Below is the text of the comment made by Sheila Oakes, the Mayor of Heanor, about the Prime Minister being taken into intensive care. The comments were posted on-line on 6 April 2020 and Oakes was expelled from the Labour Party for them.
Sorry, he completely deserves this and he is one of the worst PMs we’ve ever had.
Below is the text of the speech made by Anthony Steen, the then Conservative MP for Liverpool Wavertree, in the House of Commons on 20 June 1978.
When the Prime Minister, in September 1976, announced a major review of inner city policy, the whole country held its breath waiting for a major announcement—a plan to rejuvenate the ailing towns and cities of the nation. For the previous 10 years the Government had indulged in innumerable investigations. There had been 15 phases of the urban aid programmes, the community development projects, the educational priority areas, the neighbourhood schemes and the six town studies divided between urban guidelines and the inner city studies. There was a study on transmitted deprivation, the quality of life studies, the urban deprivation unit, the comprehensive community schemes, the Greater London Council deprived areas project, the area management trials and, last but not least, the EEC poverty programme, which is still going on. In all, £100 million of Government money was spent on these inquiries.
When, in April 1977, the Secretary of State presented the Government’s proposals for reviving the inner cities, it was seen as the culmination of a long line of investigation and research. The Secretary of State said:
“we have to shift the emphasis of Government policy and bring about changes in the attitudes of local authorities, of industry and of institutions.”—[Official Report, 6th April 1977; Vol. 929, c. 1227.]
He spoke about a unified approach to urban problems. Little did we guess that that meant a unified approach of all those in the public sector—in local and central Government—to the exclusion of private sector and industry, of even the unions, of the voluntary organisations, the insurance funds, the banks and the local people themselves.
The Secretary of State spoke of the immediate priorities to strengthen the economies of the inner cities, with suitable firms being encouraged to establish themselves in the inner areas. He spoke of policies of population movement, and from what one can gather he meant that the people were to be brought back into the inner cities.
The White Paper that followed, presented to Parliament in June 1977, recognised that a halt had to be called to the outflow of population. Liverpool has lost 150,000 people in the 10 years up to 1976. That is 22 per cent. of its population. The plan then was to set up special partnerships, but after a year we learned from a parliamentary answer that the Secretary of State had chaired the second meeting of the Liverpool partnership committee. The right hon. Gentleman said:
“The Committee discussed key issues and priorities. It agreed that to improve the quality of life for those who live and work in the inner city, so as to minimise the outflow of population, must be the overall objective. Measures to improve employment prospects would make the most impact. Other priorities in the physical and social fields were also discussed. Specific proposals will be developed for the committee to consider at its next meetings.
The Committee also agreed on arrangements for consulting voluntary organisations”
—we are still awaiting those—
“as the work proceeds, including the establishment of a central information point on the partnership and the production of a newssheet.
The Committee took note of a proposed submission by the City and County concerning the urban programme for 1978–79. They noted representations by the City and County Councils about the Inner Urban Areas Bill and the proposed new magistrates court building in Liverpool.”—[Official Report, 13th March 1978; Vol. 946 c. 27–28.]
That answer was given nearly a year after the partnerships had been established, and a year after the White Paper. That was about two years after the Prime Minister had called for a complete review.
To many people in Liverpool this has all been a very sick joke, a bitter pill, because they have been able to see little improvement in the inner city, and all the evidence indicates that things are getting worse.
The White Paper that was published in June last year called for a new approach to housing. It sought to put a stop to the bulldozer and to prevent local authorities from hoarding land. Great concern for environment planning, education, social services and health was expressed. You name it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and it is in the White Paper. The aim was to revive the inner city, the Government’s Utopian dream. But it is a facade. As we can see, there is no visible change in the environment in the city. The policy for the inner city is not failing; it never got started.
I want to give three instances to illustrate the view that I am putting forward on behalf of a great number of people in my constituency and others that the Government’s much publicised urban revival programme is not happening in one of the most deprived and needy cities in this country.
I cite three examples, but I could cite a great many more. Take the case of the 100 houses which are to be built on a green field site known as Crawfords playing field, in the middle of a residential area in my constituency. It has from time immemorial provided a magnificent open space, just the kind of environmental improvement of which the White Paper speaks for the population that lives around it.
This has been on the plans of the local housing association, Merseyside Improved Housing, which, of course, is a publicly financed body. The plan is to build 100 houses, which will entirely destroy the environment and the amenity.
The Liverpool City Council has gone along with this plan. It is giving planning permission. This will mean that the site will be developed and the 100 houses will be built on it. This will destroy its tranquility and its advantages.
In one of the annexures to the White Paper, which sets out the policy and how everyone should go about it—
Mr. Robert Parry (Liverpool, Scotland Exchange)
Will the hon. Member give way?
Mr. Steen
No, I shall not give way. I am sorry. It is because in the last debate that I had on Liverpool, when the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) was speaking, he refused to give way to me. If the hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland, Exchange (Mr. Parry) will excuse me, I should like to try to finish the arguments that I am putting forward.
The important point here is that paragraph 21 of the annexure to the White Paper says:
“The fall in population in many cities provides opportunities, as funds permit, for creating more open space in inner areas for recreation and visual enjoyment. Dual use arrangements with local schools may be possible. Not all environmental improvement requires a lot of extra resources.”
The paragraph goes on to deal with a great number of things that local authorities can do to improve the amenity and the environment.
But in this case the local authority is not proposing to do anything at all to stop this butchering of a green field site from going ahead. Perhaps the Minister can explain how this can be when there are about 1,200 acres of unused land in the partnership areas alone in the inner city, and of those 1,200 acres, 800 are owned direct by the Liverpool City Council, a further 200 are owned by nationalised industry and there is very little land in that partnership area which is privately owned.
So we have the Liverpool City Council giving planning consent for a green field site in the middle part of the city, we have the inner city with vast tracts of vacant land in the city council’s ownership, and we have a public housing association, funded entirely by the Government, building houses on a green field site which is of amenity value.
This, of course, is in direct contradiction to the principles expounded by Ministers in successive speeches and in the White Paper, and in many ways in the Inner Urban Areas Bill. There is no point in talking about the wish to bring back houses to the inner city when in the next month or two a start will be made on desecrating a green field site and bringing population further out of Liverpool into the middle city. The green field site is not in the inner area, it is out of the partnership area.
Perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to explain how that squares with the Government’s policy, bearing in mind that the Secretary of State is chairing the partnership committee in the area.
I should like now to turn to a secondary point flowing from that, namely, that the argument of the city council is that the families who will be living in these houses will come out of houses which are near to the site and which are to be demolished. Again, the Secretary of State has consistently stated, over and over again, starting at the habitat conference in Vancouver in 1976, that Britain has pensioned off the bulldozer, and that in the cities the bulldozer will no longer go on knocking things down. But in Liverpool it continues at an alarming rate. Hundreds of families are being displaced and pushed outwards as the bulldozer continues. This is a good example.
Therefore, instead of these houses being rehabilitated, which apparently is Government policy, that is not happening in Liverpool to the extent that it should be happening, and the bulldozer continues as the houses decline. If the Government were serious about the revival of the inner city, they would see that mortgage facilities were available for the pre-1919 houses, which at present are not within the local authority grant scheme. The older houses in the inner city will continue to be demolished, whereas the Government’s policy is to revive them. Perhaps the Minister can deal with that point as well.
Mr. Parry
Will the hon. Member give way?
Mr. Steen
No, I shall not give way at the moment. I am sorry.
Mr. Parry
It is on one quick point.
Mr. Steen
All right.
Mr. Parry
I thank the hon. Member for giving way. He refused to give way to me earlier because my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) refused to give way to him on a previous occasion. The hon. Member is attacking the Liverpool City Council. At present, the council consists of a Liberal-Conservative pact.
Mr. Steen
I am grateful for that intervention, but the hon. Gentleman is wrong. It is a Liberal pact. There are Labour councillors and Liberal councillors, and the Conservatives are holding the balance of power. On this issue—the green field site—the Liberal and Labour councillors are united. That is what I have been told. I understand that they will not swap this green field site for some of the derelict acres of waste land. If the situation is otherwise, I stand to be corrected, but I am told by totally reliable sources that it is a Liberal-Labour pact—perhaps those councillors have not heard what has happened here—and the result is that this land is to be built on.
I must move on now to my second example, which makes nonsense of the proposals in the Inner Urban Areas Bill and concerns the development of small businesses in the inner city. I pass over the “fourteenth Budget” and the damage done to the small trader by an extra 2½ per cent. on the payroll tax—which has been mentioned quite a bit since that “fourteenth Budget’—and I turn directly to the case of Pine Engineering. Pine Engineering is a small, successful precision engineering company in Liverpool.
Mr. Pine has told me that his company is planning to move because its premises are to be demolished for a public building programme, inner roads, and so on. Mr. Pine’s situation is in a constant state of flux, because the county wants to build the inner road and the Liberals on the city council say that they will not have it. There is constant uncertainty. But Mr. Pine knows that if he is forced to move he will not be able to remain in the inner city. The Minister should recognise that.
