UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 1986

  • Peter Morrison – 1986 Speech on the Tin Industry

    Below is the text of the speech made by Peter Morrison, the then Minister of State at the Department of Trade and Industry, in the House of Commons on 24 January 1986.

    I am glad that the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) has had the opportunity to raise an incredibly important matter for Cornwall.

    I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s detailed and well-informed account of the tin industry in Cornwall. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) may be aware that I have been down two tin mines in Cornwall and I have visited Cornwall perhaps more times than any other part of the country since I became a Minister about five years ago.
    I am aware that unemployment in Cornwall is extremely high—about 19·5 per cent. I am aware also that Cornwall’s distance from market places could be described as an inhibiting factor. I believe that people in Cornwall feel that way. I think that it is fair to say—I do not say this in a patronising way—that the rest of the country misunderstands Cornwall’s position. To a certain extent, it is assumed that problems do not exist in Cornwall. When we go as tourists and holiday makers to the area, we are greeted with enormous hospitality and great generosity. The countryside is beautiful and the seaside is perhaps everyone’s dream. We do not see the true position.

    Most people would not expect unemployment in Cornwall to be 19·5 per cent., yet, in the big cities, the ​ unemployment levels are as follows: Manchester, a little less than 14·5 per cent.; Newcastle, 18·4 per cent.; Glasgow, 17·5 per cent.; and Bristol, 11·3 per cent. Even Ebbw Vale, where one would expect a much higher level of unemployment, has precisely the same unemployment level as Cornwall. I do not underestimate Cornwall’s problems. The problems are not sufficiently understood, and some people underestimate them.
    Of course I understand the position of those who work in Cornwall, especially at Geevor, South Croft) and Wheal Jane, and at the other small producers in the constituency of the hon. Member for Truro. The hon. Gentleman said that about 1,500 people work in the tin mines. About 4,500 people, including dependants, are directly affected. Many other people are indirectly employed and, not surprisingly, are worried about what is happening. They will read what has been said in the debate and dissect it carefully.

    It is still too early to judge the impact of recent developments on the commercial prospects for tin mining in Cornwall. The most important factor will be the price at which tin settles when the market reopens. Some fall in price is probable, indeed almost certain. The extent of that fall in the short term will depend on the outcome of the Government’s efforts to secure an acceptable settlement of the International Tin Council’s debts and a return to orderly trading. As it is unlikely that the International Tin Council will agree to resume buffer stock buying, it seems inevitable that in the longer teen supply and demand will have to balance—I was interested in what the hon. Member for Truro said about the tin mines of Cornwall in the market place in the longer term—and some of the world’s more expensive producers are likely to have to close as a result. It is against that background that prospects for Cornwall tin will have to be assessed.

    We have already said that we shall consider applications for grants for tin mining companies to help them reduce production costs. Since 1979, we have given grants of £3·5 million to continue projects, including exploration.

    Decisions on grants cannot be taken until we can be satisfied that any project receiving assistance from the taxpayer has reasonable prospects for a sound commercial future. I hope that the hon. Member for Truro and his constituents will understand that.

    The period of uncertainty has been lengthy, and that is bound to cause problems for some companies. That is one of the reasons why our priority is to restore orderly trading as soon as possible. That will be in the interests of everyone. That is taking longer than we had hoped, but, when 22 countries are involved, there are bound to be difficulties.

    The United Kingdom has made quite clear its readiness to meet its share of any commitments of the International Tin Council member countries and has called upon others to do likewise. Proposals aimed at finding an acceptable solution to the International Tin Council’s problems have been put forward, and we have made great efforts to resolve the crisis through diplomatic channels and will continue to do so. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that an inordinate amount of time has been spent in my Department dealing with this matter. The people involved are working nights and weekends.

  • David Penhaligon – 1986 Speech on the Tin Industry

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Penhaligon, the then Liberal MP for Truro, in the House of Commons on 24 January 1986.

    I wish to launch into what may not be the easiest of tasks. I want to achieve an application of the collective mind of the Department of Trade and Industry to the tin crisis, which affects my county and parts of London, instead of the other difficulty that has received a considerable amount of publicity this week.

    There are two collective problems, one of which caused the other. However, the solution to one of those problems does not necessarily mean that the other will be solved. The question that is constantly being raised in the House —I have raised it several times, and the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) has also raised it several times—is what will the Government do? I can tell the Minister that in Cornwall there is more interest in the Government’s reply to that matter than in the Westland saga.

    The saga begins in London at the London metal exchange. As is well known, the international tin agreement has collapsed and the market was closed towards the end of October 1985. Various rescue bids have been launched. During Question Time yesterday the Prime Minister expressed optimism about the possible conclusion of the latest rescue attempt. I must say that the Prime Minister’s optimism was greater than that expressed by the people who are involved on a day-to-day basis.

    The crisis has been going on for three months, and business is already leaving London. Some people believe that the saga could lead to the end of commodity dealing in London and the reneging on international debts by major financial powers. Whatever the outcome, it is certain that the price of tin will fall, and it is at that stage that Cornwall becomes involved.

    I am one of those in Cornwall who have long taken the view that hard-rock mining is on a pleasant growth pattern and is likely over the next decade, two decades or three decades to make an increasing contribution to the Cornish economy. I and others who share my view do not expect hard-rock mining to return to the levels of production of 140 or 150 years ago, but we have no doubt that hard-rock mining, given Cornwall’s mineral structure, can make a major contribution to the local economy.

    In the 1960s, the average production of tin was about 1,500 tonnes a year. In the 1970s the average was 3,000 tonnes. In 1984, it exceeded 5,000 tonnes for the first time this century. Tin is not the only metal that is mined. Cornwall produced 7,500 .tonnes of zinc, 750 tonnes of copper and 2·5 tonnes of silver in the past mining year. At October 1985 prices, the value of this output was about £50 million to the balance of payments.

    Against this background there were developments in the offing. The two mines in my constituency, Concorde and Cligga, obtained permission to begin production and they are now preparing to launch themselves into it.

    Mr. Robert Hicks (Cornwall, South-East)

    I should like to substantiate the argument that is being advanced by the hon. Gentleman. There are no non-ferrous mines in my constituency, but major prospecting is taking place and boreholes are being sunk at Redmoor near Callington. The ​ determination of the ultimate viability of the project, which it is estimated will produce 300 jobs, will be reflected by the overall price of tin on the world market. The hon. Gentleman is making an important point.

    Mr. Penhaligon

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that intervention, which reflects the general picture of growth. Only six months ago, reasonable men would have extrapolated growth. There are about 1,500 on the industry’s payroll, in Cornwall but it is an industry that does a good deal of subcontracting and the actual number employed by the industry, directly and indirectly, is considerably greater than 1,500. The industry claims—this has not been challenged—that it contributes about £23 million a year to the economy. That contribution is made mostly in west Cornwall. It is a worthwhile figure and one that should not be cast aside lightly.

    We are talking about an area that is in the midst of the country’s employment blackspot. In Falmouth, 26·7 per cent. of males of working age are unemployed. The figures for Penzance, Redruth, and Helston are 28·4 per cent., 23·8 per cent. and 25·4 per cent. respectively. A quarter of the male population in the area that is most affected is already unemployed. Thankfully, Truro comes in at fifth place in the unemployment league at about 15 per cent.

    The industry has been aware for some time that the cartel price at which tin was being traded could not be sustained ad infinitum. It was well aware that if the industry was to continue to prosper and grow, it would have to succeed in competing in a free market. It was under no illusions and it recognised that the price of tin in a free market would be less than that at which the commodity had recently been traded on the London market.

    The industry had been making vigorous preparations for the commencement of a free market. Even the most realistic among the mining personnel thought that the day was at least two years further on from today, but preparations were clearly being made made, and most obviously at the three really important mines, the Wheal Jane complex, South Crony and the mine in Penzance which is called Geevor. Geevor is a good illustration of the effort that is being made to enable the mines to modernise themselves and to compete in a free market. Money has already been invested in a new mill at Geevor, which will double its capacity to treat available ore. Half of the ore comes from the old Geevor mine. It is good quality ore, and well worth treating. The other half comes from the old rubbish dumps of years ago. The mine is investing an enormous amount so that it can run into the old Botallack and Lezant mines for further sources of good quality ore to allow the mill to work at full capacity with good material. If the improvement is completed, the mine will be able to compete in the free market.

    We have to deal with the present crisis and the mines are in the worst of all positions. They have lost the higher price that they were enjoying, but have enormous financial commitments. Large sums have already been spent on improving the mines. Unfortunately, although the money has been half spent, the efficiency gain has not been half felt. Indeed, no efficiency gains have been felt so far. If improvement work were terminated today, no improvements in efficiency would have been made.

    The simple question for the Minister is, “Will the Government help?” Will they help towards meeting development costs to improve the efficiency of mines so ​ that they can compete in a free market? If the will exists, there are half a dozen ways in which financial assistance could be given. The county, the miners and their families want to know whether the Government will help. Does the will exist? Will the Government help Cornwall at this tragic time?

    I am not pleading for a lame duck industry. The dominant employer in my constituency is English China Clays, which this year declared a profit of £74 million. I do not know what the Treasury takes from that profit, but I have a feeling that it is considerably more than zero.

    We are merely asking the Government to realise that mining is a high-risk industry and to act as an honest broker in the middle, sometimes assisting mines when they get into difficulties that are not necessarily long-term or terminal.

    On Wednesday next week, about 500 tin miners from my county will be lobbying Parliament. The Cornish anthem, “Shall Trelawny die?” includes the line

    “Here’s twenty thousand Cornish men will know the reason why!”

    There are not 20,000 Cornishmen coming to London on Wednesday, but a lot more than 20,000 in Cornwall want to know whether the Government will assist the Cornish tin industry and, if so, to what extent.

    If no assistance is forthcoming, at least some of the mines will undoubtedly close for all time. A couple may be held on standby for half a decade or so in the expectation that the tin price will rise again. If the Government refuse to assist at this crucial time, the growth that has taken place over the past couple of decades will stop and the production of Britain’s only significant mineral resource will cease. I cannot believe that that would be a logical or rational outcome. I look to the Government for an assurance that they are willing to assist the Cornish tin industry through the tragedy confronting it.

  • Neil Kinnock – 1986 Speech on Westland

    Below is the text of the speech made by Neil Kinnock, the then Leader of the Opposition, in the House of Commons on 23 January 1986.

