government want to stabilise the position. There may be a party political difference between us on this. It is a matter of judgment between Government and Opposition and a matter of judgment for local authorities to take into account. They have very considerable freedom of choice.

    Fourthly, the hon. Gentleman asked me about lorries paying their way. Our taxation statistics regard heavy lorries as those over 30 cwt unladen—broadly 3½tons laden. For these vehicles as a class, there has been no shortfall between revenue and attributed road costs since 1977–78. In 1978–79, revenue from these ​ vehicles is expected to exceed allocated costs by £65 million. This figure takes account of the fact that two groups of the heaviest vehicles are not yet wholly covering their cost. The hon. Gentleman referred to that aspect. The Government, however, remain committed to ensuring that all groups of goods vehicles cover in taxation at least the public road cost—that is, the cost of wear and tear and the building of the road attributable to them. That is our clearly stated policy.

    Fifthly, the hon. Gentleman asked whether road users get a fair share of the taxation which they have to bear. There are two points here. First, taxation as a whole should cover the cost which road users throw on the community by requiring roads to be built and maintained for them. That is clearly Government policy. But, in addition, they will be asked to contribute an extra amount for the general Exchequer requirements. It is entirely a matter for the Government of the day to decide how big that should be. It could be nothing or it could be a very large sum.

    The EEC measures which we shall be adopting to deal with the general problem of taxing lorries fairly divide it into those two portions—the portion whereby one recoups from road users the cost they impose on the community and, secondly, anything over and above that which is a general contribution to Exchequer requirements. When this system comes into being—it is being negotiated inside the Common Market at present—we shall have a clear way of showing people exactly what they are contributing.

    Mr. Rathbone

    Can the Minister estimate whether that will increase the amount of moneys paid from vehicle excise and so forth, which are used for road building and maintenance, or will it decrease them?

    Mr. Horam

    It will depend on the costs and revenues as they are assessed at the time in question. Clearly the heaviest of lorries are not meeting their full costs at present. If more taxation is put on them, that will raise more revenue. But, equally, motorists are paying more than their fair costs at present. It would be a matter for the Government of the day to decide what they should do about that. I do not ​ think one can really answer that question unless one looks two or three years ahead at the figures.

    The hon. Gentleman also asked whether we would have TPPs every three or four years. The answer is that we wish to have a graded approach to change rather than the sudden jerks which one would get with a three-year or four-year appraisal. I think that the process of annual appraisal fits well into councils’ calendars and ways of working. It is sensible and has been accepted by councils for a number of years now. To go over to a longer period of gestation would not be right. The hon. Gentleman may well disagree—

    Mr. Rathbone

    The East Sussex County Council for one is very specific on this point. The need to produce annual TPPs relatively early in a calendar year has to anticipate the grants from national Government later in the year. It does not aid the planning of the road programme, either in building or maintenance terms, for the future fiscal year and it adds immeasurably to the administrative costs of running the whole transportation budget. As I instanced in my own few words, there has been a doubling of the proportion of that transport budget which is paid in administration from 10 per cent. to 20 per cent.

    Mr. Johnson Smith

    Only yesterday I was talking with senior officials and councillors from the West Sussex County Council. They made exactly the same point, and I hope that the Minister will look at it again.

    Mr. Horam

    We are anxious that any TPP paper or report should not be over-elaborate. We are not anxious to create ​ paperwork for the sake of paperwork. But this is a system which has been developed over several years. The amount of paper work is not very large.

    Mr. Rathbone

    Two hundred and fifty pages.

    Mr. Horam

    That is an exceptional case. I know of some counties which produce a TPP of only a handful of pages. Perhaps East Sussex has taken considerable trouble over its TPP, which is praiseworthy.

    Mr. Johnson Smith

    And West Sussex.

    Mr. Horam

    West Sussex as well. Certainly we would not wish counties to be over-bureaucratic about it. I think that the system is now well understood and can be managed reasonably well by county councils.

    I was also asked whether we could relax some controls on small matters which are more legitimately the concern of local authorities. We are sympathetic to this suggestion. We have looked at this carefully, and it may well be that there are quite a few things which in future years we can hand over to local authorities, which will mean that more decisions are taken locally by people who best understand the needs of the local community. Indeed, we are in consultation with some of the local authority associations about matters of this kind, and I believe that we can make progress.

    I think that we are beginning to make the sort of progress in Government policy which both hon. Members have so clearly and cogently said is their aim.

  • Tim Rathbone – 1978 Speech on Roads in South-East England

    Below is the text of the speech made by Tim Rathbone, the then Conservative MP for Lewes, in the House of Commons on 29 June 1978.