Inner city land is currently valued at between £30,000 and £36,000 an acre. Land in the outer areas of Liverpool is currently valued at £9,000 per acre. Mr. Pine cannot possibly transfer his business to one of the vacant derelict sites in the inner area which are owned by public authorities and nationalised industry, because he cannot pay at the rate of £36,000 an acre. The Inner Urban Areas Bill will not do him the slightest good because he cannot avail himself of any of its provisions and it does not allow him to get finance to buy or lease land.
The most that Mr. Pine can do is to move into one of the Department of Industry’s advance factories, which are being built, or one of the Liverpool City Council’s advance factories, which also are being built. That is what is happening. One will find that existing businesses are transferring to the advance factories, and the amount of new employment and new industry coming into the Government’s advance factories and those of the city council is minimal.
Thus, the Government’s aim of increasing the number of jobs and raising the level of prosperity in Liverpool is not being realised because of the artificially high land values which have been attracted by the public open spaces. So long as the local authorities are allowed to hoard this land, as nationalised industry is allowed to hoard it, the artificially high land values will continue. As I said in the Standing Committee on the Inner Urban Areas Bill, until the Government do something about land values in a place such as Liverpool, we shall see small businesses moving out and job creation reduced, and the inner city will go from bad to worse and decline My third example is the Victor works of Lucas, which is in my constituency. This is to be closed, with a loss of 1,400 jobs. I was delighted to learn that the Government are to help in the building of a new factory and that Lucas is to be able to employ 400 or 500 of those men at that works. But—one would hardly credit it—that factory is to be built on a green field site outside the city boundaries, in, I believe, Wilson Lane, in Huyton, and no jobs will be created in the inner city.
Mr. Eddie Loyden (Liverpool, Garston)
Wilson Road.
Mr. Steen
Wilson Road—I am obliged. How the Government justify the investment of millions of pounds in a factory outside the city boundary, which means that the jobs which could have accrued to the city centre will not be there—this is one of the problems of the inner city—I cannot understand, especially when the whole direction of their policy is supposed to be for the revival of the inner city and the building of new factories. I wonder how the Government justify that, and how the city council allowed it to happen.
There is a population drift of 25,000 a year from Liverpool. Thirty per cent. of those living in the inner city want to get out. Unless new businesses are put in the inner city as a conscious policy, that drift will continue.
With the city council’s aid, the Government are abandoning the housing programme which would revive the inner city, they are giving up the intention to create new jobs; and they are financing new industry outside the city boundary.
What have the Government done to persuade the council that this is not the way to conduct their business? What does the Minister intend to do to halt this drift? To the people of Liverpool, it appears that he is simply shuffling the chairs around on the deck of the “Titanic”.
Below is the text of the speech made by Joyce Butler, the then Labour MP for Wood Green, in the House of Commons on 16 June 1978.
I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Report from the Select Committee on Violence in Marriage, Session 1974/75 (House of Commons Paper No. 553) and of the relevant Government Observations (Command Paper No. 6690), of the First Report from the Select Committee on Violence in the Family in Session 1975/76 (House of Commons Paper No. 473), of the First and Second Reports of that Committee in the last session of Parliament (House of Commons Papers Nos. 329 and 431) and of the relevant Government Observations (Command Paper No. 7123).
As I was Chairman only of the Committee that reported on violence to children, I shall confine myself to that report and to the Government’s reply to it. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), who was Chairman of the Select Committee on Violence in Marriage, will be able to catch the eye of the Chair later in the debate to speak to its report. But it would be unreasonable to expect hon. Members not to take in both subjects in the course of the debate, which covers the whole field of violence in the family.
I believe that there was some hesitation about the setting up of an inquiry into baby battering, following the inquiry on battered wives. Any such doubts must have been dispelled by the value and volume of the evidence submitted to the Select Committee and the constructive proposals that have emerged from it.
It was a most rewarding experience to take part in the Committee’s work, as I think all members of the Committee will agree. I should like to place on record my appreciation of the interest of its members, the dedication and deep concern of those who gave both oral and written evidence and the valuable guidance of the Committee Clerk, Mr. Cubie. I must add my special personal appreciation of the contribution of the late Member for Ilford, North, Mrs. Millie Miller, both to the setting up of the Committee and to its work.
The Select Committee’s report reminds us that it is estimated that in England and Wales about 3,000 children will be severely injured non-accidentally each year, and six of them will die each week. In addition, there are each year more than 40,000 cases of injury, which range from the severe to the mild and are more moderate in extent.
The typical baby batterer is often highlighted in the Press and by the public as a vicious monster, but the majority are not of that type. However, some undoubtedly are, and constant vigilance is needed by the whole community to try to identify them early enough to prevent serious injury to or deaths of children. It is in this area particularly that the role of the police is crucial, together with that of the social services and other groups.
The co-operation of all the people concerned with non-accidental injury when it occurs or is suspected is an area of some sensitivity, but it is vital that the police as well as other specialists should be fully involved in the management of such cases. This is particularly true of the case conferences which are held. It would be helpful to hear from my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security whether any progress has been made in this area since the Command Paper was published. There are particular problems in London, where the more mobile population and the proliferation of health and other authorities make liaison more complicated.
The Committee also recommended that such case conferences should be conducted speedily, efficiently and with the smallest number of members necessary for effective case management. Can my right hon. Friend tell us what progress has been made in this respect, and whether there is any evidence that case conferences are now working better?
I have received a number of approving comments about the Select Committee’s proposals for obtaining greater standardisation in the compilation, content and use of registers. Have the Government any progress to report in this direction?
It was also the Committee’s view that only in exceptional cases should the parents concerned not be informed that their child’s name had been entered on the register as being at risk. The Department’s reaction to that is disappointing. I hope that we may hear the views of other hon. Members about this civil liberties issue, so that we may know whether they share the Select Committee’s views on this matter.
I am sure that other hon. Members will also have strong views about the Government’s negative reaction to the Committee’s proposals on family courts. Since the Government’s report was published, increased support for the Committee’s views on this matter has become manifest. I appreciate the work involved in new legislation to which my right hon. Friend refers, but the preparation of a Green Paper on family courts was a modest enough recommendation. It would provide the opportunity for informed discussion and consideration before such legislation was prepared.
I have also been concerned to hear that there appear to be difficulties in practice about a recommendation on which the Committee felt very strongly—the access of health visitors to mothers as soon as they leave hospital after confinement, in order to provide from the outset a continuing person to person contact on which the mother can rely. Has my right hon. Friend anything to say about this difficulty and whether it is being resolved?
What I have said so far has been concerned with the administration of the various services designed to try to prevent non-accidental injury to children and to cope with it when it occurs. This is vital, but it does not even begin to express the concern felt by all members of the Committee over the steady accumulation of evidence before us of the effects on families of a society where communities have been broken up, often by the well-meaning actions of public authorities, where generations have been separated from each other, where old traditions and methods have been lost, and where a rootless, bewildered and isolated generation is often totally unable to cope with the realities of parenthood.
In such circumstances, a baby which instead of constantly cooing and smiling—like those in the baby products advertisements on television—just cries and cries and will not stop, can drive even the most amiable mother to distraction if she is cut off from her family and friends by housing transfers, or if she is living in rooms with neighbours knocking on the walls at the slightest noise.
When the parents are also poor, very young, and badly housed, with marriage difficulties and a variety of other problems—as is so often the case—the situation is even worse.
In some such cases tranquillisers are given to one parent or to both parents. We had some disturbing evidence that some of the commonly prescribed tranquillisers may produce an increase of aggression instead of damping it down. In the report we draw particular attention to this danger. It is in such circumstances that many babies are injured not by a violent monster but by an overwrought young mother, who loses control because there is no one to deflect the build-up of tension, to make a cup of tea, to hold the baby for a while, or to take over and send the desperate parent out for a breath of fresh air so that she is away from the crisis situation for a short break.
Neighbours, particularly those who have had children of their own, can do a great deal to help in such a situation, and I am glad that the Government have accepted our recommendation to extend the “good neighbour” scheme to young parents. Anything which helps to break down the isolation of the parent is a preventive of baby battering. That is why the emergency lifeline telephone number which can be contacted 24 hours a day is perhaps the most important of the Committee’s proposals. It would cost little and help so much. I am bitterly disappointed that the Government have not accepted that proposal.
We were told by mothers who had injured their children that they experienced incredible relief when they met other mothers with similar problems and were able to work out their difficulties together. Just by meeting regularly they were able to help one another and provide an outlet which prevented further trouble. I was recently encouraged to receive a letter from a young woman who had attended some of our sittings. Under the heading “Parents Anonymous” she wrote:
“I am writing to let you know that not everyone sat back to see what the Government would do in the field of child abuse. We actually acted on the Select Committee’s Report and started a parent-controlled group. We were helped by two groups already in existence. Now I am able to act as co-ordinator and advise on the setting up of other groups. To date, three other groups have started as a result of this. One day there will be a ‘Parents Anonymous’ group in every county at least and they will have got there by word of mouth, not as a result of a national organisation.”
