UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Tim Rathbone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Tim Rathbone – 1985 Speech on South Africa

    Below is the text of the speech made by Tim Rathbone, the then Conservative MP for Lewes, in the House of Commons on 23 October 1985.

    I am delighted to return to the subject of British policy towards the problems in South Africa, even after our debate earlier today.

    I have just returned from a trip to South Africa with five colleagues and I am extremely grateful to the South African Government for making it possible for us to go to their country, to learn more about it and to understand it better. Indeed, I am doubly grateful because I feel somewhat better informed than were some of the hon. Members who spoke in our earlier debate.

    I am also grateful for the presence of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who answered today’s debate and who seems to have been almost continually on the Government Front Bench since we returned from the summer recess.

    I am flattered that the Opposition followed my lead in choosing today to debate the problems in South Africa, but I hope that this debate will be more positive than their efforts today and I shall try to leave politicking aside and to think more positively.

    Three things struck me on my visit and I think that they must strike anyone going to South Africa for the first time. They are important in understanding the problem and making comments about it. The first is the visible prosperity, both actual and relative, in South Africa. It is apparent in well-developed natural resources, in industry, commerce and agriculture, in better housing than in most parts of Africa. even, yes, in the townships which should never have been created in the first place, in investment in education, even though there is a terrible imbalance between white education and black education, and in strikingly beautiful countryside and seaside, which are tragically and stupidly unequally shared between white South Africans and others. There is much worth preserving and much to build on for the benefit of all South Africans in the future and it would be ludicrous for anyone to advocate putting at risk that better future for blacks, coloured and Indians, as well as for whites.
    The second striking reality of South Africa is that sources of wealth and well-being are horrifyingly unequal because of the continued evil of the detestable apartheid system. That was mentioned by many hon. Members, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) in today’s debate.
    There are insulting laws of apartheid which allow the continued denial of railway facilities, of restaurant and hotel facilities and of beaches, and laws that deny black business men the right to operate their businesses in the best commercial areas, which are still reserved for whites.

    Reform of some of those laws has been promised, but it has not yet happened and all the signs are that it will not be extensive enough when it does come.
    There are more serious socially and constitutionally divisive apartheid laws of influx control, the Land Act and the Urban Areas Act which regulate the hated pass laws. These are being reviewed, but they should be scrapped.
    There are also the rules of South African citizenship, which is now being restored to homeland blacks but without any commitment to the political rights that ought to go with such citizenship. Reform of those rules has also ​ been promised, but it is slow coming and many share the fear that the Government risk taking too little action too late.

    Most tragic of all is the Group Areas Act, the cornerstone of apartheid, which forces the uprooting of hundreds of thousands of people from their homes, breaks up communities, creates racial ghettoes and prevents blacks, coloureds and Indians from buying property in the more attractive and much more convenient whit-inhabited areas. That symbol of apartheid is defended by President Botha as non-discriminatory, yet talk of a united South Africa, with one shared citizenship and universal franchise, is nonsense while the Act still applies.

    Failure to reform that Act and the Population Registration Act is bound to limit the belief that other promised changes will be the real improvements that they should be. Therefore, moderate leaders from black communities will not readily come forward to discuss and share responsibility for South Africa’s future, and that inevitably underlies the terrible and increasing violence which is the third striking reality of South Africa today.

    Black townships, arranged so arbitrarily by a uniquely white Government, are naturally a tinder-box for violent dissent when people living there are denied economic, social or political freedom. Undoubtedly, violence stems also from the abdication of responsibility by unrepresentative black local government and by other black community leaders who do too little to influence and control the very young people who assault, rob and kill fellow black citizens in the spurious name of liberation.

    There can be little doubt in the mind of anyone who has been to South Africa that black to black violence in the townships is the mark of the start of low key civil war which so far has overflowed only very little into white areas. This, perhaps, may be the best sign that the African National Congress does not truly want violence, whatever it says.