    I am pleased to have the opportunity of raising in the House a subject that concerns a major capital asset that the country, especially Sussex and the South-East, has inherited over the centuries, namely, our local road network.

    In Sussex and the South-East almost 98 per cent. of the roads are county roads. That may be the highest proportion anywhere in the country. Therefore, it is peculiar that perhaps the South-East region’s share of total national expenditure on road construction and maintenance has remained the same over the past 10 years. If it had remained the same at a sufficiently high level, that would not be surprising, but unfortunately the equality of application of Government funds hides worrying anomalies.

    First, the national budget for all road construction has been halved since 1973. That is of especial concern in Sussex and the South-East. Secondly, the proportion spent on county road construction has decreased overall. From 1967 to 1977 it has almost halved, moving from 13½ per cent. of the total to 7½ per cent. Thirdly, and perhaps in today’s circumstances most worrying of all, the Government’s ​ policy seems to be to force down local authority spending on road maintenance. That was brought home in a quotation in the current issue of Drive for July and August, which reports:

    “A DoT spokesman said ‘At the moment policy on road maintenance is to cut it. I know that we have come in for a lot of criticism from people who are saying not enough is being spent, and we accept that there are genuine fears that standards might fall below what is thought adequate. But the Government thinks that there is scope for saving money on things that are really cosmetic treatment for roads and highways’”.

    That is an extremely worrying statement of policy. I very much hope that when the Minister replies he will refute it.
    The picture is made even bleaker because, whereas in the past local authority expenditure used to be applied primarily for the provision and maintenance of the road network. Nowadays only about half of that expenditure will be so applied, because the remainder has to go, on the one hand, towards subsidies to local transport, which have increased by almost six times since they started at the beginning of 1970, and, on the other hand, to burgeoning administrative costs which are now running at the horrific level of 20 per cent. of the total budget—twice the proportion of only five years ago. This, as any county councillor, county engineer or county surveyor appreciates, is due almost entirely to greatly increased administrative demands from national Government.

    All this is taking place at a time when, over the past 10 years, road traffic has grown by 45 per cent., the gross weight of vehicles has increased by 33 per cent., owners’ expenditure on vehicles has increased by an enormous 248 per cent. and the Government are, I believe quite rightly, encouraging further increases in mobility for everyone.

    The picture is even worse for county roads in the South-East. Because car ownership in the South-East is above the national average at 78 per 100 households compared with the national average of 72, and because truck mileage grows faster as trade with Europe increases, county roads carry more of this burden because of the paucity of motorways in East and West Sussex and in Kent and the lack of many fully developed trunk roads as well. Lastly—a point which ​ applies to the nation as a whole but applies equally to the South East—the volume and weight of traffic everywhere has increased far faster than anyone ever anticipated.

    County councils responsible for their own local road networks cannot be blamed for what is a sadly deteriorating situation. Since the advent of the transport policies and programmes system, the East Sussex County Council, in common with other councils in the area, has become increasingly aware of its inability to build the roads which are needed because of too little Government funding and too much Government administrative demand. Therefore, it has had to submit bids for road building in accordance with Government guidelines, and that has meant not putting forward for approval the road bids that it knows are needed. Unless resources are substantially increased, nearly half of the presently uncommitted, but desired, road schemes in East Sussex will still not be completed by 1991.

    But that is not all. Not only are insufficient new roads being built, but existing roads are no longer being properly maintained. Until recently the standards of roads in the South-East were as high as anywhere in the country and, therefore, among the best in the world. The results of some years of imposed neglect are now becoming noticeable. If not yet at a critical stage of deterioration, it is certainly very serious. If cuts in road maintenance are not restored over the next five years, by 1983 it is estimated that we shall have reached the point of no return and it will become financially impossible ever to catch up with the backlog of road repair work.

    Just as more and more motorways are now requiring major surgical repairs, often including rebuilding of the new substructure down to 18 in. or more, so county roads, few of which were designed and built for today’s weight of traffic, require quite drastic attention. Yet that is just what they are not getting.

    The AA estimates that overall in Britain there are now 250,000 potholes or similar faults in our road system. It is likely that East Sussex has more than its fair share of potholes because, on an index drawing together total road mileage, or kilometreage, in the county, on the one ​ hand, the population using those roads, on the other hand, and the expenditure on those roads, on the third hand, East Sussex has not been able to do better than to come at the bottom of the index for similar counties and at near bottom for all non-metropolitan counties in the country.