It was very encouraging to receive this letter. I would add that these young women are operating entirely out of their own resources and would very much welcome any assistance which may be forthcoming by means of Government grants, or in other ways if this can be arranged. In the meantime, they are carrying on out of their own pockets, overworked but doing a splendid job.
Mother and toddler clubs can also be helpful and nurseries and nursery schools should be available to all children, not only to social priority groups. Increasingly, society has been forced to recognise that such provision is not just something which is desirable if we can afford it; it is absolutely essential, whatever the cost.
The same is true of education for parenthood. This is necessary for all young people, boys and girls, before they leave school. Many young parents are completely unprepared for the unglamorous side of child rearing. Some just have no idea how to handle children who make messes, break things, refuse food or demonstrate wills of their own. They can often see no alternative between either allowing the child to do what it likes or resorting to blows which may cause injury.
The Committee had a shot at trying to prepare a code for bringing up children, but on second thoughts decided that it was really the job of professional agencies involved with child rearing. In their report the Government say that they feel that there is already enough literature on this subject. That may be so, but the problem of creating a loving discipline in the home is a real one from which many parents have abdicated in despair. We must urgently find more effective ways of helping them.
I am puzzled by the Government’s reluctance to establish the right of children under school age to have regular medical examinations. This is vital for the general surveillance of young children’s health and would also play a valuable part in the early identification of non-accidental injury.
There seems to be an agreement between the Committee, the Government and all concerned about the importance of the first days of life and then encouragement of the bonding between mother and baby at this time, which may be helped by sensitive care during labour and delivery and a homely hospital atmosphere. There is still reluctance, apparently, to encourage home confinements where such bonding is easy and natural in a family setting. The first days are also important, because a mother may reject her baby them. This is a danger sign of probable future abuse which may be prevented by special help and care at the time and follow-up afterwards.
That being said, it is clear that the causes of many cases of baby battering are so varied and complex that we cannot hope to prevent them all. But we are fortunate in having dedicated professionals who handle these problems with skill, day in and day out. We hope that some of our recommendations will help them in a job which is often time-consuming, confusing and frustrating.
To the Government, who have, perhaps understandably, been disappointing in their response, due to lack of resources, I say that of course no one can quantify the life of a child in cost terms. We can, however, quantify the cost, in medical care and support, in respect of a battered child who may spend years being treated in hospital for its injuries. We can set that cost against the cost of, for example, a 24-hour telephone service which might have prevented those injuries. Our report is also for the general public. Its message is “Do not just condemn baby battering. That is easy. Think whether there is anything which you could do to help prevent it.”
Below is the text of the statement made by David Ennals, the then Secretary of State for Social Services, in the House of Commons on 16 June 1978.
I wish to take this opportunity of informing the House about the dispute with the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunications and Plumbing Union affecting its members who work in the National Health Service. The dispute arose in the course of pay negotiations and has come to a head within the last two weeks. Formal notice of withdrawal of labour with effect from 19th June was received from the union on 6th June.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and I have had urgent discussions with the union negotiator, Mr. Adams, and I had a further meeting with him last night. We both recognise the seriousness of the situation and the grave damage to the hospital service, including the lives of patients, which could result from an industrial dispute as threatened by the union.
Last night I presented new proposals to Mr. Adams which I hope will form the basis of a settlement. They respect the wishes of the electricians for rates of payment comparable with those outside the Health Service, and they are within the Government’s pay guidelines. Mr. Adams agreed to consider these new proposals. He also put to me points which I am considering with my colleagues.
I have appealed to the union to keep uppermost in its mind the welfare of patients. I am confident that both sides fully recognise the gravity of the situation and are anxious to reach a solution as quickly as possible. I shall be in touch with the union later this morning. Naturally, contingency plans are being made by the hospitals in case the industrial action should take place.
Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Havers, the then Conservative MP for Wimbledon, in the House of Commons on 15 June 1978.
The subject that we are to debate for the next three hours was last debated in June 1973. I make it clear at the outset that I am not concerned with Section 1. Clearly, acts of spying must be made subject to heavy penalties. The only comment I would make is that, if the proposals that we are putting forward are accepted, it would be a very good thing to call the Official Secrets Act, after Section 2 is taken out of it, a better name—for example, the Espionage Act.
Section 2 is the section which causes anxiety. The history of how Section 2 came into being bears a little examination. The first Official Secrets Act was in 1889. That dealt with spying and breaches of official trust. Crown servants or Government contractors, if under contracts they were obliged to maintain secrecy, were forbidden to pass information.
Between 1909 and 1911 there were a number of leaks of Government information to the Press. Therefore, the authorities at that time decided that it was necessary to extend criminal sanctions to the receiver of confidential information, whereas previously they had been directed only at those who gave it. In 1911 the Act was passed, and it made it an offence to communicate or to receive classified information. All kinds of official information were covered by Section 2, however unimportant or trivial, without the need to prove any unlawful intent.
On 18th August 1911 the Bill passed through all its stages, and Clause 2 was not mentioned in the debates. The Attorney-General of the day, Sir Rufus Isaacs, said that there was nothing novel in the principle of the Bill. Second Reading took up three columns of the Official Report, Committee stage one column and Third Reading four columns, during which there was argument whether an amendment should have been accepted on Report. That was the way that the House approached the problem. We have had the misfortune ever since, and particularly since the last war, of having to manage the law as it was created in 1911.
The Press made no comment, although it had commented on previous Bills which the Government had sought to bring forward but had to abandon. That may have been because the Bill went through the House at the time of a constitutional crisis over the Parliament Bill and attention was distracted more by that than by what appeared to be a slight tightening up of the legislation of the previous century. The House was no doubt also worried at that time about the increasing threat from Germany and anxious that the espionage provisions in the new Section 1 should become law as soon as possible. Clearly, there was no real understanding in the House of the enormous scope covered by section 2.
Section 2 has been described as the “catch-all” section. It is extremely well set out in the Franks Report at page 14, paragraph 17:
“The main offence which section 2 creates is the unauthorised communication of official information (including documents) by a Crown servant. The leading characteristic of this offence is its catch-all quality. It catches all official documents and information. It makes no distinctions of kind, and no distinctions of degree. All information which a Crown servant learns in the course of his duty is ‘official’ for the purposes of section 2, whatever its nature, whatever its importance, whatever its original source. A blanket is thrown over everything; nothing escapes. The section catches all Crown servants as well as all official information. Again, it makes no distinctions according to the nature or importance of a Crown servant’s duties. All are covered. Every Minister of the Crown, every civil servant, every member of the Armed Forces, every police officer, performs his duties subject to section 2.”
The stock answer to the criticism which is well set out in that paragraph in the report is that no prosecution can take place without the leave of the Attorney-General and that he will prosecute only where important breaches have occurred. That is right, but it still leaves a measure of uncertainty. In our view, any criminal statute should be certain. For example, journalists are entitled to know where they stand. It is not enough to say “All right, technically you will be committing a criminal offence but you are most unlikely to be prosecuted.”
The area where secrecy and confidentiality should be protected must clearly be defined and limited to the extent where it is generally acceptable and compatible with open government. A balance must be struck where the public interest is protected in both ways. I mean by that that the public interest requires that matters of defence, international security and Cabinet minutes, to take just a few examples, may need to be safeguarded against public disclosure. But the public interest also requires that there is no misuse of secrecy to cover up errors or bungling or to avoid criticism.
In this short debate I do not want to go into the area of freedom of information. I notice that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis), who is very concerned with that aspect, is present. The phrase “freedom of information” is misleading when compared with, for example, freedom of speech or freedom of choice. Freedom of information means the extent to which the public should have the right of access to official information—that is, the balance of public interest. I understand that Justice will shortly be publishing a report which will make a substantial contribution to this aspect of the subject.
In the meantime, it is worth noting that in the United States and Sweden, for example, attempts to provide effective freedom of information legislation have proved more difficult than was anticipated. The first Freedom of Information Act in the United States became known as the Denial of Freedom Act. The Swedish Act contains 43 sections of exceptions to the freedom of information rules—a huge number of exceptions. We must also remember that both those countries have written constitutions, so that judicial intervention in establishing the rights of the citizen is much greater than in the United Kingdom. Any discussion of freedom of information must be in the context of the establishment of a system of administrative courts.
There is no doubt that the Franks Committee made a valuable contribution to the debate about Section 2. The committee was set up in April 1971, honouring the pledge of the Conservative manifesto for the 1970 General Election.
Although there are three volumes of oral and written evidence, the committee managed to produce its report by September of the following year.
In June 1973 the then Home Secretary, now Lord Carr, accepted the report in general, but the Conservative Government did not remain in office long enough to implement it. In March 1974 the present Government took office. In April of that year the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), said of the Franks Report:
“I hope to give an answer … in a shorter time than the previous Government”.—[Official Report, 2nd April 1974; Vol. 871, c. 1089.]