    Violence in the townships is fuelled also by something that I believe was not mentioned in the earlier debate today—by the state of emergency declared just three months ago. Although the state of emergency exists in only certain areas, emergency-style aggression is widespread, including not only indiscriminate shotgun fire, sjamboking and search and arrest but incitement to violence and the hunting and shooting of those so incited, as recent reports from Capetown showed.

    This seems to have become acceptable practice for all security forces wherever they may be operating. There are increasing numbers of allegations of serious police brutality to detainees held under emergency regulations, as most excellently and worryingly documented by Dr. Wendy Orr.

    All this creates fear, and fear is the most dangerous thing in the world because it makes people run amok. Government supporters in South Africa are running amok in pressuring their leaders, under electoral threat, to undertake too little reform far too slowly. The Government themselves are running amok — for instance, in executing Benjamin Moloise in the face of the worldwide clamour for clemency and in withdrawing passports from eight students at Stellenbosch university to prevent them from going to talk to the African National Congress. Those are opposite extremes of violence but both are illustrations of the Government running amok.

    The police are running amok in the townships and in the prisons and they are saved from accountability for their ​ actions by the state of emergency laws. Perhaps most tragic of all, people are running amok in reaction to all this and much more. The emergency powers intended to help to control violence seem in fact to be increasing the violence and it is no wonder that the people whom they are supposed to protect no longer want them. For the sake of greater peace and proper reform, the state of emergency must stop right now.

    To bring about and to hasten other necessary reforms, some countries and many people — including many Opposition Members of this House — advocate a programme of severe economic sanctions and disinvestment. But equally strong voices in South Africa—from the sensible and the liberal-minded, not just from Government supporters—oppose such sanctions. It is likely that the working black population and their dependants would be hit the hardest by such measures, and it is certain that economic sanctions and disinvestment would affect the whole of southern Africa, neighbouring states being hit at least as hard as South Africa itself. I rather doubt the efficacy of applying economic sanctions to keep up pressure on the South African Government to undertake the much-needed and long-overdue reforms that we all want.
    Having said all that, however, I believe that the threat of an ultimate economic sanction might provide helpful pressure, and that we should start planning such a sanction now — a sanction on the purchase of precious raw materials such as chrome, precious stones such as diamonds and, above all else, precious ore such as gold. Such sanctions will be difficult to plan and will take a long time to plan. For instance, they will require complicated demonetarising of gold from South Africa. Such sanctions would be seen as devastating in their effect, if ever applied. More important, they would be compelling in their influence if never applied. As a diplomatic instrument they would be useful and that is why they should be prepared. That is my first suggestion to the Government.

    In the meantime, economic and political signals, like those coming from the Commonwealth conference, have to continue. Economics and politics can no longer be divorced in today’s terms, if indeed they ever could or should be.

    Apartheid and the low wages which accompany it have been a brake on growth, not a fuel for it. Continued pressure and influence must be kept up on business and by business in South Africa to use economic muscle and political might to provide the essential thrust needed to bring about fundamental change in the economic and socio-political structure of South Africa.
    Have businesses and businessmen, even the very best, done enough to eliminate the sociological horror of male hostels, to appreciate and eliminate the fact that a quarter of all black wives in South Africa are separated from their husbands for a large part of every working year? Have they done enough to get rid of the too-long accepted privileges of the racial group which controls high-level skills and the best jobs which go with them?

    There is a need to explore ways in which black management can be trained to take increasing responsibility in large corporations and in their own businesses. Our Government could have a role in that by encouraging cooperative activities between British business schools and the Government’s own excellent Civil Service training ​ facilities and business schools in South Africa. Government influence could also encourage the CBI, the BIM, British chambers of commerce and junior chambers of commerce, which are growing in South Africa, particularly among black South Africans, to build more positive links with counterparts in South Africa in the black community. That is my second suggestion to the Government.

    In terms of a direct Government role, I urge Ministers and diplomats to become actively involved in the efforts which many people are already making to get wide-ranging talks on constitutional reform properly started in South Africa. To be of the greatest help to leaders in South Africa, it is essential for the Government to encourage further talks here with South Africa leaders, whether they be elected representatives or individuals representing a significant body of thought. Such talks, in London or South Africa or elsewhere, cannot have pre-conditions attached, not even the precondition of denying violence that the South African Government demand or, as the Foreign Secretary said this afternoon, that our own Government seem to deem necessary. If the British Government can give a lead in denying preconditions, the South African Government may be encouraged to follow.