    After persistent efforts, we have managed to pull a statement from the right hon. Lady. It had a detail produced not by frankness but by guilt—unerasable guilt. That stain will stay with the right hon. Lady for as long as she endures in politics. Her excuses are completely implausible. She cannot justify or excuse the conduct of her Government in any one respect.

    In this squalid story, we have been told that the leaking of the Solicitor-General’s letter was authorised —authorised by the right hon. Lady’s office and connived in by her office, all, says the Prime Minister, with her subsequent endorsement. We must ask the Prime Minister, especially given her personalised and centralised style of government, where she was on 6 January so that she could not be contacted on a matter as basic and essential as this. She has a duty to tell the House what she was doing when her office, as she says, was getting on with the business by itself.

    We have been told that the matter was authorised. What was actually authorised was a conspiracy by people in the Department of Trade and Industry and people from the right hon. Lady’s office to disclose certain parts of a letter written by a Law Officer to another member of the Cabinet about a matter of important public business. That was their way, we are told, of putting it into the public domain. That was the route chosen — not by open means, but by subterfuge and dishonest means.

    We have been told that there was an inquiry. Indeed, there have been answers in the House from Ministers, including the Prime Minister, saying that an earnest inquiry was being undertaken in the normal fashion. We have to ask: why was there an inquiry when everybody knew what had happened? Why was there an inquiry when everybody knew that there would be no prosecution because the dispensation had been given? The only precedent comparable with this act of contrived insincerity is the way in which Macbeth so fiercely looked around for Duncan’s murderers.

    We hear from the Prime Minister that an immunity was offered. Why was that the case when it was plain that there was to be no prosecution?

    We have heard a shabby story—an effort to defraud the public. The fact is that the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and everyone else involved would have got away with it were it not for the fact that in this democracy ultimately the Prime Minister had to make a statement. They would have dealt with the former Member of the Cabinet, the Secretary of State for Defence, not by the means available to the Prime Minister, if she believed that he was acting contrary to the national interest—not by sacking him—but by trying dishonestly and covertly to subvert him. That is a profound dishonesty. For the Government to leak in order to inform and influence public opinion is normal. For a Government to leak in order to discredit anyone is shameful. For a Government to leak in order to subvert a member of that Government is the action of a Government who are rotten not just to the core but from the core, and they should go.

  • Margaret Thatcher – 1986 Statement on Westland

    Below is the text of the statement made by Margaret Thatcher, the then Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 23 January 1986.

    With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the outcome of the inquiry into the disclosure of certain information in my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General’s letter of 6 January.

    As the House knows, the chairman of Westland plc, Sir John Cuckney, wrote to me on 30 December 1985 asking whether Westland would no longer be considered a European company by the Government if a minority shareholding in the company were held by a major international group from a NATO country outside Europe.

    This question was of fundamental importance to the company in making its decision as to what course it was best to follow in the interests of the company and its employees. It was therefore essential to be sure that my reply should be in no way misleading to anyone who might rely upon it in making commercial judgments and decisions.

    The reply was accordingly considered among the Departments concerned, and the text of my letter of 1 January 1986 was agreed in detail by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my right hon. Friends the then Secretary of State for Defence and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and finally by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General.

    My letter was made public.

    Two days later, on 3 January, my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Defence replied to a letter of the same date from Mr. Horne of Lloyds Merchant Bank asking him a number of questions, covering some of the same ground as my own reply to Sir John Cuckney. The texts of the letters became public that same day.

    My right hon. Friend’s reply was not cleared or even discussed with the relevant Cabinet colleagues. Moreover, although the reply was also material to the commercial judgments and decisions that would have to be made, my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General was not invited to scrutinise the letter before it was issued.

    On the morning of 6 January, my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General wrote to my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Defence. He said—and I quote:

    “It is foreseeable that your letter will be relied upon by the Westland Board and its shareholders.

    Consistently with the advice I gave to the Prime Minister on 31 December, the Government in such circumstances is under a duty not to give information which is incomplete or inaccurate in any material particular.”

    The letter continued:

    “On the basis of the information contained in the documents to which I have referred, which I emphasise are all that I have seen, the sentence in your letter to Mr. Home does in my opinion contain material inaccuracies in the respects I have mentioned, and I therefore must advise that you should write again to Mr. Horne correcting the inaccuracies.”

    That is the end of the quotation.

    I have quoted extensively from the letter which, as hon. Members will know, was published a week ago. As I have already indicated, it was especially important in this situation for statements made on behalf of the Government, on which commercial judgments might be based, to be accurate and in no way misleading.

    That being so, it was a matter of duty that it should be made known publicly that there were thought to be ​ material inaccuracies which needed to be corrected in the letter of my right hon. Friend. the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) of 3 January, which, as the House will recall, had already been made public. Moreover, it was urgent that it should become public knowledge before 4 pm that afternoon, 6 January, when Sir John Cuckney was due to hold a press conference to announce the Westland board’s recommendation to shareholders of a revised proposal from the United Technologies Corporation-Fiat consortium.

    These considerations were very much in the mind of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the copy of the Solicitor-General’s letter was brought to his attention at about 1.30 pm that afternoon of 6 January. He took the view that the fact that the Solicitor-General had written to the then Secretary of State for Defence, and the opinion he had expressed, should be brought into the public domain as soon as possible. He asked his officials to discuss with my office whether the disclosure should be made, and, if so, whether it should be made from 10 Downing street, as he said he would prefer.

    My right hon. and learned Friend made it clear that, subject to the agreement of my office, he was giving authority for the disclosure to be made from the Department of Trade and Industry, if it was not made from 10 Downing street. He expressed no view as to the form in which the disclosure should be made, though it was clear to all concerned that in the circumstances it was not possible to proceed by way of an agreed statement.

    My office were accordingly approached. They did not seek my agreement: they considered—and they were right — that I should agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that the fact that the then Defence Secretary’s letter of 3 January was thought by the Solicitor-General to contain material inaccuracies which needed to be corrected should become public knowledge as soon as possible, and before Sir John Cuckney’s press conference. It was accepted that the Department of Trade and Industry should disclose that fact and that, in view of the urgency of the matter, the disclosure should be made by means of a telephone communication to the Press Association. [Interruption.] Had I been consulted, I should have said that a different way must be found of making the relevant facts known.

    The report finds, in the light of the evidence, that the Department of Trade and Industry acted in good faith in the knowledge that it had the authority of its Secretary of State and cover from my office for proceeding. An official of the Department accordingly told a representative of the Press Association of the letter by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General and material elements of what it said. The company was also informed. The information was on the Press Association tapes at 3.30 pm.

    My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was, in my judgment, right in thinking that it was important that the possible existence of material inaccuracies in the letter of 3 January by the then Secretary of State for Defence should become a matter of public knowledge, if possible before Sir John Cuckney’s press conference at 4 pm that day. In so far as what my office said to the Department of Trade and Industry was based on the belief that I should have taken that view, had I been consulted, it was right. ​ My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has authorised me to inform the House that, having considered the report by the head of the Civil Service, and on the material before him, he has decided after consultation with, and with the full agreement of, the Director of Public Prosecutions and senior Treasury counsel, that there is no justification for the institution of proceedings under the Official Secrets Act 1911 in respect of any of the persons concerned in this matter.

    In order that there should be no impediment to cooperation in the inquiry, my right hon. and learned Friend had authorised the head of the Civil Service to tell one of the officials concerned, whose testimony would be vital to the inquiry, that he had my right hon. and learned Friend’s authority to say that, provided that he received full co-operation in his inquiry, the official concerned would not be prosecuted in respect of anything said during the course of the inquiry.

    The head of the Civil Service did, indeed, receive full co-operation not only from that official but from all concerned. My right hon. and learned Friend tells me that he is satisfied that that in no way interfered with the course of justice: on the facts as disclosed in the inquiry there would have been no question of proceeding against the official concerned.

  • Norman Fowler – 1986 Statement on Stanley Royd Hospital

    Below is the text of the statement made by Norman Fowler, the then Secretary of State for Social Services, in the House of Commons on 21 January 1986.

    With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Stanley Royd hospital inquiry report. I am this afternoon publishing the report of the committee of inquiry into the outbreak of food poisoning at Stanley Royd hospital, Wakefield.

    Stanley Royd is a large hospital in Wakefield for mentally ill and psychogeriatric patients. In a major outbreak of salmonella food poisoning which began on 26 August 1984, 355 patients and 106 members of staff were affected. Food poisoning caused, or contributed to, the deaths of 19 patients. At the time of the outbreak and subsequently, a number of allegations were made of errors in the control of infection, of poor standards of hygiene in the hospital kitchen and of other shortcomings.

    I announced in September 1984 that I was setting up a public inquiry into the outbreak under the chairmanship of Mr. John Hugill QC. The other members of the inquiry were Professor Rosalinde Hurley and Mr. Patrick Salmon. The committee heard oral evidence between February and May 1985. It submitted its report to me last month. I am most grateful to the chairman and members of the committee for all their work on this complex inquiry.

    The report gives a detailed account of the background to the outbreak and its course and of the actions taken by National Health Service staff.

    The committee concludes that the cause of the outbreak was salmonella which was probably brought into the kitchen in contaminated chickens, and that cold roast beef was the most likely vehicle of infection. The infection was able to multiply because the beef was not properly refrigerated. The committee found that a number of unhygienic and unsatisfactory practices had grown up in the hospital kitchen.

    The report pays tribute to the work of the junior doctors on duty during the early days of the outbreak and the care given by nursing staff on the wards. Those staff were working under very difficult conditions and their efforts were in the highest traditions of their professions.

    The committee makes criticisms on a number of matters. In particular, it comments on the failure to ensure satisfactory management of the kitchen at the hospital. It criticises medical and nursing management and in particular the failure to seek, or accept offers of, help from outside specialists, both in the investigation of the outbreak and in the treatment of the patients affected by it. The regional health authority and some officers at regional and district level are criticised for failing fully to inform themselves first-hand of the situation once the outbreak had occurred.

    Since the outbreak, Wakefield health authority has made a number of improvements in the kitchen and its management. I am now instructing it and the Yorkshire regional health authority to consider all the points raised by the report and to report to me urgently on the action they have taken and propose to take in response to them. That response must cover the position of those people whose conduct may have contributed to these tragic events, and the steps taken to ensure that such events do not recur.