We are now in June 1978. In spite of those brave words we had to wait until November 1976, when the present Home Secretary made a statement to the House. He accepted the Franks Report with certain reservations about the categories of protected information. He promised legislation as soon as possible.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) asked for a White Paper or a Green Paper. That was agreed by the Home Secretary. It is now 18 months later and we are still waiting. In Opposition time we have, at last, another debate on this important subject. It is important to the Government, the Civil Service, all servants of the Crown, the public and the Press. I should have preferred a full day’s debate in Government time after the White Paper had been published so that we would have an opportunity of learning the Government’s intention. But that possibility looked so remote that we felt that we had to initiate the debate.
We think, as we always have thought, that the Franks Committee was in general right. We accept that Section 2 of the Act is outdated and far too widely drawn. We agree that certain classes of information should be protected, as Franks recommends. This is summarised well in paragraph 276 of the report, which states:
“a. is classified information relating to defence or internal security, or to foreign relations, or to the currency or to the reserves, the unauthorised disclosure of which would cause serious injury to the interests of the nation; or
b. is likely to assist criminal activities or to impede law enforcement; or
c. is a Cabinet document; or
d. has been entrusted to the Government by a private individual or concern.”
There is another category in Franks with which we agree—where official information has been used for private gain.
That is another form of corruption.
We have one major disagreement with the Franks Committee. It involves the policing and enforcement of its recommendations. Franks recommends that the areas that should be classified should be classified by regulation made by the Secretary of State, this also involves declassification. In paragraph 8 of the recommendations on page 104, it is stated:
“Before a decision is taken whether to institute a prosecution for the disclosure of classified information within one of the three categories, there should be a review of the classification of the information which had allegedly been disclosed without authority. This review should be carried out by the responsible Minister himself. He should be required to consider whether at the time of the alleged disclosure that information was properly classified, secret or above or defence—confidential, in the sense that its unauthorised disclosure would cause serious injury to the interests of the nation. If he was not satisfied on this point, then no prosecution would be possible. If he was satisfied, he should give a certificate to that effect to the court. This certificate should be conclusive evidence of the fact that the information was classified within the meaning of the Act.”
We agree that the Secretary of State should have the power to make the regulations, but we believe that they should be kept under continuous review by a Select Committee and that the matter should be subject to the affirmative procedure.
More important, the review as to whether the classification at the time of the disclosure was the proper classification should not rest with the Minister. That would smack too much of the Minister being judge and jury in his own cause. When any prosecution is brought for the disclosure of information, the question of whether the information was correctly classified at the date of disclosure should be considered not by the Minister responsible but by an independent committee.
We suggest that that independent committee should be two Privy Councillors presided over by a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary. The defendant should have the right to make representations to the committee, although not, perhaps, appear before it. That view is supported by Lord Rawlinson, who was Attorney-General at the time when the Franks Committee reported.
It would be feasible for the Minister to provide the information which would enable the independent committee to form a view about whether the classification was correct. It would be similar to the committee of “three wise men” who advise the Home Secretary when he is deciding whether to deport an alien. A safeguard of this kind would satisfy Fleet Street and the general public that the information was or was not properly classified and would avoid allegations of a cover-up by the Department or Minister.
If our proposals are accepted and form the basis for a new Official Information Act in place of Section 2, the criminal law will be used only to protect information the disclosure of which would really be against the public interest. Any potential defendant would have greater safeguards than exist under the present law and under the Franks proposals.
It is not a question of open or closed government. If the balance can be fairly struck and impartially checked, the public interest is protected in every way. Our proposals are a realistic and responsible approach to the problem and could quickly be enshrined in our law. We hope to have the opportunity to do that in the near future.
Below is the text of the statement made by Dominic Raab, the Foreign Secretary, on 7 April 2020.
Good afternoon, welcome to today’s Downing Street press conference. I’m joined by Chief Scientific Adviser Sir Patrick Vallance and our Chief Medical Officer Professor Chris Whitty.
Before we get on to the detail, can I first give an update on the condition of the Prime Minister. I know a lot of people will be concerned about that.
I can tell you he is receiving the very best care from the excellent medical team at St Thomas’ hospital. He remained stable overnight, he’s receiving standard oxygen treatment and breathing without any assistance. He has not required mechanical ventilation or non-invasive respiratory support. He remains in good spirits and, in keeping with usual clinical practice, his progress continues to be monitored closely in critical care.
We will give further updates on the Prime Minister’s condition, when there are any material developments.
And I know that there’s been a groundswell of messages of support from people here at home, from leaders around the world and I know that everyone will want to join with me in wishing the Prime Minister a very swift recovery.
As you will know, the Prime Minister asked me to deputise for him whilst he recovers. In line with the Prime Minister’s instructions, this morning I chaired the meeting of senior ministers tackling coronavirus and this afternoon I chaired an update for members of the Cabinet.
And I think it’s probably worth just worth remembering that, as will be the case for so many people up and down the country, who knows someone at work at work who has fallen ill with coronavirus, it comes as a shock to all of us. He’s not just the Prime Minister, and for all of us in Cabinet he’s not just our boss, he’s also a colleague and he’s also our friend.
So, all of our thoughts and prayers are with the Prime Minister at this time, with Carrie and with his whole family.
And I’m confident he’ll pull through because if there’s one thing I know about this Prime Minister, he’s a fighter and he’ll be back at the helm leading us through this crisis in short order. And for us in the Cabinet, we know exactly what he wants from us and what he expects from us right now.
And following the Cabinet discussion today, I can reassure the Prime Minister, and we can reassure the public, that his team will not blink, and we will not flinch from the task at hand at this crucial moment. We will keep all of our focus and all of our resolve, with calm determination on delivering the government’s plan to defeat the coronavirus.
And it’s with that objective and that unity of purpose, that Cabinet turned to business today.
We had reports from the 4 Ministerial Groups on the action we’re taking across all of the strategic priority areas: including NHS capacity, procurement of ventilators and personal protective equipment, then delivery of public services including social care, on the economy and our support for both businesses and workers, and of course on the international action we’re taking to reinforce our efforts on all of the home front.
As we’ve explained before, our action plan aims to slow the spread of the virus, so fewer people need hospital treatment at any one time, and that will help us protect the NHS’s ability to cope. At every step, we have been following the scientific advice, the medical advice, and we’ve been very deliberate in our actions that we’ve taken, so that we take the right steps at the right moment in time.
We are increasing our NHS capacity by dramatically expanding the number of beds, key staff, life-saving equipment on the front-line, so people have the care they need when they need it most. As we’ve consistently said, we are instructing people to stay at home, so we can protect the NHS and so that we can save lives.
So today I can report that through the government’s ongoing monitoring and testing programme that, as of today:
213,181 people have now been tested for the coronavirus
55,242 people have tested positive
the number of people admitted to hospital with coronavirus symptoms now stands at 18,589
of those who have contracted the virus, 6,159 have, I am very sorry to say, died
Every death in this pandemic is a tragedy, and our thoughts and prayers are with the loved ones grieving at what must be an incredibly difficult time.
I think these figures reinforce that the single most important thing we can all do right now, in this national effort to defeat the virus, is to keep on following the government’s advice to:
– stay at home
– protect our NHS
– and save lives
Below is the text of the speech made by John Horam, the then Under-Secretary of State for Transport, in the House of Commons on 14 June 1978.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer) for giving me the opportunity to explain to the House the present position on the scheme about which he is obviously and rightly so concerned. The background to it is the general policy set out in last year’s White Paper on transport policy and the review of schemes we then referred to and on which we reported more fully in this year’s White Paper “Policy for Roads: England 1978”.
Following publication of the White Paper on transport policy, we set in hand the review of the trunk road programme in which we considered the need for each scheme and whether the standard for each scheme was appropriate. The method of the review was to consider each scheme in the road programme in terms of its impact on the environment, its value for money and its sensitivity to different assumptions about the growth of traffic.
In some cases it was clear that even on the most modest assumptions about traffic growth the scheme was still needed and the standard was right. In other cases the scheme was confirmed but the standard was modified. If it were clear that a scheme could not be justified in the light of the new approach, it was dropped altogether or replaced by a more limited alternative. Altogether, over 30 schemes were dropped from the programme in this way.
For most schemes we reached a clear conclusion one way or another, although all these schemes will be kept under review and re-appraised at each stage when decision have to be taken. But there were cases, particularly those at an early stage of planning, where some doubt remained or where it was too early to determine what the standard ought to be. As I shall explain, in this case we came to the conclusion that the scheme could not be justified against our present criteria and ought to be dropped from the preparation pool. I am talking about the Kidderminster eastern bypass.
We had not, however, had a full opportunity to discuss with the Hereford and Worcester County Council, first, the implications for that council of such a decision and, secondly and most importantly, what alternative more modest works might be needed as an alternative to building the full-blooded bypass.