    What does all this mean? First, it means that the costs to motorists and commercial vehicle operators have been soaring because of higher running costs through damage to suspensions, premature tyre replacement and increased low-gear fuel consumption. Then there are costs to the community, which are escalating because of increasing numbers of accidents. It is interesting and worrying to note that accidents caused by skidding due to poor road surfaces have increased by one-third since 1974, and this is marked, in part at least, by increasing public liability claims, which have increased both in number and in amount every recent year.

    These, presumably, are some of the reasons why the Department of Transport is carrying out an extensive survey into the state of roads and road surfaces. I wonder whether the Minister is yet ready to tell us anything about the results of that investigation and to indicate any action he is contemplating in the light of those results, and particularly, of course, any increased spending plans that he may have in mind for East Sussex and the South-East.

    In the absence of greater Government funding and greater Government initiative, who is suffering? First, business and commerce are suffering. I give the town and port of Newhaven as an example. Here is a port which is burgeoning and is more prosperous than it has ever been in living memory because of the increased trade with Europe and the rest of the world. In addition to the trade through the port, Newhaven has its own base of light industry, much of it export-directed.

    Newhaven is well linked by British Rail to all parts of Britain, but it is ill served by its road links. Improvements have been made internally. I think that the Minister inspected them quite recently. But still Newhaven has only a B road as its main north-south feed, and this road is soon to carry added burdens of trucks going to and from a new county refuse disposal tip. These are heavy trucks, travelling at 25 to 30 m.p.h., at an expected rate of 2,000 movements per week. So the business of the community and commerce within the community suffer.

    But people in the community suffer too, and, whatever Mr. Bernard Levin may say about the Lewes bypass, as he wrote about it in The Times last Wednesday, the relief that that has given—and it will give even more once South Street relief scheme has come on stream properly—is just the sort of relief which is so much desired by other towns, such as Winchelsea, Rye or Robertsbridge.

    In Kent it is interesting and worrying to note that Kent County Council’s original development plan, produced 20 years ago, included 44 bypasses of small towns and villages, but as of this year only six have been built.

    But communities suffer economically as well as environmentally. Newhaven is a major prosperity centre for the Lewes District Council, for the East Sussex County Council and for the South-East as far as future planning is concerned. But in the 1978 revision of the East Sussex County Council’s county structure plan, which has been approved by the Secretary of State, the development of the port of Newhaven is specifically inhibited because of the weak road links to and from the town. This means that much-needed jobs cannot be created there. The same can be said for other towns in the South-East. Hastings, just down the coast, is a very good example of where quite modest road building and improvement programmes can help to attract trade and light industry and thereby create, naturally, improved employment opportunities.

    But not only do those in the specific community suffer. The ratepayers and the taxpayers of the whole area suffer, because as remedial repairs are cut back and improvements are postponed this inevitably leads to more drastic remedial surgery and more expensive improvements in the future.

    I cite for the House two worryingly dramatic statistics. Road resurfacing, to seal out moisture and to restore anti-skid properties, costs approximately 50p per square metre. But if that is not done and damp seeps in so that roads begin to ​ crack and to craze, rebuilding of those roads can cost up to £15 per square metre—30 times the cost.

    The final group of people who suffer are those who use the roads, whether they are commercial vehicle operators who have to allow for more off-the-road time and increased cost of repairs, or private individuals who, in the South-East, are often retired—as they are in my constituency of Seaford, Peacehaven, Telscombe Cliffs or East Saltdean on the South Coast. They have enough difficulty already making ends meet without additional car repair charges.

    The Minister would do well to bear in mind that even the Prime Minister has to suffer because the road leading from Lewes to his country estate nearby is like a switchback due to the lack of running repairs because of cuts in the road repair funds.

    For a county such as East Sussex this financial circumscription on road building and repairs is particularly frustrating.

    The county of East Sussex has already taken special pride in its road system. East Sussex pioneered the building of concrete roads 45 years ago. More recently, East Sussex pioneered road edge lining which has reduced accidents dramatically by up to 22 per cent. Sadly, such pioneering work cannot be undertaken now when even basic repair work has to be left undone.

    What can the Government do? I ask the Minister to address himself to seven specific issues. First and foremost, will the Minister consider the reversal of the Government’s stated policy of cutting road maintenance? The policy is too shortsighted. It stems from a complete lack of understanding of the long-term, expensive ramifications.

    Secondly, will the Minister consider the allocation of more funds for county road building and improvements to allow county councils to tackle properly such much-needed works as on the B2109 which leads north from Newhaven? I should welcome a re-commitment from the Government in order to improve the roads of the South-East.