    The report identifies serious failures of supervision and management. General managers have now been appointed by the Yorkshire regional health authority and Wakefield ​ health authority. As in all authorities, these managers carry clear and personal responsibility for securing effective action.

    A number of comments were made on the position at Stanley Royd prior to and during the inquiry. One of these concerned finance. On this the report says that it was not its

    “view that the question of financial restraints or constraints above the level of the region were relevant to any of the issues which we had to consider and, in taking this view, we are supported by the evidence given by witnesses from the Yorkshire regional health authority”.

    Another suggestion was that Crown premises like hospitals should be subject to the general food legislation. However, the report states that in the case of Stanley Royd the evidence did not support the need for the abolition of Crown immunity. The report says:

    “We find it impossible to recommend any change in the law on the vexed question of Crown immunity where the entirety of the evidence given to us by the professional environmental health officers was to the effect that the sanctions of the criminal law would not have been employed in respect of the kitchen at Stanley Royd, even if they had been available.”

    The Government will nevertheless continue the urgent review of Crown immunity for hospital kitchens, including the suggestion in the report that a “Crown notice” form of procedure should be initiated.

    The majority of the report’s formal recommendations are aimed at improving standards of hygiene in hospital kitchens and improving the investigation and control of any future outbreaks. The committee recognises that the departmental guidance on food hygiene in hospitals is basically sound and recommends that health authorities should be reminded of its terms. We had already done that before the report was received.

    In addition, I am urgently reviewing departmental guidance to health authorities on the steps that they must take to ensure proper food hygiene in hospitals and to ensure that environmental health officers are encouraged to visit, and that proper regard is paid to their recommendations. In doing so, I shall take full account of the Stanley Royd committee’s recommendations.

    I am referring the recommendations about the arrangements for the control of infection and the handling of outbreaks to the hospital infection working group. This group was set up last summer to advise me on the revision of departmental guidance on control of infection and I am asking it to give me the highest priority on contingency plans for dealing with outbreaks of infection—plans that will ensure that specialist help is brought in as soon as it is needed.

    There can be no doubt at all about the continuing need for proper provision of public health and community medicine advice within the management structure of the Health Service. The functions of the specialty of community medicine include not only the control of infectious diseases but the assessment of the needs of populations for health care, the planning and evaluation of health services and responsibility for prevention and health promotion.

    I have therefore decided that it would be right to establish an inquiry into the future development of the public health function, including the control of communicable diseases, and the specialty of community medicine in England.

    The inquiry will be a broad and fundamental examination of the role of public health doctors, including how such a role could best be fulfilled. The inquiry will be chaired by the Government’s Chief ​ Medical Officer, Dr. Donald Acheson, and I expect to receive its report before the end of the year. Details of membership will be finalised shortly. In the meantime, we shall take every step possible to prevent a recurrence of these tragic events.

  • Geoffrey Howe – 1986 Statement on Yemen

    Below is the text of the statement made by Geoffrey Howe, the then Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, in the House of Commons on 21 January 1986.

    With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the action being taken to secure the safety of British subjects and others in the People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen.

    On 13 January fighting broke out in Aden. The ferocity of the fighting presented grave risks to the safety of British subjects. In those circumstances, and with the full agreement of Her Majesty the Queen, the royal yacht Britannia, which was just leaving the Red sea, was ordered to remain off Aden, and Her Majesty’s ships Newcastle and Jupiter, with the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Brambleleaf, were ordered to Aden at full steam in case they were needed for an evacuation.

    The situation in the country continued to deteriorate and the level of fighting approached that of a civil war. After close consultation with the Russians and French, both in Aden and in capitals, it was agreed that evacuation was necessary and that, as far as possible, our efforts should be co-ordinated. On 17 January, Soviet merchant vessels lifted off from Aden about 1,000 people, mostly their own nationals. On the same day, the royal yacht took off 450 people, 38 of them British—44 nationalities altogether. Eighty-one French nationals were then transferred to a French ship, and the rest of the evacuees were taken on Britannia to Djibouti. The royal yacht then returned to the area and on 19 January lifted off a further 209 people from an area 35 miles from the capital. Eighteen of these were British. These have since arrived in Djibouti, ‘after transferring to HMS Jupiter. I am now very pleased to be able to add that Britannia has this morning picked up a further 15 British nationals from Little Aden. Britannia is maintaining close contact with the vessels of the other nations involved, and remains offshore nearby to take on board further parties of British and other foreign nationals as soon as conditions permit.

    So far, no British subjects have been hurt. However, a number of British subjects still remain in south Yemen and we are continuing to work out with other Governments the best ways of evacuating these widely scattered communities.

    On the evening of 17 January, when the embassy and residence had been rendered uninhabitable, the ambassador, Mr. Arthur Marshall, decided that he should withdraw all members of the embassy. At the end of the evacuation, he accompanied those on board to Djibouti but then returned on Britannia to the area, where he will remain with a member of his staff while the evacuation continues. Another member of his staff is on board HMS Newcastle.

    The success of the evacuation so far would not have been possible without the help given by a number of Governments, and in particular the Governments of Djibouti, the USSR and France. This has been a remarkable demonstration of what can be achieved through close international co-operation, and I take this opportunity to thank them warmly for their assistance.

    I should like to express my gratitude to all the staff of the Ministry of Defence and of the Diplomatic Service, at home and abroad, who have been involved in this operation. I should particularly like to thank our honorary ​ consul in Djibouti, Mr. Christopher Reddington. I know too that the whole House will join me in praising the calmness and efficiency of our ambassador in Aden, his staff, and their families throughout this difficult period.

    Their example has been matched by the fortitude of the British evacuees, who helped to organise the evacuation of hundreds of other nationals and who set an example of disciplined behaviour throughout.

    This is the first time that the royal yacht has been involved in a operation of this sort. It has received magnificent support from HM ships Newcastle and Jupiter, and Royal Fleet Auxiliary Brambleleaf, with its Merchant Navy crew. I should like to pay tribute to Rear-Admiral John Garnier and all the officers and crew involved for the courage and professionalism that they have shown in carrying out the operation in conditions of danger and difficulty. We can all be proud of them.

    Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East)

    We and the British people as a whole can be proud of this magnificent rescue. We rejoice that no British subjects have been injured or killed in spite of the ferocity of the fighting, and we join wholeheartedly with the Foreign Secretary in thanking and paying tribute to those of our people—the military, Admiral Garnier, the diplomatic staff, Mr. Marshall and those with him — who played and are playing such a wonderful part to ensure a successful outcome.

    The Foreign Secretary must be aware that the rescue amounts to probably the highest point of British-Soviet co-operation in a practical sphere since the end of the second world war. We hope that the spirit of good will will act as a precedent and will spill over into other fields of our bilateral relationships with the Soviet Union. However, the Soviet Union has learnt the cost, as have other peoples, including ourselves, the Israelis and the Americans, of unilateral intervention in a middle east country.

    I ask the Foreign Secretary, to report to the House in specific respects. Was the matter of the rescue raised in his discussions yesterday with Mr. Ryzhov, the Soviet Deputy Minister? On the best estimates available to him, how many Britons remain in South Yemen? Can he say how long it is expected that the royal yacht Britannia will remain close by and available for action? What is the Foreign Office reading of the position regarding who is in charge in South Yemen? Is it the Foreign Office view that the difference between the factions there is essentially on ideological lines, or is it more based on personal and tribal factors?

    Finally, are there any anxieties about the troubles in South Yemen spilling over into neighbouring territories, and possibly posing a threat to security in the region as a whole?

    Sir Geoffrey Howe

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for the kind way in which he has joined me in paying tribute to all those involved in the operation, and add my word of thanks to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces for his support throughout.

    The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the degree of co-operation between the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union on this occasion. One cannot presume from that high degree of co-operation that everything else will be handled in the same spirit, but I hope that it will not be the last occasion for improving relationships in this way. I was able to raise the matter with Mr. Ryzhov last ​ night, to thank him for the co-operation that had taken place, and to express the hope that it would continue in practical terms on the spot. It is worth reminding the House of what Admiral Garnier said this morning when he paid tribute to the fine atmosphere of international co-operation. He said that
    “the French, the Soviets and us are talking regularly, pooling our information, and everyone here is dedicated to the hope that we can get the remaining people off.”

    The hon. Gentleman asked precisely the questions which one would want to ask. It is not possible to be sure about the number of British subjects still left in the PDRY, but our inquiries suggest that the figure is likely to be about 40. Her Majesty has expressed her willingness for Britannia to remain for as long as there is a need for it to do so.

    It is not possible for me to offer any clear view on the outcome, because the situation is still very confusing, but it appears that the conflict arises from differences of a tribal kind rather than a political or ideological kind. So far, the problems have not spilt over into other neighbouring countries. If they did, it would naturally be a cause for concern. We are keeping in close touch with all those countries in the neighbourhood.

    Sir Antony Buck (Colchester, North)

    Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is refreshing to find the whole House able to unite in congratulating all those involved in this splendid operation? Does he agree that it has proved the utility of the royal yacht not only as a hospital ship on this occasion but as a facility which is extremely useful for us to have? It has proved itself in many other ways not only from an ideological point of view but as a fitting facility for the head of a great Commonwealth country?

    Sir Geoffrey Howe

    I agree with my hon. and learned, Friend’s first comments and with his tribute to the value of the royal yacht, with its particular suitability for an occasion of this kind and its value in a much wider representational capacity.

    Dr. David Owen (Plymouth, Devonport)

    I congratulate all those concerned, particularly the Soviet and French Governments. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that this shows the value of being able to deploy the Royal Navy east of Suez? In view of the announcement of the 7 per cent. real terms cut in the defence budget, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman use his influence to ensure that the Royal Navy surface ships are not cut back and that their present minimal numbers are fully maintained?

    Sir Geoffrey Howe

    I can well understand the right hon. Gentleman’s interest in this aspect. It illustrates the value of having this kind of capability available in so far as it is compatible with the continuing and difficult task of judging the pattern of priorities on defence expenditure more generally.

    Dr. John G. Blackburn (Dudley, West)

    Will my right hon. and learned Friend take note of early-day motions 322 and 323 which refer to Britannia? Will he send a signal to the admiral conveying the sentiments expressed in those early-day motions and pay a warm and generous tribute to the skipper and crew of the Diamond Princess, a British registered cargo ship which is reported to have saved some 600 people in the past 24 hours?​

    Sir Geoffrey Howe

    I shall certainly be willing to pay tribute to any vessels or individuals for the part that they have played, once that is established. I certainly join in the sentiments to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention in early-day motions 322 and 323. They pay a deserved tribute to those concerned in this rescue. I shall see that that tribute and my hon. Friend’s sentiments are conveyed to the rear admiral and those with him.

    Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)

    I, too, associate myself with the splendid work that has been undertaken. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the faction fighting in Yemen is a sharp warning to the Cabinet not to allow their disagreements to get out of hand?

    Sir Geoffrey Howe

    The hon. Gentleman can always be relied upon to make an inaccurate observation on almost any occasion.

    Mr. John Stokes (Halesowen and Stourbridge)

    Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the whole nation looks with great pride and gratitude on the achievements of the Royal Navy during the past few days? It notes once again the usefulness of the royal yacht, with its supporting small ships. It should be grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary for the way in which he masterminded the whole business.

    Sir Geoffrey Howe

    I am even more than usually grateful to my hon. Friend for the generosity of his tribute. The actions and decisions of those on the spot deserve particular thanks on this occasion.

    Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

    Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, as the rescue appears to have been a huge success, some of us are a bit curious about why the Prime Minister has not taken full advantage of it? Have arrangements been made to get her out there on the deck of Britannia with the television cameras?

    Perhaps the right hon. Lady could be seen shaking hands with the Soviets—perhaps a member of the KGB or even one of those who associate with the same group that has figured prominently in Jane’s Defence Weekly? What a wonderful picture would be painted!

    Sir Geoffrey Howe

    Only the hon. Gentleman would have used this occasion to illustrate his capacity to play the game of consequences in a profoundly inconsequential fashion.

    Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)

    Some of the preceding comments look a little odd beside the enormous relief felt by those who experienced the rescue in extremely dangerous circumstances. Was not great courage shown by those in the Diplomatic Service who assisted in getting the evacuees to the beaches and by those in the small boats who came from Britannia to take them off the beaches? Did not the BBC overseas service also play an important and necessary part in the rescue?

    Sir Geoffrey Howe

    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for returning our discussion to the proper note of seriousness and thankfulness. He was right to pay tribute to all those concerned and to the BBC world service, which has played an important communication role on this and other occasions.

    Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North)

    Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that Britannia’s versatility on this occasion is impressive and welcome to a wide section of our community, which wants Britannia to play ​ a wider role when the Queen does not require her? Does my right hon. and learned Friend have other roles in mind for HMS Britannia?

    Sir Geoffrey Howe

    It would not be for me to specify other roles. I certainly endorse my hon. Friend’s comments. Britannia is particularly suitable for this type of role, because she is a non-combatant vessel designed to handle a large number of people and well equipped with the necessary boats.

    Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East)

    May I add my congratulations on the successful operation in evacuating so many people from this unhappy territory? Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s desk yet had a chance to analyse the likelihood of whether the Administration likely to take over in PDRY will continue to welcome the opening to the West that the previous Administration were adopting?

    Sir Geoffrey Howe

    I think that it is too early to speculate on the nature of the Administration that may take over or on any difference in its direction. As I said, the dispute appears to arise more from personal and tribal conflicts of a traditional kind than from ideological variations.

    Mr. Peter Bruinvels (Leicester, East)

    Will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in congratulating the state of Djibouti on the speedy help it has rendered not only to the royal yacht Britannia but to the other ships that came in to take off so many people? Will he congratulate those people in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office who so speedily commandeered the royal yacht? Will he expand on the relationship with the Soviet Union in this case, because obviously the co-operation was unusual?

    Sir Geoffrey Howe

    I do not think that my hon. Friend has exactly the right insight into the relationships between the Foreign Office and the royal yacht. I join with my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the Djibouti Government for their particularly helpful attitude in receiving and handling thousands of evacuees and assisting in their repatriation. We are particularly grateful to President Hassan Goulad Aptidon for his help. Contact on this matter has taken place sensibly and practically between the embassies on the spot and between Foreign Ministries at this end directed from Moscow and Paris. This is how one would have expected the operation to proceed. One hopes that it will afford an insight into the way in which matters will develop in other respects.

    Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood)

    We are all rightly proud of the courage and efficiency of those involved in the evacuation. Is not the Soviet Union likely to benefit from what has transpired because Mr. Ismail was allowed to return to Yemen as a conscious policy act on its part? Although there may be some short-term turbulence, perhaps even bloody turbulence, the Soviet Union’s influence in that part of the world could be enhanced rather than diminished.

    Sir Geoffrey Howe

    My hon. Friend’s speculation may well be right. However, it would take a relatively optimistic Soviet adviser to perceive any clearly cheerful conclusion from the circumstances in which hundreds of Soviet citizens have been evacuated.

  • Nicholas Ridley – 1986 Statement on the Channel Tunnel

    Below is the text of the statement made by Nicholas Ridley, the then Secretary of State for Transport, in the House of Commons on 20 January 1986.

    With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Channel fixed link.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the President of France, meeting earlier today in Lille, announced the decision of the two Governments to take together the necessary steps to facilitate the construction of a fixed link across the Channel by the Channel Tunnel Group. Copies of the joint statement are being made available in the Vote Office.

    We will publish as soon as possible a White Paper that will give the full reasons for this decision. It will also chart the next steps to give effect to that decision, the treaty, the concession agreement and the legislation.

    The two Governments were faced with four proposals of outstanding quality which reflect great credit on the firms involved. It is remarkable that such keen competition could develop to provide and finance privately a project of this magnitude. The key factors that led the Government to select the Channel Tunnel Group were as follows.

    Eurobridge was eliminated largely on technical grounds. It is an imaginative and forward-looking proposal, but the technical risks make it too speculative for the two Governments to believe that it was likely to be financed and successfully completed.

    The choice between Channel Tunnel Group, Channel Expressway and EuroRoute was a more difficult one. They differ widely as to their technical characteristics, their impact on the environment, their effect upon shipping, and their vulnerability to terrorist attack—all factors in the decision. The invitation to promoters made it clear that any fixed link had to be financed, constructed and operated without support from public funds, and without Government guarantees against technical and commercial risks. It is thus for investors ultimately to determine whether a fixed link is built. The Governments had to try to select the scheme which offered the best prospects of attracting investors’ support.

    Both EuroRoute and Channel Expressway answer the popular desire to drive from one country to the other with the independence and freedom of a drive-through link, but both have large technical risks. CTG’s is a well-developed project, relying on well-proven technology and is both less risky and less expensive. It offers a fast and efficient rail shuttle service for road passengers and freight, with very frequent departures and no booking. It presents no problems to maritime traffic in the Channel, and is the least vulnerable to terrorist attack. Its environmental impact can be reduced to an acceptable level. The Government concluded that CTG was the best scheme to go forward to the market.

    The Government remain very much aware of the arguments that the public would like a drive-through link. In due course, the conditions may arise when a drive-through link would be viable. We have therefore secured an undertaking from the CTG that it will put forward by the year 2000 a proposal for a drive-through link to be undertaken as soon as its technical feasibility is assured, and economic circumstances and the growth of traffic allow it to be financed without undermining the return on ​ the original link. At a later stage, the Governments will be free to invite competitive bids for a further link coming into operation not before the year 2020.

    I expect the signature of the Anglo-French treaty to take place in February, and the concession agreement between the Governments and the Channel Tunnel Group to be concluded shortly thereafter. The legislation will then be introduced into this House as soon as possible. Construction could begin by summer 1987.

    Consultations in Kent have so far focused on the question of which scheme the Government should adopt. We must now concentrate upon making the chosen scheme as acceptable as possible. We will want to minimise the environmental impact, and to consider carefully the employment consequences of this development. We will be sympathetic if problems seem likely to arise in east Kent when the link opens some seven years from now.

    We must arrive at satisfactory arrangements with the promoters for the disposal of spoil and on other environmental matters, and we will ensure that the necessary road infrastructure is provided. The White Paper will deal with these questions.

    The Channel tunnel is a massive and difficult project. It will be a challenge to our engineers, our technicians and our financial institutions. Equally, I believe that it will be of great benefit to travellers and exporters alike in giving them cheaper, quicker and more reliable access to the continent of Europe.

    Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North)

    In opting for the Channel Tunnel Group tender, the Government—against the instincts and prejudices of the Prime Minister—have chosen a fixed link which has the potential of matching Britain’s needs for an integrated transport policy. However, in rushing this decision through in such a tight time scale, the Secretary of State has broken his promise to Parliament on 9 December that he would publish a White Paper on the same day as the decision was announced. I suspect that this will not be the last of his broken promises.

    A number of questions must be answered. Exactly when will the White Paper be published? Will the Secretary of State fight in the Cabinet to get a debate in Government time before the treaty between Britain and France is signed? The right hon. Gentleman said that the White Paper would refer to the treaty and various other things. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore answer this question precisely: will he fight in the Cabinet to get a debate in Government time?

    Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that no obstacles will be placed in the way of those most affected by the scheme and that their views will be thoroughly canvassed by the Select Committee? What guarantees can the right hon. Gentleman provide that the British share of construction costs will be spent on British goods and that British labour will be employed on the project? As we know that the French are keen to gain the maximum advantage from this fixed link and to have the maximum investment in SNCF, will the right hon. Gentleman produce an investment plan in conjunction with British Rail so that BR can maximise the opportunities which the link may offer?

    Will the right hon. Gentleman do what he can to establish customs clearance facilities in major regional centres in order to encourage the carriage of long-haul freight by British Rail? Will he ensure that the terminal ​ points from which passengers may travel are spread throughout the regions? Will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that any public expenditure on infrastructure will he new money and will not be taken out of existing budgets?

    Now that the Government have taken the decision, it is their duty to ensure that any benefits are evenly spread throughout the country. The Government have a responsibility to the nation as a whole.

    Mr. Ridley

    I was not clear whether the hon. Gentleman was in favour of the link. It is curious that we have had such a grudging response to this statement on the day when the Leader of the Opposition has made a speech—I saw the Tape as I came in—calling for a massive programme to reverse the decline in the British economy.

    I shall publish a White Paper giving a mass of the information which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) has sought and which other hon. Members will seek. The decision was taken only a day or two ago, so it seems right that I should postpone publication until full details of the decision can be included in the White Paper. I hope that the details will be published within a week or two, or shortly thereafter.

    The question of a debate is, of course, one for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to consider.