The detailed investigations into the possibility of an eastern bypass for Kidderminster to supersede the existing A449 trunk road began in June 1971, when the then Secretary of State for the Environment announced the inclusion in the trunk road preparation pool of a scheme to improve comprehensively the A449 from the Waresley bypass to Wolverhampton. Subsequently, the scheme to be investigated was more specifically defined. Its first stage was a new route between the northern end of the Hartlebury bypass, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and the boundary of the then Worcestershire County Council, the proposed route which has now come to be referred to as the Kidderminster eastern bypass
The bypass was expected both to remove a considerable amount of through traffic from the A449 in Kidderminster, and thereby improve the environment and access within the town for pedestrians and drivers, and to complete a high standard route from just north of Kidderminster to Worcester, which would be safer and more convenient for through traffic.
The first stage of the work included the identification of possible solutions. This is normal practice, and I should explain that for almost every major road scheme it involves predicting the volume of future traffic which is likely to use the new road in the design year—that is, the fifteenth year after the road is open to traffic. In making those predictions we have to make a good many assumptions, including assumptions about other new roads which are also being planned or are likely to be planned in the intervening period. The most significant of these to the Kidderminster eastern bypass investigations has always been, as the hon. Gentleman rightly implied, the Bewdley bypass proposed by the Hereford and Worcester County Council to replace the existing principal road, the A456, through Bewdley by a route to the south of the town.
Soon after the study began, it became clear that the justification for the eastern bypass would be substantially enhanced if the Bewdley bypass were to go ahead in the same period, and the county council’s programme at that time fitted well in this respect. Our study also took into account the possibility of a Birmingham west orbital route and the relief that a Kidderminster eastern bypass and the adjacent improved length of the A449 south of Hartlebury would give to the two-lane section of the M5 motorway in Worcestershire. Towards the end of 1974, we had identified possible solutions.
Public consultation on these was undertaken in January 1975. By the time the results of the consultation were being examined and evaluated, changes in the Department’s criteria for making decisions on road schemes had taken place.
First, in 1974 the Department had reviewed the carrying capacity of new roads and reached the conclusion that higher standards of vehicle construction and the improved quality of driving, amongst other factors, indicated that a road built to a given standard could carry a greater volume of traffic than had earlier been assumed. We therefore revised our design standards and issued detailed technical advice in our technical memorandum on design flows for motorways. The following year we also reviewed our national traffic prediction advice. This led to a reduction in the forecast rate of increase in traffic flows and the issue of a further technical memorandum. Improved techniques for asses- sing the economic value of road schemes were brought into use at the same time.
Along with all other trunk road schemes, the Kidderminster eastern bypass was reviewed in the light of these changes. The review began to cast doubt on the economic viability of the scheme. More recently, we have had to take account of the views expressed in the report of the advisory committee on trunk road assessment—the Leitch Committee—about the need to reconsider the methodology to be applied to traffic forecasts. On 10th January, the same day as the report was published, we produced an interim memorandum on traffic forecasting. This includes advice on how the uncertainty inherent in making such predictions should be reflected by assumptions of high and low levels of traffic growth. The economics of schemes are now assessed on the basis of the low levels. Overall decisions take account of the consequences of flows being under-or over-estimated.
During our review this year of all schemes in the light of the policy set out in the transport White Paper and of the Leitch Committee’s report, we reached the firm conclusion that, irrespective of what the county council might decide about the Bewdley bypass and the timing of its construction, there was no case for building the Kidderminster eastern bypass for many years to come. The economic assessment produces a negative result and the environmental effects could not possibly justify any priority over competing schemes elsewhere.
However, before taking a final decision on the future of this scheme we felt it essential to consult the Hereford and Worcester County Council, the local authority with the strategic planning responsibility for the area and the local highway authority. But consultations on these lines had not been carried out—due mainly to shortage of time—when the White Paper was published on 4th April, so we included the scheme in the section of the White Paper which listed schemes for which start dates had not been determined and, by a footnote, indicated that the future of this scheme, which was in a category with several others, was under review.
We appreciate that a decision to abandon the Kidderminster eastern bypass could affect future consideration of the proposed Bewdley bypass by the county council. I realise that the county council’s scheme is important to it in environmental and local planning terms and that any decision of ours which reduces its potential is bound to give it cause for concern.
The hon. Member for Kidderminster understandably stated his own views on the matter. He shares the concern that both these schemes have been considered as integral, with a decision on one affecting the other. However, a decision to drop the Kidderminster eastern bypass would affect only the economic and not the environmental arguments for the Bewdley bypass, which are very strong.
The hon. Member has mentioned to me before the consequences of the Leitch Report. That also mentioned the need for an environmental framework for any scheme. The Bewdley scheme has strong environmental advantages. I understand from what the hon. Member has said tonight that Hereford and Worcester are prepared to go ahead with it and are not necessarily proposing to defer it as a consequence of our decision on the Kidderminster scheme.
Mr. Bulmer
That emphasises the need for further consultation, because the scheme is finely balanced. The decision has not been taken but it will shortly be taken, so additional consultation is essential. In his earlier remarks about the Kidderminster eastern bypass, was the Minister taking into account all that might happen as a result of the break-up of the M5?
Mr. Horam
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentions that point, which was also made by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller). I have visited his area, if not Kidderminster, because I have taken a close interest in developments on the M5. The surface of that road has reached the end of its design life and it must be replaced over the next few years so that the road can be used fully. That will have repercussions for the adjacent roads. On the other hand, the complete replacement of the surface of the M5 over the relevant two-lane stretch will take place over the next four years. It is not possible for the eastern bypass to be built in that time, even if we started today, given the statutory procedures and building time. Therefore, no diversion of traffic as a result of those works could be helped by any favourable decision on the Kidderminster bypass.
Mr. Hal Miller
Can the hon. Gentleman understand the fear not only that during the diversionary period while the M5 is being reconstructed there will be trouble on the roads but that when the M5 is completed, if it is still a two-lane road, it will have passed its capacity, which it has already reached? Therefore, there will be continued diversion, either on the A449 or on the A38. We have tried to press the Minister to have alternative provision made to carry that excess traffic.
Mr. Horam
That is something that we should like to discuss with Hereford and Worcester. I accept the need for consultation on that. We are increasing the capacity of the M5 to the North from two lanes to three. We shall have to take a view on whether the two-lane stretch of the M5 is reasonable for the needs of the immediate future. There may be a difference between the Department, the hon. Member and the county council, but that should be discussed. It has obvious implications for the council and for roads such as this in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. Clearly, we shall take into account the ramifications of the M5.
Another point that was raised concerned the inner ring road and any link between that and a decision on the Kidderminster eastern bypass. The inner ring road is complete on the eastern side of the town, where it is, in effect, an alternative to what would have been the eastern bypass. It is on the western side of the town, as I understand, that the remaining links are to be completed. The construction has been brought to its finality, and it is utilised fully on the eastern side of the town. In that sense, there is no immediate connection between our decision on the eastern bypass and what happens in the future on the completion of the inner city link. That is something rather separate from our decision.
I want to make clear that the door is in no way closed. I am very anxious that we should take our decision on the scheme’s future in the light of all the facts and the detailed views of the county council. When the White Paper was published, the Department’s regional director in the West Midlands wrote to the county council explaining our view that the scheme should be dropped from the preparation pool on the ground that it was not economically viable and would not lead to overall environmental benefit to the community in the immediate future. Comments were invited, and the county council has made clear that it is concerned at our decision and would like to discuss it further with us.
The best way to achieve this is for the regional director, with other representatives of the Department, to meet representatives of the county council so that they may have the fullest opportunity to deploy their case for the scheme’s retention in the preparation pool.
In replying directly about the suggestion that I should meet a deputation, I should prefer it if we could allow these meetings to take place between the regional director and the county council officials. I have seen the regional director of our West Midlands Region today about this very subject and have made plain my desire for the meetings to be held at an early stage so that the matter can be thrashed out without delay. I realise the implications not only for the road decisions for the area but also for the structure plan, and so on.
As I understand it, a number of technical factors have to be taken into account, and reference has been made to one or two of them. In reaching our decision on the eastern bypass, should we declare the results of the public consultation, declare a firm line and leave it at that, indicating that we do not believe that it is right to go ahead in the immediate future, or do we say that the scheme is abandoned? What happens in the Torton area, which is the real problem area, where the A499 jinks around and there are some difficult parts? What is the proper relationship, in the eyes of the county council, between the Bewdley bypass and the eastern bypass? I think that the Bewdley bypass can be justified quite independently of the eastern bypass. Certainly the decision not to go ahead with the eastern bypass will reduce the economic advantages of the Bewdley bypass but will not affect the environmental case for it.
A number of important technical decisions will have to be thrashed out in all these areas. I should prefer it if we could proceed by means of having these meetings at official level between the county council and officials of my Department. But certainly, if the hon. Gentleman feels at the end of the day that he would like to see me with a deputation, I shall gladly see him. I feel, however, that it would be right, as a matter of practicality, to proceed in the way that I have suggested. I hope that that full and speedy consultation will sort out the genuine problems in this area in an amicable fashion.
Below is the text of the speech made by Esmond Bulmer, the then Conservative MP for Kidderminster, in the House of Commons on 14 June 1978.