    Thirdly, will the Minister consider a reassessment of the provisions in the Transport Bill on local transport subsidies? Even if 70 per cent. of bus subsidies are funded by the Government, an increase in total subsidy of £500,000 in a county area means that £150,000 has to be found from the rates. It is difficult to see from where such funds would come except from highway maintenance budgets or increased rates. Both are unattractive and unacceptable sources. This raises whether funds should be taken from safeguarding a capital asset and used for renewed expenditures of a social nature.

    Fourthly, will the Minister investigate whether lorries, particularly top-weight lorries, are paying their way properly to ensure that the relative level of their road taxes is proportionate to their share of road costs? I was interested to read in The Sunday Times recently that it is estimated that the heaviest lorries might be underpaying their share by £40 million a year.

    Fifthly, can the Minister argue more effectively than previous Ministers with Treasury colleagues that road users should pay a fairer share of motoring-related taxes, particularly the £915 million that they pay in vehicle licence dues and the lesser amount, but still considerable, of £25 million in VAT on fuel? That figure was quoted in the issue of Drive magazine to which I have referred.

    Sixthly, will the Minister examine the need for annual TPPs? What is the real effect of these annual documents, if any, on the condition of county roads or on the lives of those who live alongside those roads or use them daily? Could not TPPs be submitted every three or four years and thereby reduce administrative costs and improve budget planning?

    Finally, in pursuit of the Secretary of State’s intention to devolve more responsibility for local transportation to county councils, cannot central controls be relaxed and unnecessary administrative requirements, often duplicated at local and national levels, be reduced? Is it necessary for the Government to tell the East Sussex County Council in detail how it should mow its grass verges?

    The Secretary of State said, in talking to the County Surveyors Society on 19th January last, that he saw his job as
    “to ensure that the right roads are built to the right standards in the right place at the right time”.

    To that I add only “and that all roads are maintained to correct standards at ​ all time.” There is nowhere in Britain more deserving of the attention of the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary than Sussex and the South-East.

  • John Eden – 1978 Speech on Hospital Beds in Bournemouth

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Eden, the then Conservative MP for Bournemouth West, in the House of Commons on 28 June 1978.

    I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester) on bringing to the House the petition which he has just presented. On behalf of the pharmacists in my constituency, I endorse every word that my hon. Friend said about the strength of feeling which he has so adequately represented. Those who have been responsible for organising the petition and collecting the signatures have done extremely well. They are to be congratulated on having amassed so many names and on having made clear to us in the House, and hopefully to the Government, too, what action needs to be taken in the interests of the pharmacists of England and Wales.

    Before the House adjourns I wish to draw attention to a matter of considerable importance to the people of Bournemouth—the shortage of hospital beds in that area. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) will have the opportunity of catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to support what I say.

    There is a serious shortage of hospital beds in the Bournemouth area. That is, however, not a new situation. It has existed for some years. I have seen the lists kept by one consultant that give details of every patient who was waiting on the emergency bed service for over 48 hours during the past three years to four years. It happens—this is not to ​ dramatise but to make a point of fact—that some of the patients died before they were found a bed in hospital.

    The consultants in the Bournemouth area have for long been worried about the shortage of hospital beds. Two of them—the chairman and the vice-chairman of the medical staff committee of the Bournemouth and East Dorset Group Pathology Service attached to the Royal Victoria Hospital in Bournemouth —recently wrote a letter to the local Press in which they stated:

    “While patients in hospitals are receiving adequate care there is no doubt that too many patients wait too long to get into hospital because of an acute shortage of beds.”

    These are responsible people who write such things. They are not given to hyperbole. They weigh their words with care and speak with deep anxiety.

    The consultant representative on the East Dorset district management team, Dr. Christian Loehry, has played a leading part in drawing attention to the seriousness of the shortage. He has given me details of waiting time for in-patient treatment that fully justify all the expressions of anxiety and concern. The records have also been shown to the community health council, which I understand now fully supports the views of consultants that early and effective action is most necessary. I see that in a recent statement in the Evening Echo it recommended that

    “every effort be made to co-ordinate efforts to effect a long-overdue improvement in the situation regarding emergency admissions.”

    The figures that I have seen indicate that in the first week of February 1978 the aggregate number on waiting lists for in-patient treatment in the East Dorset district was just under 5,000. In some specialities—notably general surgery, ENT and orthopaedic—the numbers were especially high.

    I know that orthopaedic waiting lists have been eased slightly by the opening of the Christchurch facility. That is extremely welcome, but the situation is still very serious, especially for those who are waiting for hip operations. That information comes to me not only from my constituency but from the two constituencies on either side of mine. It bears out the difficulties and personal ​ problems that are being experienced in the whole of the region—I have an interest to declare because tomorrow morning I have to go to an orthopaedic surgeon to have my hip checked. I hope that something will be done in that regard. It is a serious matter which for far too long has been attended by waiting lists which are totally indefensible.