    The hon. Gentleman asked me to ensure that objectors to the scheme would have an opportunity to put their views. I confirm that they will be able to present their case as petitioners before the Select Committee in this House and in another place, if the Select Committee is prepared to give them status. I shall encourage the Select Committee to be as wide as possible in accepting petitioners.

    I can tell the hon. Gentleman-he might even be pleased to hear this—that I believe that a good deal has been done between the British and the French railways, and between those railways and the promoters, which will result in large-scale orders for rolling stock. I am certain that all those who are concerned on the British side will do their utmost to provide as many jobs as they can on this side of the Channel.

    We hope to site national customs controls as far as possible next to each other at the entry to the link of each direction of travel so that there will not be duplication or stopping for through passengers, but there still have to be customs and immigration controls.

    As to public spending on infrastructure, there will be new money, in the sense that this is a new project. However, whether or not a new link is built, there will still be a need to expand the road system to the channel ports because of the great increase in traffic that is taking place.

    Mr. Geoffrey Rippon (Hexham)

    As one of my right hon. Friend’s predecessors as Secretary of State for Transport who brought similar proposals before the House more than a decade ago, I congratulate him and welcome his conversion to the project. I express my appreciation at the success of his negotiations and promise my wholehearted support to the scheme.

    Mr. Ridley

    I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for those wise words. In mitigation of what he said about me, I should point out the small difference between his attempt to get his link constructed and mine, which is that on this occasion no taxpayers’ money will be involved.

    ​Mr. Stephen Ross (Isle of Wight)

    We welcome the decision that has been made today, and we are grateful for the fact that this project has been chosen and not one of the others.

    The right hon. Gentleman said of the chosen scheme: “Its environmental impact can be reduced to an acceptable level.” Does he agree that that can be done only if British Rail has adequate capital resources to make full use of the whole network, including the midlands, the north and Scotland? I realise that this is not in his hands, but will he try to persuade the Select Committee to hold hearings in Dover and Folkestone. This would be the right way forward, because people would be able to make their views heard.

    Mr. Ridley

    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the support that he brings on behalf of the Liberal party for the decision that we have made to choose the Channel Tunnel Group. I am sure that that will be as welcome to Liberals throughout east Kent as it is to the Government. I congratulate him on his courageous support for what he knows to be right. Massive investment will be required by British Rail. A conventional-speed train system will need about £290 million, and a high-speed train system about £390 million, and there will be further investment in the shuttle rail equipment, which will be undertaken by the Channel Tunnel Group. Some large orders from the promoters and the railways are to come for this part of the project. It opens up great new opportunities for extending the railway system right from the north of our country into the farthest corners of Europe. I join the hon. Gentleman in hoping that the Select Committee on the hybrid Bill will be prepared to travel and hear evidence in the affected areas of Kent.

    Mr. Peter Rees (Dover)

    Will my right hon. Friend recognise that his statement will not allay the c’eep and legitimate concern in east Kent about the implications of a fixed link?

    Therefore, will he accept the need for close and continuing consultation with the local interests likely to be affected? Can he give the House any reassurance that there will be a proper and continuing role for the ferries and ports of Dover and Folkestone? Will he reassure the House that any extra economic activity generated by the fixed link will be retained in east Kent and not be drawn to north-west France?

    Mr. Ridley

    I should like to be as helpful as I can to my right hon. and learned Friend, who has done so much to represent to me the views and fears of his constituents—as has my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) who, as we all know, cannot speak for himself.

    My hon. and learned Friend has made clear, as has my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Rees), the views and fears of constituents on the south-east coast of Kent. As a result of their representations I have decided to set up a joint committee consisting of officials, local authority representatives of the area and the promoters. It will be chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Mr. Mitchell), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, and it will go into all the points of local concern and difficulty, in the hope of improving the impact of the scheme on both the environment and the economics of the affected areas.

    I cannot accurately forecast the effect on the ferries to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred. ​ However, I believe that there will be a continuing role for them, even after the link has been opened. Dover has some of the longer distance routes, as well as short sea routes. The growth in traffic is expected to be very great, and I am sure that the ferries will have a share of it. I am also certain that many people will prefer to choose one mode of transport rather than another.

    When it is opened, I believe that this huge new artery will carry an immense number of passengers as well as a vast amount of trade between the continent and this country and that it will act as a magnet for new economic development and investment. If the planning policies of the local councils are right, there will be great opportunities for additional development in the east Kent area.

    Mr. Donald Stewart (Western Isles)

    Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of us view this project as simply the biggest election bribe in history? It is clear that this decision has been arrived at without due consideration of its implications for Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom and of its effect upon the merchant service. Will the right hon. Gentleman hold up this project until a commission has fully investigated all these aspects?

    Mr. Ridley

    The link will greatly benefit constituents throughout the country, including those in Scotland. If goods can be sent to the continent more quickly, more cheaply and without the risk of delay, and if people can travel to the continent more quickly, more cheaply and without the risk of delay, that will aid the competitiveness and trade of the whole country. These are not Government funds which could be spent in other directions. A great deal of this money will be international money. A great deal of this capital will go only to projects which are chosen internationally. It will not be possible to direct it elsewhere.

    Mr. David Howell (Guildford)

    Will my right hon. Friend accept that the Government have made by far the best and most sensible choice by choosing the Channel Tunnel Group’s scheme from among the other fixed link options? Will he also accept that this is the only scheme that ensures that a substantial amount of the growth in traffic will still go to the ferry operators? Will he say a word about the plans for streamlining the handling of customs and immigration, in particular the possibility of on-train customs handling, since this would represent an important asset for the project?

    Mr. Ridley

    I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. I welcome his support because he, too, studied this matter in depth when he had my responsibilities. He is correct in saying that this choice means that the opportunities for continuing the ferry operations are great indeed, although it is difficult to be specific about the precise amount.

    My right hon. Friend asked about customs and immigration. We are working hard on this matter. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury is still hoping to find ways to improve this service. For many reasons, we shall need both customs and immigration. The reasons include the prevention of disease through plants and animals being carried through the link. Controls will therefore be needed.

    I am anxious that a special arrangement should not be provided for the through trains which use the link which ​ would be competitively disadvantageous for the ferries or for any other forms of transport. To concentrate both the French and the English controls at the point of departure in each direction will mean at least that passengers are stopped only once, and that control acts only once.

    Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier (Sunderland, South)

    In making the decision to have a fixed link, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on following the guidance of the Select Committee on Transport. I only wish that he had done so on the occasion of the Bill dealing with buses.

    The courage of the Minister has been mentioned, so I congratulate him on taking the hazardous line of disagreeing with his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on her reported preference for another scheme. Will the Minister give an undertaking that when the White Paper is published he will make strong representations to his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to ensure that it is debated and that a decision is taken by the House before the treaty with France is signed?

    Mr. Ridley

    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The report of the Select Committee on Transport was most helpful. I am pleased that we have been able to agree with it entirely. The hon. Gentleman did a quick and expert job, and the Government are grateful to him.

    This has been a rather frustrating time for the press, because its members have been unable to discover what has been happening. Some hon. Members may have seen misleading statements in the press, which, I am happy to say, are untrue. The Government are united in their choice, and we agree with the French as well.

    Debates are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but there will be a Second Reading debate on the hybrid Bill.

    Sir Julian Ridsdale (Harwich)

    Is my right hon. Friend aware that his optimism about the future of the ferries is not shared by some of the ferry operators? Will he consider the matter carefully, to ensure that this decision has not sounded the death knell for the British merchant marine, which has served this country so well?

    Mr. Ridley

    Some ferry operators are more pessimistic than I have been this afternoon about the prospects. However, it will be seven or eight years before any link can be opened. During that time we expect a massive growth in traffic to the continent, which will result in extra business for the ferries. The extent of the business that they will retain is hard to predict, but I am not pessimistic about the prospects for my hon. Friend’s constituency.

    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich)

    As the transport unions have been especially careful to offer positive co-operation, will the Secretary of State suggest to the chairman of the Channel Tunnel Group that it is unhelpful to give the impression that he would be prepared to use non-union labour on a fixed link?

    Mr. Ridley

    Far be it from me to make suggestions to the chairman of the Channel Tunnel Group after we have made our decision and accepted the final proposals as modified. However, there may be some disagreement about what the hon. Lady has said. The customers using the link will place great reliance upon the fact that it will not be subject to strikes and interruption. The hon. Lady’s question is a strange one. To ask to ensure the possibility of unionised activity and strikes is to sound a warning note of the true face of the Labour party.​

    Mr. David Crouch (Canterbury)

    Is my right hon. Friend aware of how bitter the opposition is in east Kent to the proposition? Is he further aware that, although I give the proposition my support on national grounds, I am sorry that I am unable to carry my constituents with me? Will my right hon. Friend offer my constituents and the environmental societies more than a hybrid Bill as a means of registering their complaints? Will he offer them consultation with officers in his Department, so that they will feel that they are being heard and that something is being done about their complaints?

    Mr. Ridley

    I am fully aware of the feelings in east Kent. My hon. Friend and I have visited the area and discussed the matter with local people. I share my hon. Friend’s view that there is still much apprehension. In response to this, we shall undertake a major consultative programme in the area and, in addition, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will chair a co-ordinating committee of the local authorities, the promoters and the Government as problems arise.

    The procedures of the hybrid Bill Committee will allow almost anyone who is affected to make representations, not just to the Committee in this House but to the Committee in another place. Those are full and proper arrangements for hearing local objections, and I confirm that the Government and the promoters will do what they can to adapt the scheme to local requirements.

    Mr. Bruce Millan (Glasgow, Govan)

    Is the Secretary of State aware that many of us are resolutely opposed to a Channel fixed link, whether this project or any other, for the reason which the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged in answer to a previous question, namely, that this will suck further economic activity into the south-east of England, which is the last place in Britain that needs such stimulus? This is just another project that will widen the north-south divide, and it will be bitterly opposed, especially in Scotland.

    Mr. Ridley

    My hon. Friends who represent Kent have expressed concern about the effect on Kent, although not in the sense that it will suck jobs from Scotland into Kent. I believe that the link will create some growth in jobs. The orders that will be placed for rolling stock and other manufactures will be of great benefit to the entire country. The fact that Scottish exports will be able to reach the continent more cheaply and more quickly should be recognised as a help to the competitiveness of the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents and, therefore, to their advantage.