I welcome the opportunity to put before the Minister some of the wider implications of the Government’s decision not to proceed with the Kidderminster eastern bypass and to ask him, in the light of these considerations, to re-examine that decision. If the decision is not reversed, it will have the most serious consequences for many of my constituents. It will vitally affect their chance of a job and, indeed, whether they can live at home in peace or move about their neighbourhood with ease.
I understand that the Minister is not familiar with Wyre Forest. He would be welcome if he cared to visit us. Such a visit would aid his understanding of the problems that I wish to explain to him.
The part of the A449 about which we are concerned runs through my constituency on its way between Worcester and Wolverhampton. It is a trunk road planned as a lorry route. It runs through sensitive residential areas of Kidderminster. The need for an alternative eastern bypass to take the traffic out of the town has been accepted by successive Governments since 1960. The present road is wholly inadequate.
In a letter to me, the chief executive of the Wyre Forest District Council describes
“the sheer inadequacy of that portion of the A449 between Hoobrook and Broadwaters at Kidderminster, particularly the stretch between its junction with the Comberton Road and its junction with the Birmingham Road. The volume of traffic is far too heavy for the existing carriageway which is barely wide enough for two articulated lorries to pass one another. Any attempt to improve the existing A449 between Hoobrook and Broadwaters would have a catastrophic effect upon the residential properties fronting that stretch of the road. In many cases it would probably result in a complete demolition of the houses fronting the road. The cost of any such improvement would be extremely high.
In my opinion, the portion of the A449 between Hoobrook and Broadwaters at Kidderminster was the most congested and inadequate stretch between Worcester and Wolverhampton and I just cannot understand why this section of the improvement scheme has been or is proposed to be, abandoned”.
If the Minister were to join me and travel from Worcester to Kidderminster, he would enjoy a fast journey over that part which has been much improved between Warndon and Hartlebury. But then he would come to Kidderminster. He would be appalled by the conditions that were so eloquently described by the chief executive for Wyre Forest.
The situation as it stands is bad enough, but my constituents have a real fear that the situation might deteriorate rapidly because of what is happening on the M5. I understand that the M5 is 10 per cent. short of saturation. But for the big increases in oil prices, it would already have reached that point. I understand that major reconstructions are inevitable and that perhaps between 16,000 and 20,000 vehicles per day will not be able to use the M5. If they do not use the M5, what road will they use? Will they use the A38, in which I know my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) has a keen interest?
Mr. Hal Miller (Bromsgrove and Redditch)
Will my hon. Friend ask the Minister to consider the effect of the extensive repairs, extending over several years, to the M5 upon traffic on the A38 going from my constituency? Will he also consider the need for the Bromsgrove eastern bypass to be completed and the possibility of widening the M5 to a three-lane highway at the completion of these extensive repairs?
Mr. Bulmer
My hon. Friend can draw some comfort from the fact that the police at the moment regard the A38 as a priority road to be kept clear for emergency traffic. That does not apply to the A449. At present the Department is advocating its use for holiday traffic. If half of that traffic was unable to use the M5 and used the A449, the effect on my constituency would be catastrophic.
Will the Minister confirm that virtually the whole of the road between junctions 3 and 6 will have to be rebuilt? What guarantee can he give that Kidderminster will not be shattered by heavy traffic diverted from the motorway? What steps will he take to improve the inevitable congestion in Kidderminster if he is not to reinstate the eastern bypass?
What steps will he take to see that traffic is not diverted from the M5 through Kidderminster? The Minister may not be able to answer these questions tonight, but I hope that he will write to me in due course giving me the answers I seek.
The Kidderminster eastern bypass has been accepted by succeeding Governments over the last 18 years. Planners have many variables with which to contend—including population, traffic flow and jobs. One that they should not have to contend with is variation of this sort. The structure plan was approved by the Secretary of State for the Environment. It projects the Wyre Forest as a growth area. We desperately need new industry. The carpet industry is going through cyclical and structural difficulties. The Government’s decision to close RAF Hartlebury meant that there were 2,000 fewer jobs in the Wyre Forest area. Unemployment has gone up by a factor of three in the last four years, and we have many school leavers who will not be able to find work this year or next.
We have no regional aid and no development status, and we have lost rate support grant. Good communications remain one of our essential selling points. I hope that the Minister will not seek to deprive us of them.
Our planners and the Minister’s Department have always until now accepted that the eastern bypass was an integral part of the scheme which included the Kidderminster ring road and the Bewdley bypass. The eastern bypass was the rim of the wheel, and the inner ring road the hub. A wheel may run with a few spokes missing, but it cannot function without a rim or a hub. Not to build the eastern bypass will destroy the balance of movement and have serious implications for the Hereford and Worcester structure plan and the Wyre Forest urban structure plan.
I cannot accept the Department’s view that the bypass must be costed in isolation. Nor am I satisfied with the consultation that has been extended. The Department has to work to formulae which do not allow it to consider such factors as the benefits of jobs for school leavers or retaining inviolate such a marvellous eighteenth century townscape as Bewdley. Its calculations are over-dependent on traffic volume. We cannot accept that situation, nor could the Minister himself if he were to come to my constituency and see the problems at first hand.
In spite of the Minister’s decision not to proceed with the eastern bypass, the county council—and all praise to it—is bringing forward consideration of an earlier start to the construction of the Bewdley bypass and phase four of the Kidderminster inner ring road. The inner ring road was started on the assumption that the Government would at some time proceed with the eastern bypass. Three stages have been completed. The remaining two stages, which have not yet been undertaken, have created extended planning blight and have made the town of Kidderminster shamefully derelict in its appearance in the parts that are affected. The need for action, as the county council appreciates, is urgent.
The Bewdley bypass has been regarded as crucial by the county council since 1944. Bewdley is the first conservation area in Worcestershire, and yet more than 100 listed buildings continue to be exposed to increasingly serious damage from heavy traffic. The county council is determined to end this vandalism.
The Government’s decision not to proceed with the Kidderminster eastern bypass is serious enough. But if it was seen to threaten the resolve of the county council to make an early start on the next phase of the Kidderminster inner ring road or the Bewdley bypass, that would indeed be a body blow.
In conclusion, I say to the Minister that I am not asking tonight for money to be spent. I am asking him to come and see for himself the effect of this decision on the whole future balance of Wyre Forest. I ask him to declare the preferred line for the Kidderminster eastern bypass so that the county council can obtain the maximum benefit from the inner ring road and the Bewdley bypass.
If the Minister is not prepared to do this now, I would ask him to meet a deputation from the county council to consider the present situation in the light of changed circumstances, in the light of what he now knows about the M5 that I do not think was known at the time, and in the light of the county council’s desire to go ahead at an earlier date with the Bewdley bypass and the inner ring road—and this certainly was not known. I am sure, too, that within the Minister’s Department there is increasing support for the Leitch Report and a desire to look at the whole basis on which weighting is given.
I believe that the Kidderminster eastern bypass is essential to the future well-being of my constituents. I am not asking that it be built tomorrow, desirable though that would be, but I am concerned that it should remain within the planning framework to be brought forward as soon as circumstances permit.
Below is the text of the speech made by Austin Mitchell, the then Labour MP for Grimsby, in the House of Commons on 13 June 1978.
If I had wanted to grab the headlines or address a packed Chamber, I should not have called for a debate on retinitis pigmentosa. It is not a phrase that trips from everyone’s tongue. In my experience it is a phrase of which people fight shy. Those to whom I have mentioned it today have automatically and wittily replied “You what?” or “Say that again”. That is a reaction that I am sure accounts for the tumultuous attendance for the debate. If it had only been known that it was about tunnel vision, I am sure that the Chamber would have been packed.
First, I define my terms. Retinitis pigmentosa is a group of diseases whose common feature is a degeneration of the light-sensitive cells of the retina. It is a deterioration that shows itself first in bad vision, impaired vision, loss of vision in dim light, such as in the dusk or in the dark, and goes on gradually to loss of peripheral vision, so that merely the central portion of the visual field remains. That is the tunnel in the phrase “tunnel vision”. It is a tunnel which all too tragically can close, resulting in complete blindness in the severest cases.
Between 10,000 and 25,000 people are afflicted by retinitis pigmentosa—between two and five persons in every 10,000 of the population. It is a progressive, degenerative inherited disease. It is not something that one just catches.
Apparently it is a Northern disease. It seems to be more common in the North than in the South. There is, for instance, a high incidence of retinitis pigmentosa in Tristan da Cuhna, because of inbreeding in the population. I do not know whether that explains the high incidence in the North, but it is a feature of an inherited disease, and because it is inherited there is no way of escaping it. That is the beginning of the tragedy that it poses for families throughout the country.
The disease is often difficult to diagnose. Its victims appear awkward rather than blind. They stumble in dim light. They bump into things that are on the edge of their field of vision. In most cases, however, they can still read. They can still see perfectly well at the centre of the tunnel. Therefore, missed diagnosis of the disease is all too common.