    There is another matter which should be discussed. When speaking of the Bournemouth area we are speaking of a holiday resort. There is a substantial influx during the holiday months which, at its peak, doubles the population. This causes additional problems for the existing services and no special regard seems to be paid to them. It places extra demands on consultants and doctors and obviously puts new pressures on the beds that are available.

    In this area there is also a marked shortage of assessment beds for geriatric cases. Not surprisingly, Bournemouth has a large number of elderly people. We welcome them. Many of them come to Bournemouth to retire and to spend the remaining years of their lives in this attractive area. But this means that they have special requirements which are not being met adequately. Because of the many elderly people in the area, the need for more geriatric beds is urgent. This applies not only to Bournemouth but also to Poole.

    In answer to a case with which I have been dealing, the district administrator at the hospital wrote to me and said:

    “Facilities for psychogeriatric patients are grossly inadequate in this district”

    —that is the East Dorset health care district. He explained that because of this very difficult decisions on priorities had to be reached.

    It is appalling that that should be so. It is appalling that people should have to take decisions of that kind. Of course as I know the Minister understands, it is far more serious for the patients themselves.

    It is clear that there is widespread concern amongst informed and responsible people about the inadequate number of beds in the Bournemouth area and about the difficulties experienced in admitting patients through the emergency bed service.

    For these reasons I and my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East feel fully justified in raising the subject in Parliament and in pressing the Minister to authorise early action to ease the intolerable situation. Our constituents want action.

    We welcome that in August 1982 a start is to be made on phase 1 of the new 900-bed district general hospital. When phase 1 is completed—and that is planned to be in August 1985—the hospital will provide 281 beds. The net increase in beds, however, depends upon what else is done in the meantime and what else is done when phase 1 is completed. For example, if it is planned to close the Royal National Chest Hospital, some beds will be taken away and the net position will not be as good. We must be careful to ensure that by the end of this exercise we are better off than before.

    My anxieties in this regard are aroused by the fact that we are not to get a complete hospital in 1985. We are to get phase 1 of a complete hospital. Phase 1 is, in fact, a unit package, with many of the essential specialities omitted from it. I am not disappointed that we are getting phase 1; believe me, it is far better than nothing at all. But what would be better still would be a complete hospital, with all the facilities, all the specialities and all the services provided there.
    When is that to happen? When is phase 2 to begin, to complete the hospital that has been planned and talked about for such a long time? When is phase 2 to start? Will the Minister assure me this evening that there will be no gap between the completion of phase 1 and the start of phase 2?

    Meanwhile, it is most urgent that we press ahead with the building of a new 30-bed ward at Boscombe Hospital. This has also been under discussion for years, but for some reason no decision has been taken until just recently. For some reason, the Wessex regional health authority seems to have been sitting on this proposition. I have seen letters from the authority to consultants in my constituency which left me speechless, since they seem to be unaware of the urgency of the situation. Now, at last, it seems that it will go ahead, but exactly when I am not absolutely sure.

    I want to know exactly when this new 30-bed ward is to be built. I want to know when it is to be started and when it is to be completed. If the Wessex regional health authority does not understand the urgency of the situation, it should give itself a holiday from its paper work and come to Bournemouth to ascertain the facts on the spot.

    I want to make two other points. The first is related to this, although not directly concerned with the in-patient aspect. I refer to the out-patient problem. There is an acute waiting time for new out-patient appointments with consultants. In some cases this is grotesquely long. In neurology, it is as much as 35 weeks. There seems to be a grave shortage of neurologists. I do not know what steps are being taken to try to overcome it. I do not suppose that it is peculiar to the area I represent, but this seems to me to be a problem which deserves close attention. A period as long as 35 weeks must be wrong. In surgery, the period is anything from 10 to 31 weeks. In orthopaedics, it is anything from 10 to 29 weeks. In ENT it is 21 weeks, and in urology, 20 weeks.

    It is wrong that we should have to contemplate figures of this order of magnitude. I am certain that the Minister would like to see them shortened. We would all wish to see them shortened. What worries me is that they have been going on like this for far too many years. I had a letter the other day from a leading doctor in my own constituency who has said that over the last seven or eight years, far from getting better the situation has been getting worse. No wonder doctors are worried and frustrated.

    Finally, I should like to make one general point. It is that by comparison with other areas, Dorset is seriously under-funded. Will the Minister please undertake to look at this, and will he tonight give firm answers to the two questions that I have put to him?