    Sir Hector Monro (Dumfries)

    Will my right hon. Friend conduct careful consultations about conservation before producing a White Paper? Will he have discussions with the Nature Conservancy Council, which is the Government’s adviser, and which wishes to put strong points to him?

    Mr. Ridley

    We are always keen to take what action we can to assist in improving arrangements for conservation. My hon. Friend will know that geography dictates where the tunnel will come out and where the service area will have to be. It would be difficult to change that now.

    Mr. Roland Boyes (Houghton and Washington)

    Is the Secretary of State aware that I and the majority of my constituents completely oppose the building of the fixed ​ link? We live in an area of high unemployment, and we cannot understand why the Government can encourage the expenditure of billions of pounds on building a hole in the ground, instead of encouraging such expenditure on building structures above the ground. The construction of new schools, houses and hospitals would reduce unemployment in my area. This project will increase unemployment there.

    Mr. Ridley

    This is not Government cash which could be used to build schools, hospitals or other structures in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. It is international capital, which will go to projects only where investors believe they can earn a reward. It is far better that that capital should be used to build a Channel link than to build factories on the continent, which might make the competitiveness of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents even worse. I repeat that a most useful benefit to the north of England and Scotland will be the fact that goods will be transported more cheaply to their markets. Transport is an important factor in industrial costs, and anything that we can do to reduce transport costs will help industry.

    Sir John Wells (Maidstone)

    Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great opportunities that will be created for new employment in Kent, despite fears of early local unemployment on the ferries and elsewhere? Will he encourage Kent county council and the district authorities to grant planning permission, so that Kent may grow, with great prospects for our people? In north Kent unemployment is as high as it is anywhere in the country.

    Mr. Ridley

    I agree with my hon. Friend that there is great potential for further development arising from the link. However, such development must depend on the planning policies pursued by district councils. I have been in close touch with the chairman of Kent county council, who came to Lille with me early this morning. We have throughout discussed the problems and opportunities which the link presents. I undertake to keep in close touch with the Kent local authorities to ensure that every opportunity is taken to help.

    Mr. John Cartwright (Woolwich)

    Given the considerable public interest in having a drive-through link in addition to the rail tunnel, does the Secretary of State accept that the year 2000 seems a long way off? What steps will he take to encourage the CTG to tackle the technical problems involved well before that deadline, and how firmly committed are the French Government to the concept of a drive-through link at a future date?

    Mr. Ridley

    Both Governments would have liked to see a drive-through link, but the problems are fairly formidable, in the sense of a 5 or 6-kilometre stretch near the French coast where the strata are difficult and unknown. It will be of great assistance to drive the bored tunnels of the CTG through those strata, whet more information about the possibility of a bigger tunnel for a drive-through link can be gathered. There was always doubt about the ventilation system proposed by Channel Expressway. With further advances in that technology, and with the greater geological information that we hope to obtain, it may be possible to drive a bigger tunnel through at a later stage. The CTG’s undertaking, which will be spelt out and put into the White Paper, makes it possible to do that fairly soon, or, in default of that, for a further invitation to be made to promoters so that a drive-through link would come into existence by the year 2,020.

  • Lawrence Cunliffe – 1986 Speech on Opencast Mining

    Below is the text of the speech made by Lawrence Cunliffe, the then Labour MP for Leigh, in the House of Commons on 20 January 1986.

    First of all, may I place on record my gratitude to the Minister for responding so quickly to what is in essence an emergency debate. I apologise to the House on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis), who is ill with influenza and unable to be here. I managed to bridge the gap and I shall speak on opencast mining and the 10-year draft plan of the National Coal Board for the greater Manchester area.

    I have a special interest in this debate because I am the chairman of the miners’ parliamentary group and a member of the national executive of the National Union of Mineworkers. I am also the energy Whip of my party. I want it clearly understood that I shall be speaking first about the adverse effects opencast mining has had on the lives of ordinary people in the greater Manchester area for something like 150 years. I shall also speak about whether opencast mining has a useful part to play in the energy requirements of our nation.

    It is known that during the unfortunate period of strife and trauma that the mining industry recently endured, some people took the view that it would not have come about if the Government’s energy policy had fully taken into account that we have in coal an indigenous fuel with a potential of some 300 years’ supply. That could be used at the proper time for our energy requirements. It is a vital natural resource and should be safeguarded and used only when it is necessary to do so.

    The Minister will know that opencast mining was an emergency undertaking that complemented deep coal mining after the second world war. From about 1946–47 it found its place within our global target of coal production in the nationalised industry run by the National Coal Board.

    Opencast mining was never meant to be a substitute for deep coal mining. Unfortunately, it is now considered an asset, not in the sense that it is considered imperative that we get the coal, but in the sense that it is a cheap form of fuel that is quickly mined and, as we say, in the wagon, with the money in the bank in a few days or a few weeks. I am a former mining engineer and I know that eight to 10 years is required to sink a pit. Before it becomes economic and fruitful it needs a considerable amount of planning and deep coal mining is much more expensive than opencast mining.

    I do not believe—nor, at times, do the Government—that we have a rational national energy policy that considers all types of fuels in the context of global requirements. Thousands of ordinary householders are suffering because of this great intrusion into their lives which is causing, in their opinion and that of my colleagues, wholesale havoc and devastation. Visual amenities, repairs to services, local infrastructure—roads, sewers, and so on—and rural areas have been affected. Partly rural areas have been spoiled, as we noted during the long public inquiry on behalf of a Member of the other place. It was conceded at the end of the inquiry that the environmentalists were half right and that the applicant was right also.

    There is no doubt about the disturbance, noise, dirt and constant problems where opencast mining occurs in residential areas. I should like to make some suggestions which might mitigate some of the hardship suffered. Properties are sometimes affected by large schemes for as long as 15 years. That is an inordinate period during which householders have to put up with the problem. When they purchase their houses, they often do not dream that they will become the victim of such an environmental intrusion into their lives.

    I shall give a classic example of one development which affects three sides of my constituency—the Leigh, Atherton and Tyldesley townships. The project involves 11 years of excavation and five years reclamation. People at the end of the site, as are some of my constituents, expect to be adversely affected for 16 years, if the NCB’s targeted time scale is met. That is unreasonable. Through no fault of their own, my constituents are the victims of this cruel series of events.

    There is a 10-year plan which involves a strategy plan, based on identified sites and areas of search in the mining communities. The sites suggested in the draft mineral local plan for the greater Manchester area basically surround the perimeter of Wigan and adjoining authority areas and penetrate into greater Manchester. They do not include potential opencast sites that have already been identified. This means that the areas have been identified by the NCB opencast executive as “areas of current interest”, which is not quite the same as “identified sites”. Obviously, this causes extreme concern to the residents, and all the protection groups that have formed in that vast area of search.

    They are worried that, some 40 or 50 years afterwards, they could be landed with opencast mining for the next half century. I am being quite logical about this point, and I am not being speculative, because I know the area. Such a proposition would be a nightmare to ordinary people. There are examples in the area to show that this has happened before.

    One of the problems is that the weak substrata could be in residential areas. Neither the Government nor the local authorities have ever commissioned a proper, in-depth, independent geological survey of the areas built on such substrata. This evening I was looking at the history of a pit in my constituency, dealing with what happened there 198 years ago. I shall not bore the House with the details of what happened. However, one third of the pit is within the site about which we are talking, which will produce about 2 million tonnes of opencast coal within the next 16 years.

    The problem is that no one is responsible for seeing what could happen when an area that has been honeycombed for the past 200 years with 300 mineshafts within a radius of five miles is worked again. One of the problems is that no direct geological survey is made. It is possible that geological movements would be triggered off from the dozens of old mine workings.

    I understand the problems. The Minister came to help out in haste, and some of the blame lies with the Department of the Environment, and is not his responsibility. It is fair, sensible, and should be obligatory, that all those who apply—whether it is the National Coal Board or any private applicant—for permission to mine an area, should present to the authority an independent geological survey of the area. It will then be up to the local authority, the councillors of which will be briefed on the data available, to make its judgment on ​ an application. That would be a more fair and honest method. A judgment could be made more rationally and soundly. The NCB, which is the main applicant for planning permission to mine such areas, will then be responsible for those areas.

    The NCB always uses the phrase, “There is no evidence to suggest.” On the other hand, there has been no positive planning identification by the National Coal Board that allows it to say, hand on heart, that old mineworkings in that area will not cause disturbance.

    New arrangements were introduced in 1984. They are the subject of circular 3/84 from the Department of the Environment. It places opencast mining fairly and squarely within the planning system and all that flows from that. Compensation should be paid to those communities from whose area coal is removed. Financial recompense should be made to the communities that have borne the brunt of mining operations. I have already described the adverse effects of opencast coalmining, which are fully acknowledged in paragraph 20 of the Government circular. It says that local planning authorities will need to consider how best high standards of management and operation of sites might be achieved through measures agreed with the industry. It states that the agreements provided for in section 52 of the Coal Industry Act 1971 are to be enforced by means of the planning conditions. It is, however, clear that the possibility of securing compensation cannot be dealt with in that way.

    Therefore I implore the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy to consult the Department of the Environment and to suggest that, where mining takes place, an amount should be calculated, as compensation to the local authorities and to the areas and communities concerned, as a percentage of the value of recovered coal. I believe that that would be an honest criterion. If opencast mining must be imposed on the population in this area, compensation should be paid to them.

    The National Coal Board should agree in principle to accept its responsibility to help local communities. If such an agreement could be obtained, we would be on the first rung of the ladder towards the introduction of legislation to provide protection and some degree of recompense for the great environmental intrusions caused by opencast mining.

    I stress again that the extent of underground mining activities in areas such as these has been so great that much of it is unrecorded, while other records no longer exist. An area that had been subject to subsidence but which appeared to have been stabilised was considered by the planning authorities to be suitable as building land. Residential and other types of property now stand upon that land. These are worn-out areas. We are referring to areas which for 250 years have been subject to the kind of activities that I have described. It is only right, when our national energy resources are being planned, that relief of some kind should be provided. Either monetary relief or better planning conditions should be introduced to safeguard the interests and the environment of these communities. I commend to the House and the various Departments my suggestions about trying to help and to grant some kind of sustenance, especially to those who, unfortunately, have to suffer that type of ordeal.

    ​ I mentioned long periods of perhaps 15 or 20 years, but an average is about five to 10 years. Nevertheless, there are exceptional circumstances and I hope that the Minister will consider my arguments carefully.