I have a letter from a Mrs. Hoden, of East Herringthorpe, near Rotherham, that sets out a tragic example of the sort of misdiagnosis that may occur. Her two girls, who suffer from retinitis pigmentosa, were diagnosed as mentally backward, because of the effect of the disease on their ability at school. Their clumsiness at night was put down to the same thing. A boy who suffers from retinitis pigmentosa was classified as ineducable. These children should have been treated in a special school for impaired sight, not intellectual ability. They are now in that special school, but only after what amounted to years of delay because of misdiagnosis.
Even sadder is the fact that if retinitis pigmentosa is diagnosed, the victims all too often have to be told that in the present state of medical knowledge little treatment is available in this country. Therefore, when the disease is diagnosed, all they can do is to wait for the results of research that is going on in this country and overseas. They have to wait for the development of new methods of treatment to replace the old discredited methods of vitamin injection and placenta implantation—methods tried in the 1950s and 1960s—while going slowly, irrevocably and sadly blind.
It is hardly surprising that people are not prepared to wait. People faced with the negative despair produced by this disease and with the lack of opportunity for treatment in this country are naturally and inevitably prepared to clutch at any straw, any prospect of hope, that the disease can be not necessarily cured but checked, so that the progressive deterioration can be stopped. Therefore, they turn to hope emanating from overseas, specifically from Switzerland and the Soviet Union. They clutch at the hope offered by treatments there, because that offer of hope is not available in this country.
I have a letter from Professor Bangerter, the head of the Opos Eye Clinic in St. Gallen, Switzerland. His English is not of the best—like mine—but he says:
“The letters, we got from England, are so numerous that one of our secretaries is nearly completely engaged in answering them. The balance of these letters is extremely oppressing.”
He is deluged with letters from people in this country who want help.
Inevitably, faced with the prospect of the steady loss of their sight, their friends, neighbours and acquaintances who do not want them to go blind are prepared to offer help. Therefore, appeals are made in different parts of the country, particularly in the North, to raise money to send these people to Switzerland, more commonly, but also to the Soviet Union, for treatment.
The figures for these appeals make instructive reading. I have heard of £22,000 being raised in an appeal in Liverpool for one family—the West Vale family fund. In Retford, £11,000 was raised for a girl called Shirley Dexter. In Sowerby Bridge, £6,000 was raised for Tracy Brown. In Keighley, £4,500 was raised for Garry Turton. In Grimsby, £2,000 was raised for Sid Owen. I read them in that order, but that league table of figures is not necessarily a league table of generosity in those places. If it were, Grimsby would certainly be at the head, not the bottom, of that league. Those are the kinds of appeals which have been launched and subscribed to all over the country. The list goes on.
The result is that people are being treated in Moscow, but more commonly in Switzerland. The numbers being treated in Switzerland must run into hundreds, possibly thousands, because of the period during which the Opos Eye Clinic has been carrying out treatment. I understand that last week, at St. Gallen, nearly a score of British people were being treated at the clinic. They included a family of 13 from Liverpool, seven of whom were being treated in the clinic for retinitis pigmentosa.
I hold no brief for either of these treatments. A British expert from Edinburgh University, Dr. Reading, attended a USSR national symposium last December. He came away unconvinced that the Russians had made any advances in treatment. Dr. Bangerter, the founder and head of the Opos Eye Clinic, is regarded, even in his country, as a fringe figure.
If I wanted to set myself up as a confidence trickster with the happy prospect of receiving large sums of money I could think of nothing better than to open an opulent clinic in Switzerland with large numbers of patients so desperate for help and treatment that they would be prepared to fork out £700 a time for treatment and to come back every three months for further treatment and, once the initial treatment was over, to come back every year for further treatment to stop the deterioration of the disease. Such people would be prepared to pay out £10 for a box of vitamin pills, and even pay for sitting in the waiting rooms. I heard of a lad who went by himself because his money was in short supply, could not find his way round the town, and was charged for sitting in the waiting room of the clinic.
This situation naturally produces suspicions. Those suspicions are amplified because Dr. Bangerter has never published facts to show the success or failure rate of the treatment. People will continue to go to Switzerland and the Soviet Union to pursue any available treatment, so long as that treatment holds out a hope which is not available here.
When they return many such people claim that their sight has been improved. They do not say that they have been cured. Some newspapers have highlighted claims from people who say that they have been cured by this treatment, but no such claim has been made by the Russians or the Swiss. The most that I have seen claimed by the Swiss is that they can retard considerably the progress of the disease or stop it over a long period. There is no claim of a cure. The claim is of stopping the progress of the disease. People do return and say that their sight is improved.
One would need a national survey to discover total figures. I talked to Sid Owen, from Grimsby. He has not had the full treatment, but he says that he can now read better than he could before. I have spoken to Garry Turton, from Keighley, whose specialist has commented on the increased activity in his eye. I talked to the parents of Tracy Brown, of Sowerby Bridge. They say that her condition has been improved by treatment at St. Gallen. I have also spoken to two others.
I cannot evaluate these claims. All that I can do is to report that such claims are made. They could mean something or nothing. There are examples of spontaneous remission, and that could be associated with the treatment. It could be anything. It could be hope, desperation, and confidence exuded by the Swiss clinic which makes people feel that they have been helped. It is also possible that having spent all the money which has been donated by others, patients will not admit that there has not been an improvement. Perhaps they claim an improvement to support those who have backed them.
The claims of improvement which are made by those who have been to Switzerland for treatment have not been professionally evaluated. The reason for that is that in son-le cases the patients have broken with their specialists, who did not wish them to go to Switzerland. In other cases the doctor or specialist did not wish to know about the treatment. There is no collective evaluation to give us a picture of the incidence of the disease being checked. There has been no attempt to follow up the hundreds of people who have received treatment, and continue to do so, to find out whether there has been an improvement or deterioration in their conditions.
We have not studied the Swiss treatment on the spot. The Medical Research Council’s working party on retinitis pigmentosa did not do this. So far as I know, none of the specialists who dismiss the Swiss treatment has been to Switzerland to look at the treatment, although the clinic would welcome an inspection team. I quote from a letter in Professor Bangerter’s classic form of English. He said:
“Personally I do not have any greater desire than to finally find doctors who are ready to join us in the tight against retinitis pigmentosa. So it is quite self-evident that the English team will get any insight and complete orientation”—
this is a typically Swiss note—
“free of charge”.
So these people are prepared to open up their facilities for inspection by a team from this country. We welcome that kind of inspection, but it has not so far been forthcoming.
In answering my questions on the subject, the Minister of State has dismissed the Swiss treatment as though it were just a matter of the implantation of placenta of a type done here in the 1950s and 1960s. However, as I understand it, there is in the Swiss clinic a combination of treatments which include injections to expand the vessels in the eye, the contraction of which is associated with the disease, the implantation of amnion from chicken eggs, vitamin and other treatments to check the loss of nucleic protein and, finally, play optics or exercises to expand the field of vision, the contraction of which is a dominant factor of this disease.
If the treatment is to be evaluated at all, it must be evaluated as a collective group of treatments, each element of which might or might not make a contribution, but all of which must be taken together because it is in that way that the patients experience them. Evaluation of this treatment must be carried out, for no one who is afflicted with the disease will be prepared to heed the warnings of doctors and specialists against going to Switzerland for treatment, because no one trusts the judgment of the doctors, and will not, unless it is reinforced by a specific study of the treatment and its results.
One needs positive evidence in order to give positive advice to people who are afflicted by this disease. Whether that advice is pro or contra, it must be based on evidence.
I dwell on the Swiss and Russian treatments because of the numbers of people who are trying to take them up. The numbers who are seeking treatment in Switzerland and the Soviet Union show the scale and desperation of the search by those concerned for some form of treatment—the scale of demand for something to be done to help those who suffer. Clearly, no words in this House will deter those high hopes, but words in this House can add to the demand for an expansion of research into the causes and treatment. They will lead to a demand for a greater concentration of resources on this matter, particularly of money, which here, as in so many other fields, is the key to progress with the diagnosis and treatment of the disease, and the key to success.
More prosaically, we can ask, as I have tonight, for an evaluation of the Swiss and the Russian treatments and of their effect on the people who have taken them. Preferably there should be a before-and-after evaluation, so that we can say with certainty, with authority and with evidence, either that these treatments are no use and that people should not go, or that there may be something to them and, if there is, that they should be developed in this country.
If we do not study the treatments and assess them in this fashion, we are letting down the victims of retinitis pigmentosa—people who are bound, whatever we in this House say, and whatever experts tell them, to rage against the dying of the light.
Below is the text of the speech made by Patrick Cormack, the then Conservative MP for Staffordshire South-West, in the House of Commons on 12 June 1978.
I am delighted to have this opportunity, particularly after our last debate, of raising an important constituency case but in such a way that I hope it will help to illustrate a real national problem. I thank the Minister for being here because everything I say will be entirely pertinent to his role—and there will be nothing, I hope, that he will take as being critical of it. His own reputation in these matters is deservedly high. I do not seek to raise the case of Tonya Simpson in anything like a partisan spirit.