    It is not the ANC which has to give peace a chance, as the Foreign Secretary suggested this afternoon: it is ourselves and the South African Government. Only a little magnanimity is required to drop the present requirement for a specific denial of violence before releasing Nelson Mandela and starting talks with him, or before starting talks with the African National Congress. The South African Government have the strength to do that if only they had the determination. They must show that determination, but we can show them the way.

    For our part, we can provide, directly through our own Government representation and through a group of international wise men as suggested by Mr. Hawke of Australia, and indirectly through informal channels, advice to South African political leaders of all parties, but most particularly, of course, to the Government leaders in the National party, on how political strategies can best be prepared so that political and constitutional reform may be achieved with the least dissent and with the greatest consensus across party political, social, economic and tribal groupings. That is not dictation: it is advice. It is unlikely that this process will be completed in six months, which is the deadline now set by the Commonwealth conference, but a good start can quickly be made. The British contribution to policy development and to political strategy could be unique, drawing upon our long involvement in Africa and our knowledge of constitutional development in both Europe and the Commonwealth. The question can no longer be whether there should be majority rule in South Africa but what kind of majority rule is appropriate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) made clear earlier today, we have a shared responsibility because of our involvement. Shared responsibility should be the basis for encouraging shared enthusiasm for reform.

    There is another area in which the British Government can help directly by improving standards of education for blacks, for Indians and for coloureds in South Africa. Tragically, thousands of black students will fail their end of year examinations as a vicious, turbulent school year finishes within the next two months. Thousands more will ​ not be able to take their examinations because of the violence. For many the educational system has entirely broken down.

    The core of the problem is a highly segregated educational system and widely differing standards for whites and other races. For instance, there are five times as many black pupils as whites, but the educational budget for whites has been nearly twice that for blacks. Fewer than a quarter of black teachers have a matriculation qualification, which is approximately equal to GCE. Of every 100 black children who started their 12 years of schooling in 1973, only 10 will sit their matriculation examinations this year. Each year the system is producing a new cadre of dropouts to feed the embittered and violent throng of school leavers who believe that liberation is more important than education. Education has passed them by and they have nothing to lose through violence.

    To help overcome this huge problem, Britain should expand vastly its educational contribution to South Africa, a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Knowles) earlier. At the moment the British Council spends £750,000 on four South African teaching posts and on a handful of young blacks to study in the United Kingdom. We should aim to have a far larger number of teachers, more scholarships to study here and a British Council presence in each township. Only by doing that and encouraging other English-speaking countries to do the same will we be doing our bit ourselves and in co-operation with educational bodies like READ and the Alpha training centre spreading the proper use and comprehension of English, which interestingly is becoming a common tongue for all races in South Africa.

    In South Africa today every child has some schooling, however bad. A qualitative improvement in that schooling is imperative and Britain must help.
    The BBC overseas broadcasting service can help, too, both in building better English comprehension and in maintaining an even balance in broadcast news reporting. This is all the more important in South Africa where broadcasting is very much under direct Government control, although one must mention in this context that there is complete freedom of the press. The overseas service broadcasts in English to South Africa for 18 hours per day and has done so for the last five years. That is a magnificent amount of broadcasting. The Government must maintain that commitment. The BBC itself must seek new ways to promote programmes to the maximum audience.

    South Africa is a pariah state because it purports to uphold the standards of western civilisation and democracy and yet insists on ordering its affairs through laws which uphold racism and inequality rather than forbidding them. Britain with its wealth of experience must raise the belief of the South African Government, of officials and of all of the South African people in reform as the only way to get security, peace and prosperity for themselves and for everyone in the South African region. Peoples and Governments do things not because they know they can do them but because they believe that they can do them. That is what is so tragically lacking in South African Government circles. We must help.