  • Colin Moynihan – 1986 Speech on Special Constables

    Below is the text of the speech made by Colin Moynihan, the then Conservative MP for East Lewisham, in the House of Commons on 17 January 1986.

    The House will regret the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway). He had the good fortune to draw today’s Adjournment debate on the special constabulary. Regrettably, his younger child has fallen ill, and rightly, he is with his family. I am sure that all hon. Members will wish his baby a speedy recovery. My hon. Friend’s views on the subject are well known and respected by hon. Members. He is wholly committed to a growing role for the special constabulary, and seeks a clear sign of political will from his colleagues to support it in its present and future role to uphold law and order. Although it may be unusual, it is a mark of my respect for him and of the importance of the subject that I have chosen the same title for my Adjournment debate.

    The special constabulary receives all too little credit for the service it provides to both the public and the regular forces. It is a very British idea. Only recently it celebrated the passing of the Special Constables Act 1831, 155 years ago. We ask ordinary members of the public to give some practical help to the police, and we give them the same powers as regular officers. That sounds a concept fraught with dangers and difficulties, but it works.

    For years specials have been carrying out the duties asked of them without giving civil liberty activists the slightest cause for complaint. I suspect that those activists share the general public’s ignorance of the contribution and, even, the existence of the special constabulary. I share the views expressed in the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), who said in a similar Adjournment debate—too much time has elapsed since we discussed the subject in detail—

    “My purpose in initiating the debate … is to call on the Government to expand, strengthen and revitalise the specials, so that they can be built up into an effective and well-trained police reserve with roots in their local communities. … The priorities for the specials are more training and more recruitment. Neither priority should be all that difficult to achieve, provided the political will exists, because there are such solid foundations to build on within the existing structure of the special constabulary.”—[Official Report, 31 July 1981; Vol. 9, c. 1410.]

    Those words are equally true today.

    I recognise and applaud the fact that the long decline in the number of special constables has been halted since those words were uttered. However, I find it hard to believe that only 15,000 or 16,000 men and women are willing to give a few hours a week to this important work when 45,000 were employed in 1964. Is enough being done to inform potential applicants, and to make the work attractive? I fear that the answers may be No. I am looking for answers to those questions from the Government Front Bench today. I seek an assurance from the Government that the specials are being taken seriously. I am confident that my hon. Friend the Minister will give me that assurance, but I hope that he will go on to describe the role within the police service that the Government seek for the special constabulary.

    Is enough being done to inform the public about the specials, and to encourage recruitment? If any hon. Member conducted a survey of his constituents he would find that the majority would not know of the existence of ​ the special constabulary. Even most of those who have heard of the specials will have little idea of what they do. Some constituents would be surprised and alarmed to discover that for a few hours every week their next-door neighbour or friend down the road had all the powers and privileges of a regular constable, and used them. They would be even more surprised to learn that special constables had existed for 155 years.

    Cannot we make greater inroads into that widespread ignorance? From time to time in the national newspapers I see advertisements for regular officers and for other voluntary national bodies, such as the Territorial Army. I cannot remember seeing any advertisement for the special constabulary. Yet that could be the subject matter, particularly for local newspapers. There are human interest stories that could be sensibly written up by such excellent local papers as the Lewisham Star, Mercury and the South London Press, to mention only those in my borough. I would welcome such an initiative.

    There is great difficulty in recruiting special constables, even in London. Catford has one divisional officer, one sub-divisional officer and 11 special constables, but it would need 40 to 50 officers. Lewisham has one divisional officer, one sub-divisional officer and only five special constables; it could do with about 30 to 40 constables. Divisional Officer Jenkins of Lewisham has given outstanding service to the force and to the country for about 21 years. He has a bar to his long service medal, which I understand means that he has served for a minimum of 19 years. He is competent, responsible and has great experience. He is much liked in the force and in the community that he serves, and I pay tribute to him and to his colleagues.

    Why do I say that human interest stories are involved? During the past year, Lewisham special constables, who work voluntarily, have done duty at Millwall, have patrolled regularly in pairs and have helped elderly folk. The sight of the policeman out of the panda car and on the beat is important in removing the fear of crime, which is larger than the incidence of crime, among the population, They also participated in Brave Defender, on the security side, patrolling Biggin Hill 24 hours a day for three to four days. Their role in ceremonials, including the Easter parade, is well known to all who follow their work in London, but I fear not to the majority of the population. I emphasise that the critical part of their work is the removal of the fear of crime by their presence on the streets, in the estates and especially among the elderly and responsible citizens, who like to see officers patrolling the streets on foot and who like to know their officers personally.

    There are other ways in which police forces could bring the existence of the special constabulary to the notice of local residents. I should be glad if my hon. Friend would say something about the methods used by forces and how successful they are. I should be interested to know what the Government do at national level to increase the size of the special constabulary.

    On the important subject of relations with regular officers, it is possible that the Government take specials seriously. It is possible that senior police officers are clearly aware of the value of special constables. But I wonder whether that view is shared all the way down the line in the police force? If we are to use the special constabulary to its full potential, we must be certain that there is no friction with regular officers. Specials must be ​ fully integrated into the force. I have heard it said that some regular officers do not view the efforts of the special constabulary as important. I have also heard of resistance from regular officers to the extension of the special’s work into more vital areas of police activity. But if there is a lack of trust between specials and regular officers elsewhere than in Lewisham and Catford, where it does not appear to be a problem, it will be difficult for the Government to make progress. There must be a clear understanding on both sides of the limits of the role of the special constabulary. Will my hon. Friend tell us whether there is a problem here? if so, what is he doing about it?

    I mentioned the extension of the specials’ work. Ordinary men and women will not wish to devote their spare time to the police service unless they get some reward. I am not talking about a financial reward, although I shall say something about that later. I am talking about gaining satisfaction from the work and feeling that they are making a contribution to the force. If we use specials only for the dull, undemanding tasks which regular officers do not wish to undertake, we cannot reasonably expect them to attract recruits or to keep them once they have been attracted. People will not be moved to apply by the prospect of standing in the rain every November to line the route for the Lord Mayor’s show. they will, understandably, decide that they have better things to do. Surely we can offer them better things within the special constabulary.

    One area where specials could play a useful role is in crime prevention. It is the soft end of policing, but it is just as important as the hard end—public order policing—for which specials are clearly not qualified.

    Much has been done recently to help people to help themselves. The specials have a foot in both camps. They are part of the community as well as part of the police force. Most are deployed in the area in which they live. If they are more involved in neighbourhood watch schemes in their area, other local residents might find it easier to identify with them and might be more ready to turn to them. People might find it easier to get into contact with a special constable who is also a local resident than with a beat constable who lives at the other end of the borough.

    I know that in London, and in my borough of Lewisham in particular, the Metropolitan police have made some progress in involving the special constabulary in crime prevention work. I should be interested to learn from my hon. Friend the Minister whether other forces have taken similar steps and whether more work could be done on the important neighbourhood watch schemes which have done so much good in terms of upholding law and order, certainly in London and, as I understand, throughout the country.

    If specials are to perform more duties in the mainstream of police work and if they are to do so in a way that attracts the respect of regular officers, they must be properly trained. They cannot just pick it up as they go along. They have important powers to exercise and they must be taught how to use them.

    I recognise that there are problems in providing training for part-time volunteers. It is difficult to plan a programme when one cannot be certain who will attend, and when, but the problems are not insuperable. Anyone who has a commitment to the police service—which every special must have—will be prepared to make the effort to ​ ensure that he is equipped to do the job properly. It is not unreasonable for the specials to give up the occasional weekend.

    It is in the specials’ interest not just to ensure that they can carry out the work with knowledge and confidence but to provide a wider and more fulfilling range of tasks. The training that they are given must not be superficial. The training given to regular officers is unsuitable for specials, but the courses that specials undertake must be just as professional. A member of the public will be upset when a constable misuses his powers whether he is a regular or a special. I seek an assurance that the special constabulary is being taken seriously.

    Earlier, I mentioned the need to provide a reward for the time that specials devote to the service. I was talking about a sense of personal satisfaction. Such a reward is most important to special constables. However, we should not assume that a financial reward in unnecessary. At the moment, specials receive various allowances but no remuneration. I know that the question of making some kind of payment, perhaps along the lines of the Territorial Army bounty, has been considered. I can see that there are arguments on both sides.

    I am interested in having more special constables. The only question that interests me is whether a payment would persuade more public-spirited members of the community to offer their spare time to help the police. As specials are not paid, I assume that the Government think that the answer to that question is no. They may be right, but the question still needs to be asked from time to time. It is important to many special constables. To some it may seem as though a lack of payment is a measure of the ‘value that the Government place on their work. I am sure that they are wrong, but I should be grateful for some light on the Government’s thinking.

    This is a secondary issue compared to that of job satisfaction, and I believe that the vast majority of special constables take the same view. However, we should note the benefits of a formal payment along the lines of the Territorial Army bounty.

    My hon. Friend may make a fair point about paying special constables—that even without payment forces are finding it possible to attract recruits. I leave aside the question whether a payment would attract more. I wish the House to consider the fact that without the promise of a financial reward, and at the cost of their spare time, men and women are prepared to offer their services to help the police with the heavy burden that they carry on our behalf.

    It is generally recognised that the prevention of crime and the maintenance of law and order are the responsibility not just of the police but of the community as a whole. There are people to whom this idea is not part of the small change of political debate on the police but a principle which they are prepared to put into practice.

    We do not hear much about them, and we probably fail to recognise them when we see them, but every time a police force is under pressure, we can be sure that ordinary men and women are being called from their homes to keep routine police work turning over while the regular officers are diverted to deal with the crisis, whatever it may be—an important sporting event. a royal visit or a riot. The men and women of the special constabulary all over the country deserve our gratitude for the contribution that they are making to the police service. More than this, they deserve our support.

    I am glad to have this opportunity to raise various questions with the Minister about the policies that the Government and the chief officers of police are pursuing. All right hon. and hon. Members can help the specials. All of us can do more to make the public more aware of the work that the special constabulary performs. We can all do more to encourage people to put their own spare time at the disposal of the police service. The police are more than ever under pressure and more than ever in need of our support. I sometimes hear people say that the police are too cut off from the public. Tell that to a special constable. There may be many suitable, public-spirited people who would be prepared to give practical assistance to the police service. Let us find them.