What I have to tell the House is a sad but inspiring story of a very brave little child, of two courageous parents and of some dedicated and determined doctors. To look at Tonya Simpson—many people have had the opportunity to do that because of the television coverage of this case—one would think that she was an ordinary happy child. Indeed, to some degree, so she is.
However, this apparently normal happy child was born with spina bifida, she developed hydrocephalus, and she was written off by many people. It is only thanks to the devotion of her parents and the skill and dedication, of the doctors who cared for her in Birmingham that she is alive today. Above all, it is due to her own indomitable pluck. I have never met or heard of a child with more courage. Unfortunately, in seeking to arrest the hydrocephalus—after a successful series of operations—her kidneys were badly damaged. She now suffers from chronic renal failure. So although she is not highly intelligent—one would not pretend that—she is an ordinary, bright, cheerful child who enjoys life but who faces death.
Tonya’s parents came to see me not only because they were naturally concerned about her but because they were more concerned, in a sense, for others and hoped that in her case a national problem could be highlighted.
Considering all those who have chronic renal failure, especially children and even more especially handicapped children, one comes into contact with deep human problems. In coming to me, the parents of this girl showed great public spirit, because they know, as I know, that, whatever the Minister may say tonight, Tonya’s life is at risk even as I speak.
As the consultant paediatrician who has looked after Tonya with such skill put it in a letter to me recently, her condition could suddently deteriorate
“as a result of intercurrent infection or an uncontrolled rise of blood pressure”;
or, as Tonya’s mother put it in much more graphic and heartfelt words,
“It’s like living with a time bomb. She might die at any moment.”
My plea to the Minister is essentially simple: if Tonya cannot be saved—I hope to God that she can—then at least let us make sure that she does not die in vain.
The tragedy is that as things stand she will die, just like 22 other people in the Birmingham area alone over the last five years. The stark fact is that, during the next year, over 2,000 people—not counting those who are under five or over 60—will develop renal failure and that of those at least 100 will be children over five. Approximately 45 per cent. of those children, but only 33 per cent. in the West Midlands area, will be dialysed. Most of the rest will have been entered on the waiting list for death, in spite of the fact that almost all could have their lives prolonged, perhaps indefinitely, if there were sufficient dialysis and transplant facilities.
The supreme tragedy is that it is not a question of there not being human skill available to deal with this problem. Doctors know how to treat these patients, but they cannot exploit that knowledge. Instead, they have to face the cruel dilemma—there can be none crueller—of deciding who shall profit from their skill and who shall not.
Tonya’s doctor explained the dilemma in a letter I received about a week ago. He said:
“Because of the physical handicap associated with her spina bifida (she walks on crutches) and her mild mental sub-normality, she has not achieved a high priority rating amongst other patients, child and adult, queuing up for our extremely limited dialysis facilities.”
The fact that Tonya walks at all, be it on crutches, and attends a normal school, is supreme testimony both to her courage and to the courage of her parents.
The doctor added:
“The real point is that she has as much right to what doctors would regard as the proper treatment for chronic renal failure as any other patient.”
I do not think that any hon. Member would dispute those words. The doctor, whose letter I found one of the most moving I have ever received, underlined the tragic irony of it all when he said:
“The whole problem would be eased by having more dialysis facilities for one can maintain life more or less indefinitely with something like a 90 per cent. success rate by means of dialysis, and this can be used as a ‘holding operation’ until such time as a suitable kidney becomes available.”
The need for more dialysis facilities has been accepted by this Government, just as they have rightly accepted the need for promoting the kidney donor scheme.
In a relatively brief debate such as an Adjournment debate, I do not want to rehearse again all the arguments that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and others have advanced with such skill in recent months. I am delighted and honoured to see the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) here, because I know that he takes a personal interest in these matters. I do not want to repeat the arguments, although I shall refer briefly to this aspect later. I want to state a few simple and frightening facts of which the House should be aware and of which I am sure the Minister is aware. I am confident that he is as anxious as I am that the facts should be set out and should be correct.
Britain is, regrettably, very low down in the league table when it comes to treating patients with chronic renal failure. This is sad in more ways than one, because where we pioneered we are now following. Others are taking the lead. We are approximately thirteenth in the so-called league table of European nations. The mark of our own failure was brought out graphically in a recent letter to The Times which was sent by the head nurse of a renal unit in Brussels. In that letter this head nurse made these comments:
“It is appalling to think that whereas everyone without exception has a right to a machine in Belgium, in a country such as Great Britain, whose National Health Service has been a source of inspiration and an object of envy of so many countries, there are not enough machines available, with the result that the number of deaths due to kidney failure is higher than in the majority of neighbouring European countries. In Belgium, there are almost twice as many dialysis patients per million head of population as in Great Britain.”
Those are sobering thoughts.
Another fact that I bring before the House is that in the West Midlands, a populous region with the great city of Birmingham as its heart, we are fourth from the bottom of our national league table in terms of the provision of dialysis facilities. What all this amounts to is that for a child to develop chronic renal failure today is as desperate as it was to get smallpox before Jenner and as tragic as it was to get smallpox after Jenner without having the benefit of the vaccination which he pioneered. For the handicapped child the situation is worse than ever.
I make these remarks in no spirit of recrimination or bitterness. This is no party issue. I hope and believe that the Minister and I are at one. I am not making any criticisms of this Government in any party sense. What I am saying is that it is tragic that a service which was, and in some ways still is, the envy of the world, should be in this situation. It is incompatible with the idea of a National Health Service that we should have to tolerate a situation in which little children are not even entered into the survival statistics and where doctors are forced to spend agonising hours trying to decide who shall live and who shall die.
I quote again from the letter written by Tonya’s consultant:
“I can assure you it is a most invidious task.”
He is referring to the task of choosing who will live.
“Who is so elevated as to say without any sense of guilt that to treat a 55-year-old man with cancer of the lung is any more deserving than a 10-year-old child with chronic renal failure? The facts show that the results of chronic renal failure treatments are better than those of most cancer treatments, but surely our society which can afford so much money to bolster up ailing industries ought to be able to provide a better standard of health service. In other words, we should not have to he faced with these difficult decisions if more cash were available.”
There are two points which are particularly worthy of emphasis there. First, there is the fact that dialysis and transplant treatments have a better chance of success than many other treatments, especially those for cancer. The second point worthy of emphasis—and here I draw upon figures produced by the European Dialysis and Transplant Association—is that it is within the 10 to 20-year-old age group that the best candidates for successful transplants are to be found.
What do I suggest should be done? What do I hope to hear from the Minister tonight? First, I should like his assurance that the dialysis unit at the East Birmingham Hospital, for which the local Lions Club has worked so hard and raised well over £50,000, will now be built. It is already more than 18 months overdue. That is not the Minister’s personal fault but he must regret it as much as I do. It must be built to keep faith with those who gave.
I hope that the Minister will feel that he can point to that example of local fund raising throughout the country. He might even wonder, with his own splendid reputation in these matters, whether it is worth while creating something on a par with the Queen’s Award for Industry for organisations such as the Lions, who do so much for others and raise such magnificent and enormous sums. So I hope that he will encourage, promise and reassure in that context.
But beyond that I want the Minister to talk to the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer so that money can be found. I suggest that it does not necessarily all have to be new money. I suggest that we might have a critical look at the money spent on administration and on drugs within the NHS. Not sufficient doctors are cost conscious when writing out voluminous prescriptions. It may well be that some money could be found within the existing budget for the sort of facilities for which I am pleading.
I also ask that the money recently provided for units could perhaps be used a little more flexibly than the Chancellor originally promised, so that those areas which need more staff rather than more machines can use it in that direction. I suggest also that perhaps the Under-Secretary of State could take up the suggestion by Lord Segal in another place, bearing in mind that the noble Lord is a member of the Labour Party and a doctor of great experience, and perhaps commend to the Chancellor that he should allow people who give their kidneys to offset, as Lord Segal suggested, £20,000 and not have it subject to capital transfer tax. It might be an incentive to people to do something.
I know that the Minister does not have authority to commit the Government to some of these things, but he has the opportunity to advocate them. Governments can act. When Ronan Point collapsed, new building regulations were brought in which, in effect, valued a human life at £20 million. I think Tonya’s life is worth quite a lot, and I think that things along these lines could well be done. I think that the hon. Gentleman has the public on his side—
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris)
I hope that there will be the possibility of giving a full and considered reply to the speech of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) in the half hour that has been allocated for the debate.
Mr. Cormack
I am coming to a close.
The hon. Gentleman has the public on his side. Only today I had a moving letter from an ex-guardsman injured in Aden offering to give his kidney to Tonya. That is an offer that, unfortunately, it is not practical to accept for all sorts of reasons. I feel confident that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that the situation is wholly unacceptable, and that it is totally wrong that a mother of a young child should have to say:
“There is a shortage of staff as well as equipment. I can’t even be trained to operate a machine yet.”
If the hon. Gentleman agrees, and does just some of these things, and just one extra life is saved in the next year, this debate will not have been in vain, even if Tonya Simpson does not live to read about it; but I hope and pray that she will.