    I hope that my hon. Friend does not think that my recognition of the general responsibility of us all to help the special constabulary means that I do not acknowledge his particular responsibility. I do. I look forward to his replies to the questions that I have raised in this debate.

  • George Young – 1986 Speech on Urban Deprivation in Liverpool

    Below is the text of the speech made by George Young, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, in the House of Commons on 16 January 1986.

    The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) made a moving speech about the real problems that face his constituency in Liverpool. He is honest enough to acknowledge that the problems have not simply emerged over the past six years. They derive from the long-term economic decline of Liverpool, which has brought with it high unemployment and associated problems of physical dereliction, poor housing stock and a high proportion of disadvantaged groups.

    The problems in Liverpool have built up over the past 25 years. It has been subjected to massive economic changes over that period, and it has lost about 30 per cent. of its population. Many of those who have left have been young people with skills. Changes in the national economy since the war have also led to the rundown of the port of Liverpool and the port-related activities. That, in its wake, has brought substantial losses in manufacturing capacity.

    The hon. Gentleman would be wrong to suggest that there had been a massive reduction in Government spending on Merseyside. Since 1979–80, Government expenditure in that area has risen from £718 million to £1,041 million—an increase of 45 per cent The Government are spending a great deal of money on the city of Liverpool. A massive £28 million was allocated through the urban aid programme alone last year. The initiatives have included the creation of a new maritime museum, a revamp for Lime street station, improvements to the city centre sites and buildings and access routes related to the international garden festival.

    We are doing what we can with derelict land in Merseyside. We spent £6 million on derelict land grant, and there was a major land reclamation exercise costing £6·5 million to create the Wavertree technology park. Some £12 million has been spent on housing and historic buildings. The Anglican cathedral precinct is the most significant initiative under that heading, but we are also upgrading housing in Princes boulevard, preserving the ​ 18th and 19th century houses in Canning street and helping the Weller street and Brownlow hill co-operatives provide homes.

    The hon. Gentleman spent some time discussing housing and homelessness. There are a large number of vacant dwellings in Liverpool—2,178 in 1984, which is 3·35 per cent. of the housing stock. It is essential to bring back into use existing dwellings that are unoccupied, before we indulge in a major new house building for rent programme.

    Mr. Parry

    Is the Minister referring to houses awaiting demolition? A number of pre-war tenements are boarded up and cannot be used for housing.

    Sir George Young

    Those are the figures given to us by Liverpool city council, and they are vacant dwellings in its area. Any district council will have some houses that are empty because tenants are changing or the properties are awaiting refurbishment, but the percentage in Liverpool is 3·35. That is relatively high. In Birmingham it is 2·15 per cent. and in Gateshead it is 2·59 per cent. The first point that I want to make on housing is that, before the city council engages in a fairly expensive programme of new buildings for rent, it should realise that it is cheaper and quicker to bring back into use some of the dwellings that are unoccupied.

    The hon. Gentleman spent much time on housing, I would not dispute the proposition that Liverpool’s housing problems are among the worst in the country. The reasons for housing decay and the appalling problems of some of the post-war housing are well known. It is common ground between us that much money will have to be spent to give the people of Liverpool the opportunity to live in decent houses. The Government’s view is that we must get the best value out of every pound of public money spent.

    The Government believe that the response should not be rooted in the replacement of unpopular municipal stock. The aim should be to find the most cost-effective approach which provides housing choice and uses all available resources, including the private sector and the resourcefulness of local communities. The city council’s reliance on a physical solution underplays the social problems on estates and ignores the desirability of giving people responsibility for their own homes. The municipal solution to which the council is committed is very expensive and rides roughshod over people’s aspirations to own a home of their choice or to be involved in the management of their own housing.

    There are many examples of improved council estates in other Merseyside authorities which have not relied on municipal action. Through the Merseyside task force, initiatives have been set in hand covering more than 10,000 dwellings. Housing choice has been widened through the privatisation of estates in Wirral and Sefton.

    Through a package of urban programme and MSC funds, improvements to rundown estates are being secured by tenants themselves on community refurbishment schemes. Twelve such schemes are now under way, covering 6,500 dwellings.

    The private sector is taking part in an initiative to develop sites which would not normally have attracted private funds, as a result of which over 800 new homes are being provided. However the sad fact is that none of those initiatives are taking place in Liverpool. They are taking ​ place elsewhere in Merseyside. The opportunities for making more rapid progress in tackling the problems raised by the hon. Gentleman have been sacrificed by the city council on the altar of dogma.

    The need to develop a varied and innovative approach to the problems was emphasised when my Department’s urban housing renewal unit visited Liverpool in October. The unit explored the scope for involving the private sector in renewing the city’s rundown estates. Both the task force and the unit have encouraged the city to decentralise its key management functions to a local level to improve services for the tenants. I hope that Liverpool will respond positively to these initiatives. They are not inspired out of political dogma, but have at their heart a commitment to improve the difficult conditions in which many tenants find themselves living in Liverpool.

    The hon. Gentleman was critical of the Government’s response to the issue that he has raised. I think that there is a feeling between us that much needs to be done to regenerate Liverpool. Government expenditure on Merseyside is running at about £1 billion a year, but we can see from the problems associated with post-war housing that committing resources is not by itself enough. Measures have to be taken to rebuild confidence as well as bringing about physical improvements. The Government are tackling the deep-seated economic and industrial problems of Liverpool on many fronts. The Department of Trade and Industry’s grants and expenditure towards industrial investment in the area exceed £50 million in 1985–86. Since May 1979 Liverpool has received over £155 million in regional aid.

    A concerted effort has been made, through MSC programmes, to improve the skill levels of the community, with some £78 million being spent in that area in 1985–86. Overall there has been an increase in adult training opportunities in Merseyside from 3,500 in 1984-85 to about 11,000 in 1985–86. Urban programme resources have been used in conjunction with MSC programmes to set up training projects. The designation of the Merseyside development area, the Speke enterprise zone and the freeport in Bootle have also improved the climate for investment in Merseyside. That joint approach is vital if real progress is to be made.

    The hon. Gentleman was somewhat dismissive of the Merseyside Development Corporation, which we established in 1981. It has a remit to regenerate some 900 acres of massively derelict and disused docklands at the heart of the Merseyside conurbation. We have made good progress, and substantial reclamation and infrastructure programmes are under way. They already include notable successes such as the international garden festival and the restoration of the Albert dock, which will include the Tate of the North from 1988. In the current year, the MDC has resources of some £30 million.

    The hon. Gentleman was again somewhat dismissive of the garden festival. It was the first ever garden festival to be held in this country. It attracted over 3·3 million visitors in the six months that it was open during 1984. It represented a major boost to the reclamation programme in the area and a stimulus to the Merseyside economy. The corporation has moved on to restoring the Albert dock warehouses—an outstanding group of grade 1 listed buildings in the Liverpool south docks. A joint restoration project with the Arrowcroft Group is now under way to provide commercial and residential accommodation. Two major blocks of development opened in August 1984, ​ including the highly successful Maritime museum. A further block opened in July 1985, and a further development, to open in 1988, will include the Tate of the North gallery.

    Other substantial projects include the restoration of the water system to the south docks, and the British American Tobacco project to convert disused dock sheds into small industrial units.

    The MDC has adopted a tourism and leisure strategy for the Liverpool waterfront which builds on the success of the international garden festival, Albert dock and Martime museum. For the dock system between Albert dock and Toxteth dock a “shopping list” of key projects has been identified from which a successful mix of schemes will be drawn. These will include national tourist attractions as well as local and regional sports and leisure facilities.

    The hon. Gentleman referred to the need for central Government to play their part in stimulating investment. The Merseyside task force has been active in promoting development projects and bringing together different agencies. Particular emphasis has been placed on interdepartmental co-operation and establishing good links with the private sector, including the secondment of staff on specific initiatives. The main job of the task force is to work with local authorities, Government agencies such as English Estates, and with the private sector to carry forward initiatives and projects which help regenerate the area. There are considerable achievements to the credit of the task force.

    A number of vacant sites have been brought back into use through the efforts of the task force—the most important being the Anglican cathedral precinct site. Others are the former Exchange station, which has been redeveloped for offices, the Wavertree technology park, where 64 acres of derelict land are being transformed into a centre for high technology industry. Public parks at Everton and Speke are being created out of derelict and neglected land. The Government have also co-operated with the private sector in land reclamation—examples of such schemes are Minster court, Kingsway loop and Mathew street.

    The Government have been doing what they can, and it is legitimate to question the approach of the city council. The municipal approach of Liverpool city council has not been helpful in the regeneration process. It has largely ignored the potential of the private and voluntary sectors and has been patently wasteful of resources. It has helped to camouflage financial inefficiency. The council’s housing strategy is almost entirely oriented towards municipalisation. It has embarked on an extensive new building programme, but has consistently refused to support self-help initiatives such as co-operatives, shared ownership schemes and building for sale.

    Mr. Parry rose——

    Sir George Young

    With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I must finish my speech, so I shall not give way.

    The city council has been at best indifferent and at worst hostile to the private sector and has withdrawn much of the support and encouragement given by the previous council. It has disbanded the Liverpool development agency, whose job it was to assist existing businesses and encourage new investment.

    The council has failed to make use of Government money, provided through the urban programme, to assist firms. It has abandoned the industrial improvement areas set up by the previous Administration. It has made next to no use of urban development grants from my Department, which are specifically designed to enable investments to go ahead which would not otherwise be viable.

    It has refused to co-operate with major Government-led initiatives to improve Liverpool’s image and generate new activity, including the international garden festival and the Speke enterprise zone.

    Mr. Parry

    Will the Minister give way?

    Sir George Young

    No. With respect, the hon. Gentleman took 15 minutes to present his case and I have only half a minute left of my 15 minutes.

    The council has tried to undermine and take over the traditionally strong voluntary section in Liverpool by refusing to support new voluntary sector proposals, and it has attempted to municipalise existing activities.

    That is a formidable catalogue of missed opportunities by the city council. I know from my own experience as chairman of the London partnership committees, which are run by Left-wing Labour councils, that it is possible to work with the Government to tackle problems of urban regeneration. There is still the possibility of a consensus on the need to encourage business, create jobs and promote self-help. All too often, Liverpool has slammed the door on this type of co-operation. I very much hope that the hon. Member for Riverside will use what influence he has with the city council to persuade it to change its posture for the better in the coming year.